Forum - View topic

NEWS: Otakon Enforces Copyright at Artists' Alley

No, I'm not an artist, but my father and many of my friends are. Their stance on this issue is the same as mine - if you want to make money being creative, then be creative - don't just lift someone else's work and then claim you're being creative. Period. That means coming up with your own characters.

Again, I make the point that if you're seriously making fanart because you're a fan - and ONLY because you're a fan, not because you feel like you deserve to make money - then you wouldn't need compensation for your time and effort. When I say fanart should be free, I meant in a display sense. Don't distribute it, just display it.

Someone drawing a portrait of someone IS new art. Illustrating Alice in Wonderland for a new version of the text IS new art. It's reinterpretation and it's done with the express consent of the license holder. Those works aren't just expressly consented by the law, they're expressly consented by the person who either created the original work - in this case, Gaiman, whose publishing company pays the artist for their sanctioned work. It's a COMPLETELY different scenario and prohibiting the sale of unauthorized fanart is in no way some kind of slippery slope.

The arguments you made are specious and unreasonable. Nobody I know would equate a sanctioned professional artist hired by Neil Gaiman to illustrate Sandman with Suzie Q. DeviantArt selling unauthorized sketches of Edward Elric. C'mon now.

Fan-art of copyrighted characters has no legal protection. If you draw Simba or Nala or Kovu, you are creating a derivative work-- something that U.S. law explicitly defines as being owned by the creator of the original work. Without Disney's permission, all fan-art and fan-fiction using their characters is in fact illegal. Now, don't panic-- most entertainment companies (like Disney, Paramount, Dreamworks, etc.) tend to overlook these kinds of copyright violations. (That's how lionking.org has continued to exist all these years.) They realize that fan creativity is worth more to them in having good relations with their fans than they would gain by aggressively pursuing each and every violation, because usually nobody makes any money off fan-based creations. But that doesn't mean that it's not illegal. The Lion King fan-art and fan-fiction community exists solely because Disney allows it to.

Read item #6 at the "10 Big Myths" site listed below; it specifically addresses this point.

Now, fan-art that doesn't contain copyrighted Lion King characters-- well, that's fully protected under copyright law. Even when placed vaguely within the Lion King universe, it's still original work. But when you start using names and terms from Disney's work, yours becomes a derivative work and loses its protection.

So if someone steals your picture of Simba or Nala, you're pretty much out of luck-- because it wasn't really legal in the first place.

Technically, under the law, you still retain the sole copyright over your work, but because it's a derivative work, even the copyright holder can't copy it. So neither you nor Disney has the right to copy or redistribute it. Similarly, if someone copies your picture of Simba or Nala, you have the legal power to stop them from posting or redistributing it-- but you don't own that picture either. Derivative works are non-distributable under the law by either the original copyright holder or the creator of the derivative work, unless permission is given.

Don't let this scare you off from drawing Lion King characters! As long as the characters aren't portrayed in any way that Disney would object to (e.g. pornographic, overly violent, defamatory to Disney, etc.), they don't pursue these kinds of copyright violations. True Lion King fan-art is the core of this Archive, so please keep doing it!

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide.

Where does "Fan Art" and "Fan Fiction" come into all of this?

I'm very glad you asked that; but, you may not be so happy with the answer. In short, "Fan Art" and "Fan Fiction" almost all (if not all) falls into the category of "Derivative Works", items created using another created item as a basis for the work, or as a recognizable portion of the completed work. Most of it (if not all) is technically illegal, and while some authors/artists/etc. allow and/or even encourage fans to build on their own work, considering it a form of free advertising, good public relations, or just a necessary part of building a loyal customer base, others are very strict about enforcing their rights, as many a misinformed fan has learned to their sorrow.

Again, I make the point that if you're seriously making fanart because you're a fan - and ONLY because you're a fan, not because you feel like you deserve to make money - then you wouldn't need compensation for your time and effort. When I say fanart should be free, I meant in a display sense. Don't distribute it, just display it.

So, fan comics should just stop existing, basically? And no one but the artist should be able to have a copy of any piece of fanart?

Also, redbeangirl, what animation industry do you work for? And are there any entry level positions available, perhaps clerical or something? I need work badly.

Nothing Zac said was to the tune of "Fancomics stopping to exist."

He was saying that fan-artists shouldn't try to profit from their hobby.

There's no reasonable reason to believe he was suggesting independantly wealthy people be able to give the fan-art away for free and that not-so wealthy people not be allowed to sell it. He was saying that fan-artists should create & display, not sell or distribute. I think it's reasonable to believe that most fan-artists have the financial means to continue their hobby and display their work without selling it.

tempest wrote:

Nothing Zac said was to the tune of "Fancomics stopping to exist." He was saying that fan-artists shouldn't try to profit from their hobby. There's no reasonable reason to believe he was suggesting independantly wealthy people be able to give the fan-art away for free and that not-so wealthy people not be allowed to sell it. He was saying that fan-artists should create & display, not sell or distribute. I think it's reasonable to believe that most fan-artists have the financial means to continue their hobby and display their work without selling it.

I think that there's a confusion here between "making money" and "getting paid back for your basic investment." If I want to make a physical comic, it will cost a certain ammount of money. From my experience, the average minicomic (15 or so pages, black and white with a color cover, made with a copy machine) costs between $2 and $5 to make. A table at artist alley costs about $25, assuming I'm sharing it with someone else. At a GOOD con, I'll sell maybe 20 comics.

Most artists (I can't speak for everyone) price their stuff so that they can pay back the cost of production and the cost of the table. Many of us end up LOSING money, but we do it because we're fans and we're crazy like that.

What I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable or immoral for someone to want to recoup their financial investment. You can disagree with me, of course, but I just wanted to be clear about this point.

Hmm. So should NewType and other anime publications stop accepting fan art?

FanArt falls into the same category as anime fansub groups.

There are booths that sell unique stuff, to be sure - I've seen people selling stained glass renditions of anime characters and people selling stuff that's obviously parody doujinshi - but the popular booths are the ones that sell basic portraits of popular characters that are only slightly stylized and really no different from the original work. It takes absolutely zero creativity to draw InuYasha and then sell it for $10.

Again, I make the point that if you're seriously making fanart because you're a fan - and ONLY because you're a fan, not because you feel like you deserve to make money - then you wouldn't need compensation for your time and effort.

I think it's reasonable to believe that most fan-artists have the financial means to continue their hobby and display their work without selling it.

Like it has been said before. There's nothing wrong with creating fanart to express your love for the show. Maybe even win a prize too. But when you're selling it to earn a profit, that's a different story.

darkhunter wrote:

Like it has been said before. There's nothing wrong with creating fanart to express your love for the show. Maybe even win a prize too. But when you're selling it to earn a profit, that's a different story.

But aren't these publications making money off the magazines these fan artwork pieces are published in? I wouldn't doubt that friends and family will go out and purchase additional issues because their friend, son or daughter's artwork appeared in a publication giving the publisher more profit off of fan artwork.