Did this a few days ago, succumbing to 'fan art,' for which I have a lot of mixed feelings. I don't have any problem with people drawing their favorite characters. Hell, that's the way a lot of people learned to draw. Thing is, when they start -selling- that art, that's when I have a problem. Because you just KNOW when an artist sees their work appearing on a t-shirt at Hot Topic or Urban Outfitters without their permission, letters are sent, the internet is sent into a tizzy. "NO FAIR NO FAIR! MINE! YOU STEAL!" and the like. And sure, that makes sense and I agree that no one should appropriate someone else's work for profit. Thing is, isn't that what people who sell fan art are doing? It's not THEIR character, it wasn't their work that designed and implemented that character or its surroundings, story and the rest. So why do they get to rip off the owner of that character and THAT'S ok? To me, it's still theft. Fine to draw, not fine to profit. And get off my lawn!
11 comments:
what if it's a lord of the rings illustration or something? I used to illustrate LOTR stuff for a friend's fanzine back in the 70s... but we didn't sell them. I think if someone offered to buy the art I might not have refused though!
I'd have to say no, if it was represented as a character from LOTR. That's work based on someone else's work and as such they deserve to be compensated. I mean, that's what all these Tumblr kids are yelling about when they find their designs on t-shirts in Urban Outfitters, right? I'm probably the only person that thinks this way, but then again, I don't agree with the heirs of the creators of Superman or Jack Kirby's family suing for more money either. And I KNOW I'm in the minority on that one.
I do work on based on films, stories etc, not that anyone want sot buy it, I think art is a cross pollination sort of thing to a large extent, different mediums inspiring each other. Selling an illustration from a book i wrote wouldn't bug me, but selling my book with those illustrations in it and not paying me would be wrong. I am a big believer in limiting authors rights and letting things go into public domain soon er than they are now.So much art is built on art from the past and that is being seriously hindered now. If the artist is alive and maybe their immediate family sure, keep the rights but studios buying happy birthday etc is just wrong to me. Does http even make sense? LOL
But see, that's YOUR choice, not the person who's using your work. At least said person should approach you and ask permission. As for copyrights, that's a tricky issue, mostly because said rights are rarely in the possession of individuals. They usually pass to family members and often into corporations that may or may not involve said family. Part of me wonders why the public deserves to get something for free. Why does anything, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, whatever HAVE to belong to everyone? In a way, because we've all been using "Happy Birthday" (which has a more interesting history than you'd think) doesn't really justify the idea of said authors and said copyright holders losing out on their due. I don't know. To me, it's not really a cut and dried sort of thing. If I somehow made something wildly popular, when I died, I wouldn't care where the rights went because that'd be a matter for my heirs, if any. I'd be, you know, DEAD and past caring. But that's just my choice.
I would rather chose who illustrated my book myself, or do it myself, but I put that book out there for others to read, interpret and hopefully be inspired by. II think the choice made is to do it and get it there, you can't choose what happens to it afterwards. I think we are probably closer to this than we seem though... it such a complex topic. I also make documentaries and if I interview you and a car drives by playing a pop song it was no big deal until recent;y... not Madonna can claim I've stolen her work for my film when in fact, the pervasiveness of her music inserted itself into my film, it's part of the culture around us. I think where we might differ is I have a broader idea of what constitutes "fair use" once something is out there. I think we lose a certain amount of control once our work gets into the world. So I am less bothered by "inspired by" or influenced by" than say copied directly, or when words are turned into music or visual art and vice versa since that sort of cross pollution is where creativity comes from. It's tough to draw the line. How does one decide if "drawing of Vampire child in new orleans" is better than "inspired by Claudia in the book interview with the vampire"? The inspiration is Ann Rice but the interpretation is that of the artist and all they bring to the table. Now I am afraid you'll hate my next post coming up on my blog! I have been recreating a Flash Gordon like ship from the serials and putting it in different locations (and it was inspiration the logo for my films at one point).
But see again, you, as the creator can choose to put a 'creative commons' paragraph at the opening of your work. It's different when a law says you can't do such a thing or that any creative property can only be owned by someone for a specific amount of time. I don't know. I can be persuaded on this but there is an element of taking the work out of the hands of its creator or its creator's wishes on both sides of the fence. Drawing A vampire child in New Orleans isn't copyrightable, as far as I know. Drawing Kirsten Dunst AS said vampire is. That's a very different thing than me drawing Link, as above and trying to sell prints and t-shirts. I will be interested in your post and your work as always. :"D
Limits are essential to keep idea flowing and to allow others to expand on previously created works. Like machine and medicine patents, I don't think artists should be exempt from reasonable use which is ny nature ambiguous to say the least. I tend to think of the artists are the person who should profit or not as they choose. I was reading up on the subject between posts and I will have to say I come down much more on your side of the argument for most part. My point is that copyright law is overboard right now, 75 to 200 years after someone's death is a long time to wait in my opinion for something to fall into public domain especially when it was 1/2 that or less not long ago. I think you are talking more about profitting from basically copying other peoples current work with the intention of selling it as your own. I agree that's wrong I guess I am concerned that there are a lot books, art and other things we consider classics today that would have disappeared had they not become pubic domain over time and kept alive by the efforts and interpretations of contemporary artists. I think we are talking about 2 different things that have certain aspects in common in the end.
The two things are related, I think. I see lots of people online, whether through their Etsy stores, on tumblr or even broadcast through channels like i09 who are selling posters of their favorite Star Wars characters, or superheroes or whatever. To me, that's theft. It's not their property to profit from. It's no different from a big company sifting through Facebook or Deviant Art, finding art and characters and making t-shirts to sell globally. Yet fans don't see that these are the same things. I honestly don't know how many things would disappear, especially in this age if they weren't allowed to go to public domain. It's a really hard line to draw, I think for when the descendants of a creator are no longer allowed to directly profit from nor decide the disposition of their ancestor's work. With companies, that point is essentially moot because they always add that, "For copyright purposes, 20th Century Fox is the author of this movie." Etc. Until 20th goes under, there's no 'death,' and therefore no countdown to that work moving to public domain. These days, because of technology, I don't think there's the same worry that things will 'go away' as there used to be. Certainly there are movies which SHOULD have disappeared but haven't. Ed Wood is far more popular now after he's dead. I don't think being in the public domain (if his films even are, and IF they are I think it has more to do with the fact that no one WANTED the rights to them than his death) has as much to do with it. So.. this is something I still think about. To me, though, selling work derived from someone else's without permission is still theft.
Is illustrating 20000 leagues under the sea theft? I think you've said publishing illustrations of your interpretations of Tolkien's world would be. Can you do a copy of the last supper or a new version of it? Song writers often read a book and write a song based on the book, or painting or whatever but because it's a different art form, they will more often than not get a pass. Almost the entire punk, new wave, techno music movements were based on one book, Crash by JG Ballard, often quoting from the book directly even though on the surface there seems to be zero connection between the book and music. I do think we lose a lot by restricting use too much. There needs to be balance somehow. Wherever you draw the line, it's going to piss someone off.
these two articles are interesting and show some of the problems for and against public domain,
http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2014/04/22/of-songs-and-chairs-or-why-do-we-need-a-public-domain/
http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/why
Things are going away all the time now because of digital media, only profitable things get transferred over or things with perceived value and no one else can restore or even quote them in many cases if they haven't fallen into public domain yet. Libraries can't get ahold of them either in many cases. Ed Woods stuff was made popular because it's in public domain, face it no one waned to PAY to show his stuff after his death. The fact they were free made them viable for TV, cult movie nights etc. People saw them and enjoyed where they never would have had the chance... not that that's a resounding endorsement for public domain... it might be the opposite! MST3K was using public domain movies but as bad films got popular they got bought up by studios who then wanted to charge more money than they could afford and I think humanity suffers to this day! :)
What it all boils down to is how the creator wants their work to be 'used' or 'not used' by others. Some things, I think we can both agree, have long since passed out of any hands that should be controlling them. Things from 500 years ago, for example. There were no copyrights back then, though so it's kind of a moot point. Drawing things inspired by 20,000 Leagues or Tolkien is not something illegal. Drawing those same things, claiming that they ARE those things (This is the Nautilus, this is Legolas) and selling them, that's different. With Verne, I think he's passed into public domain, so that's different. Tolkien? No. Should I be able to just illustrate my own "Calendar From Middle Earth" and market it without compensation or permission? I don't think so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to have some kind of side law, one that says if the rights are still owned by descendants of the creator they can last for X years, but if they're been transferred to a corporation it would only be X-Y years. Dunno. My main point is that this isn't something cut and dried and I don't have an answer. Regardless, I wouldn't sell fan art I made unless I had permission to. That's where this all came from.
I hate this comment system... I can't sin in until I make a comment but when I sign in it erases the comment and I have to start over! In summery, your summary is perfect. I agree with the solution you so as well, reasonable and simple. So i doubt it will happen. I mention Tolkien so much because I remember seeing tons of calendars etc that were published by real publishers in the 70s but were definitely not officially sanctioned. it was before many people were not it and before major motion pictures were made so maybe it was just tolerated or the rules were not so strict which I think was the case.
So nice to have a decent conversation.. online or offline it's rare these days.
Post a Comment