Batman / Batgirl statues - anyone know who makes these?

[Thudpucker]

I ran across this random image today but I don't have any info on them. I don't even know wether or not they are custom made and not for sale. Anyone seen them before?

My weak google skills have completely failed me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/ULTBatmanandBatgirl.jpg

[Pat Loika]

They look like counterfeits or custom made. DC Direct is the only company that can manufacture DC character statues...and they don't look like anything DC Direct has ever put out.

[Thudpucker]

They look like counterfeits or custom made. DC Direct is the only company that can manufacture DC character statues...and they don't look like anything DC Direct has ever put out.

That's what I was afraid of. They look similar to the statues Sideshow is producing for Marvel but that company doesn't do DC.

They're amazing, would have loved to own them.

[Supreme Convoy]

Those look pretty cool though!

[The Hodag]

They look like counterfeits or custom made. DC Direct is the only company that can manufacture DC character statues...and they don't look like anything DC Direct has ever put out.

Hmm, but DC's definitely subsidized some Japanese statues in recent years, including that whole line of busty superheroines. And I also remember some more realistic Japanese statues from a few years back. I don't think these are the ones, but they're similar.

I'd say it's within the realm of possibility they're official.

[The Human Target]

Its within the realm of possibility they're legit but I'd bet money they were custom.

Look at the Bat symbol on his costume. Look as his boots.

[The Hodag]

My Google Fu is failing, too, but what the hell, here're some Catwoman statues I came across.

Japanese import:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BWFp9nmaFxc/TL33ocJB7vI/AAAAAAAABOQ/1n-yvjOOiUg/s1600/Batman_Catwoman_Bishoujo_Statue.jpg

Custom made:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2kjisMm3M9Y/RxLPcS-HzrI/AAAAAAAABkY/khezb2kK2g4/s400/catmodel.jpg

The Japanese toy company Kotobukiya has some pretty cool stuff if you throw their name in your Google searching.

[Thudpucker]

The Kotobukiya statues are pretty cool. Most of them are a bit too cartoony for me but there are a few I like a lot.

I'm probably going to buy this Kitty Pryde minibust:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/Kotobukiya03.jpg

[dEnny!]

The Kotobukiya statues are pretty cool. Most of them are a bit too cartoony for me but there are a few I like a lot.

I'm probably going to buy this Kitty Pryde minibust:

I'd recommend this Kitty Pryde bust:

http://www.bowendesigns.com/images/sculptures/legacy/Kitty%20Pryde1.jpg

Or even the Bowen statues.

http://www.bowendesigns.com/images/sculptures/legacy/Kitty%20Pryde%20Mod%20St1.jpg

http://www.bowendesigns.com/images/sculptures/legacy/Kitty%20Pryde%20Classic%20St1.jpg

[Thudpucker]

I already have the Bowen Kitty mini-bust. I've bought most of the mini-busts Jim Maddox sculptued, I love his work.

The Bowen Kitty statue I'm going to pass on. Don't like it at all, the pose is terrible and her face in the unmasked version is lifeless.

[Thudpucker]

The next things I'll be buying from Bowen are the Mockingbird mini-bust and the Beta Ray Bill Statue. I love how the Sheena statue is looking too:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/BowenMini04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/BowenStatue02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/BowenStatue01.jpg

[Roger]

I ran across this random image today but I don't have any info on them. I don't even know wether or not they are custom made and not for sale. Anyone seen them before?

My weak google skills have completely failed me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/ULTBatmanandBatgirl.jpg

i'd bet that those are vinal model kits that are airbrushed really well!.

[Professor Oreo]

Those Batman and Batgirl statues are absolutely customs and not officially licensed DC products.

[Kedd]

I ran across this random image today but I don't have any info on them. I don't even know wether or not they are custom made and not for sale. Anyone seen them before?

My weak google skills have completely failed me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/ULTBatmanandBatgirl.jpg

Those look pretty damn good. can't help though

[Udiguhgudibuh]

:sherlock: Check eBay "maquette," budsartbooks.com and sideshowtoys.com

[Taxman]

That's what I was afraid of. They look similar to the statues Sideshow is producing for Marvel but that company doesn't do DC.

They're amazing, would have loved to own them.Who cares whether they are counterfeits? If you like them and the price is right you should just buy them.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/BowenMini04.jpg



That's pretty sweet, Thud.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Who cares whether they are counterfeits? If you like them and the price is right you should just buy them.
That's pretty sweet, Thud.

:sherlock: Spoken like an upstanding thief who doesn't own any copyrights/trademarks. (Somebody forgot "the golden rule.")

[Artie Pink]

:sherlock: Spoken like an upstanding thief who doesn't own any copyrights/trademarks. (Somebody forgot "the golden rule.")

You tell, 'em, Wacky Theme Poster 2011!

[Taxman]

You tell, 'em, Wacky Theme Poster 2011!:lol:

There is actually someone on this board who attends cons and has never bought any unlicensed artwork?

[Udiguhgudibuh]

:lol:
There is actually someone on this board who attends cons and has never bought any unlicensed artwork?

:sherlock: Fascinating. So, your testimony is that almost all/everyone on this board is guilty of intellectual property theft! That places all guilty persons on Dante's "eighth circle of Hell"-- one floor up from the basement of Hades.

[Thudpucker]

I think you're taking it a bit too seriously Udiguhgudibuh.

All of the artists here have done commissioned art work that features copyrighted characters. What fan wouldn't want a Daredevil sketch from Maleev or a Thor sketch from Oeming? No one is going to burn in hell for it.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

You tell, 'em, Wacky Theme Poster 2011!

:sherlock: Book him, Dano. Another confession, demonstrated by the psychological principle that "hostility follows guilt." (The eight circle of Hell certainly is getting crowded-- making it even hotter!)

[Udiguhgudibuh]

I think you're taking it a bit too seriously Udiguhgudibuh.
All of the artists here have done commissioned art work that features copyrighted characters. What fan wouldn't want a Daredevil sketch from Maleev or a Thor sketch from Oeming? No one is going to burn in hell for it.

:sherlock: Commissioned work is fine, and will prohibit copyright-infringing resale by a "work made for hire" contract. "Intellectual Property" laws are written to encourage creativity-- by disallowing copying without permission from the original artist.

[Susan BANthony]

:sherlock: Book him, Dano. Another confession, demonstrated by the psychological principle that "hostility follows guilt." (The eight circle of Hell certainly is getting crowded-- making it even hotter!)

Hows about you leave the moderating to the moderators?

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Hows about you leave the moderating to the moderators?

:sherlock: Thank God you arrived in time! I turn the suspects over to you. I'm just a citizen assisting the proper authorities, officer. (Let me know when I need to testify.) Wait! Your badge says "modlerator"! I need some I.D.!

[Taxman]

:sherlock: Fascinating. So, your testimony is that almost all/everyone on this board is guilty of intellectual property theft! That places all guilty persons on Dante's "eighth circle of Hell"-- one floor up from the basement of Hades.If one of these giant corporations wants to go after an aspiring artist who has modeled his work after their characters without proper licensing (which they probably cannot acquire) that is their business.

But if a person admires the work enough that they want to own it, knowing what it is and lacking any intention to ever misrepresent it's nature I do not see where they have done something wrong.

[Taxman]

I certainly would not advocate purchasing something like this if it were being mass produced out of some sweat shop in Singapore.

But if one guy was making something which I like enough, I would go ahead and buy it if the price was reasonable.

I have actually bought an "unlicensed" sculpture from someone who posts here.

[Thudpucker]

I certainly would not advocate purchasing something like this if it were being mass produced out of some sweat shop in Singapore.

But if one guy was making something which I like enough, I would go ahead and buy it if the price was reasonable.

I have actually bought an "unlicensed" sculpture from someone who posts here.

It's a tricky thing.

Several comic artists mass produce sketch books and prints that feature copyrighted characters. They sell them by the hundreds and the copyright holders get nothing. Is that legal? Probably not, but I don't really see the harm. If I like an artists work I'll buy it.

Is mass producing an unliscensed sculpture different than an unliscensed print?

[xyzzy]

It's a tricky thing.

Several comic artists mass produce sketch books and prints that feature copyrighted characters. They sell them by the hundreds and the copyright holders get nothing. Is that legal? Probably not, but I don't really see the harm. If I like an artists work I'll buy it.

Is mass producing an unliscensed sculpture different than an unliscensed print?

It's not really a copyright issue.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

If one of these giant corporationswithout proper licensing (which they want to go after an aspiring artist who has modeled his work after their characters probably cannot acquire) that is their business.

But if a person admires the work enough that they want to own it, knowing what it is and lacking any intention to ever misrepresent it's nature I do not see where they have done something wrong.

:sherlock: "Argumentum ad lazarum" is the philosophical logical fallacy you are actually arguing here: it's acceptable to steal from someone richer than yourself.

YOU are the one who is stealing from an artist, and depriving him of rightful payment. "A giant corporation" did not create the work you covet-- an artist did. An artist who licenses his work to "a giant corporation" is contractually, legally, and morally due rightful payment from YOU.

Failure to compensate an artist makes you a thief-- violating the Eight Commandment as well as the law. (Weasel around the point all you wish, you are still a common thief.)

[Thudpucker]

:sherlock: "Argumentum ad lazarum" is the philosophical logical fallacy you are actually arguing here: it's acceptable to steal from someone richer than yourself.

YOU are the one who is stealing from an artist, and depriving him of rightful payment. "A giant corporation" did not create the work you covet-- an artist did. An artist who licenses his work to "a giant corporation" is contractually, legally, and morally due rightful payment from YOU.

Failure to compensate an artist makes you a thief-- violating the Eight Commandment as well as the law. (Weasel around the point all you wish, you are still a common thief.)

If I bought that Batman statue what artist am I stealing from?

[Taxman]

:sherlock: "Argumentum ad lazarum" is the philosophical logical fallacy you are actually arguing here: it's acceptable to steal from someone richer than yourself.

YOU are the one who is stealing from an artist, and depriving him of rightful payment. "A giant corporation" did not create the work you covet-- an artist did. An artist who licenses his work to "a giant corporation" is contractually, legally, and morally due rightful payment from YOU.

Failure to compensate an artist makes you a thief-- violating the Eight Commandment as well as the law. (Weasel around the point all you wish, you are still a common thief.)I don't know what the hell you are talking about.


But I disagree with all of it.

[Taxman]

If I bought that Batman statue what artist am I stealing from?It may fall under fair use anyway. You really need someone well versed in copyright law to be able to have a useful opinion.

I certainly give Zzyzx's opinion a lot more weight than I do that of Ubiquitousbub there.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

:sherlock: Spoken like an upstanding thief who doesn't own any copyrights/trademarks. (Somebody forgot "the golden rule.")

Not necessarily. A person only violates the golden rule by treating someone in a way he wouldn't want to be treated, and you don't know how he would want people to treat his own intellectual property.


:sherlock: Commissioned work is fine, and will prohibit copyright-infringing resale by a "work made for hire" contract. "Intellectual Property" laws are written to encourage creativity-- by disallowing copying without permission from the original artist.

But they don't necessarily have that effect. See this article: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html)


Failure to compensate an artist makes you a thief-- violating the Eight Commandment as well as the law. (Weasel around the point all you wish, you are still a common thief.)

Why should anyone care about violating the eighth commandment? Also, no specific artist owns Batman. Whom is he failing to compensate?

[Udiguhgudibuh]

It's a tricky thing.

Several comic artists mass produce sketch books and prints that feature copyrighted characters. They sell them by the hundreds and the copyright holders get nothing. Is that legal? Probably not, but I don't really see the harm. If I like an artists work I'll buy it.

Is mass producing an unliscensed sculpture different than an unliscensed print?

:sherlock: No, sculptures and prints are equally illegal if no sub-licensing agreement is in place. Whether or not "you see the harm in it," there is fundamental harm in it. Copyright laws are written to reward artists for their creativity. Assuming you're an artist (as many at this site are), you make your living by being paid for your art. Period.

Patent or copyright, both protect the right of the creator to receive just compensation-- if a duplicate/copy is sold to anyone. If you copy a sketch or sculpture for private pleasure, that's different. Any artwork that is sold requires payment to or written permission from the original artist.

:Ponder: How do I know about Intellectual Property law? My life's work has been lost because of lawsuits claiming that I violated copyright of crew people who worked for me-- people who weren't entitled to copyright. Legal bills cost me $843,000 plus change, and forced the sale of my company-- which has grossed $2 billion. Yes, I know the law. (I was the artist who got ripped off-- by "friends" who falsely claimed copyright to my work.)

[Thudpucker]

It may fall under fair use anyway. You really need someone well versed in copyright law to be able to have a useful opinion.

I certainly give Zzyzx's opinion a lot more weight than I do that of Ubiquitousbub there.

My concern is more a moral one than a legal one.

I have met more than one artist at a convention who is just starting out. They have never published a comic, never worked for Marvel or DC. All they have are several prints and a sketch book full of liscensed chacters like Batman.

Is it morally wrong to buy from those artists? If it is I'll just have to live with it because I like supporting talented artists. I'm going to keep buying their sketchbooks.

[xyzzy]

It may fall under fair use anyway. You really need someone well versed in copyright law to be able to have a useful opinion.

I certainly give Zzyzx's opinion a lot more weight than I do that of Ubiquitousbub there.

The main copyright issue would be whether or not it's a derivative work and if it is, whether or not it's fair use.

For an individual piece of art, I just don't think it would be an issue because even if it fails the first part, it'll surely pass the second.

[xyzzy]

My concern is more a moral one than a legal one.

I have met more than one artist at a convention who is just starting out. They have never published a comic, never worked for Marvel or DC. All they have are several prints and a sketch book full of liscensed chacters like Batman.

Is it morally wrong to buy from those artists? If it is I'll just have to live with it because I like supporting talented artists. I'm going to keep buying their sketchbooks.

Oddly enough, in my opinion, the sketchbook would be fine, but the prints would be much sketchier (ha ha, sketchier!). On the other hand, artists have been doing this forever and DC and Marvel are well aware of it (just feet away at the same conventions) and have done nothing to stop it. So you can assume that they're either okay with it, or think that their legal challenge would fail. Either way, you're good.

[Fake Pat]

This is unreal.

Has anybody told Oogie Boogie he's repeatedly called multiple mods here thieves now?

[Udiguhgudibuh]

It's not really a copyright issue.

:sherlock: Anyone selling unauthorized prints of licensed character is absolutely breaking the law. No question about it.

[Thudpucker]

Oddly enough, in my opinion, the sketchbook would be fine, but the prints would be much sketchier (ha ha, sketchier!). On the other hand, artists have been doing this forever and DC and Marvel are well aware of it (just feet away at the same conventions) and have done nothing to stop it. So you can assume that they're either okay with it, or think that their legal challenge would fail. Either way, you're good.

That's how I feel too. If a publisher ever does make an issue of it I'll give the matter more thought but for now I feel ok about it.

[Taxman]

Anyone selling unauthorized prints of licensed character is absolutely breaking the law. No question about it.Cite some case law here, or quit being a punk.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

My concern is more a moral one than a legal one.

I have met more than one artist at a convention who is just starting out. They have never published a comic, never worked for Marvel or DC. All they have are several prints and a sketch book full of liscensed chacters like Batman.

Is it morally wrong to buy from those artists? If it is I'll just have to live with it because I like supporting talented artists. I'm going to keep buying their sketchbooks.

:sherlock: I understand your question, but buying a licensed character's likeness from anyone without a sub-licensing agreement makes what they're doing clearly illegal. Is it illegal for you to buy their work? I haven't researched it; but it obviously seems like "receiving stolen property."

The works of Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, etc. are "in the public domain." Anyone can use their work without paying the estate a license fee. Whether or not owners of comic book characters enforce their rights, they certainly could.

Warners Brothers, for example, always spends whatever legal costs are necessary to close down anyone copying Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc.-- even if they're painted on a local day school sign.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

If I bought that Batman statue what artist am I stealing from?

:sherlock: The artist is stealing from whomever owns the rights to the character, as are you by purchasing it without compensating the copyright owner. "Entering the stream of commerce" is the operative phrase. Created by you for your private enjoyment? That's fine.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Oddly enough, in my opinion, the sketchbook would be fine, but the prints would be much sketchier (ha ha, sketchier!). On the other hand, artists have been doing this forever and DC and Marvel are well aware of it (just feet away at the same conventions) and have done nothing to stop it. So you can assume that they're either okay with it, or think that their legal challenge would fail. Either way, you're good.

:sherlock: Their legal challenge would positively succeed. The only reason the license owner doesn't sue is because they don't think it's "an income producing expenditure"-- that the defendant doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

The main copyright issue would be whether or not it's a derivative work and if it is, whether or not it's fair use.

For an individual piece of art, I just don't think it would be an issue because even if it fails the first part, it'll surely pass the second.

:sherlock: Regarding "a derivative work"? A court would have to decide that. An interesting precident would be Andy Warhol's mildly-abstracted use of Superman, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe-- all of whom are licensed. (Warhol's Botticelli "Venus" would of course be in public domain.)

I doubt the "fair use" concept would apply-- and I wouldn't want to pay the legal bills to find out. It's usually applied to journalists' extremely limited use, where "commercial" is not a good fit.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Cite some case law here, or quit being a punk.

:sherlock: Good one! Serious thanks for the much-needed belly laugh. Intellectual Property lawyers will cost you at least $200 to $500 per hour. Send me payment for two hours in advance, I'll pass it to a great lawyer, and I'll only take 10%.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

This is unreal.
Has anybody told Oogie Boogie he's repeatedly called multiple mods here thieves now?

:sherlock: Big hug for Fake Pat! I've missed your irrepressible annoyance, and thought you had me on "ignore"! Scanning quickly, I first misread "multiple mods" as "multiple gods"! Wheww. Had me going, for a second.

[MayorMitch100]

Udi, what do you say to artists who are selling sketches of characters at comic book conventions?

[Fake Pat]

Udi, what do you say to artists who are selling sketches of characters at comic book conventions?

How do you pronounce :sherlock:?

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Udi, what do you say to artists who are selling sketches of characters at comic book conventions?

:sherlock: "I love your work, and I'm sure you can sell this legally [smile widely]-- right?" (1) Simultaneously, show him the money. (2) If he merely nods in the affirmative, (3) say, "Is that a 'yes'?" When he says "yes," that constitutes a verbal contract, which has a legal statute of limitations of ONE YEAR... plenty of time to hit the exit.

:Ponder: That constitutes "transference of liability"!

[Taxman]

This is unreal.

Has anybody told Oogie Boogie he's repeatedly called multiple mods here thieves now?Believe me, if I had any idea how to spell his name, he would be on the ignore list already.

[A.Huerta]

That's what I was afraid of. They look similar to the statues Sideshow is producing for Marvel but that company doesn't do DC.

They're amazing, would have loved to own them.

You can always commission some up and coming sculptors on DA. Theres quite a few and they're very good.

[xyzzy]

:sherlock: Their legal challenge would positively succeed. The only reason the license owner doesn't sue is because they don't think it's "an income producing expenditure"-- that the defendant doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile.

It would cost them practically nothing to send out a C&D letter. They haven't done that.

[xyzzy]

:sherlock: Regarding "a derivative work"? A court would have to decide that. An interesting precident would be Andy Warhol's mildly-abstracted use of Superman, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe-- all of whom are licensed. (Warhol's Botticelli "Venus" would of course be in public domain.)

It's interesting. In response to anything I bring up, you get all wishy washy, saying things like "a court would have to decide that." Which is true. But when making your points, you make these really bold (haha) statements like "Their legal challenge would positively succeed." (emphasis yours) Both of our opinions are equally speculative.


I doubt the "fair use" concept would apply-- and I wouldn't want to pay the legal bills to find out. It's usually applied to journalists' extremely limited use, where "commercial" is not a good fit.

It really depends on the nature of the art. We still don't know the nature of the statues that Thud posted in the beginning of this thread. A custom fan-art piece made for personal use and a photo to share with friends I think would be fair use. A sketchbook that an artist made working in the industry to show off what they could do for the companies that they're seeking employment from, fair use. Prints of characters specifically to sell, probably not fair use. There's a spectrum here. Stop throwing big blanket statements over all of it.

Further, I can't think of any legal theory the copyright holders would have against people who purchased such items.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

It's interesting. In response to anything I bring up, you get all wishy washy, saying things like "a court would have to decide that." Which is true. But when making your points, you make these really bold (haha) statements like "Their legal challenge would positively succeed." (emphasis yours) Both of our opinions are equally speculative.

It really depends on the nature of the art. We still don't know the nature of the statues that Thud posted in the beginning of this thread. A custom fan-art piece made for personal use and a photo to share with friends I think would be fair use. A sketchbook that an artist made working in the industry to show off what they could do for the companies that they're seeking employment from, fair use.
There's a spectrum here. Stop throwing big blanket statements over all of it.

Further, I can't think of any legal theory the copyright holders would have against people who purchased such items.

:sherlock: Yes, there are black, white, and gray areas in all of this. There are also the range of what is "moral," legal, and the probability of personal legal consequences.

Regarding Thud buying a "pirated" character from someone who didn't pay a license fee, Thud is (1) morally complicit in a crime, (2) subject to real-but-very-unlikely legal action, and (3) would positively be prosecuted for using the sculpture in a poster or any clearly commercial endeavor.

If the maker of the statue provided a written statement that the figure was licensed, Thud is home free-- but that won't happen. Whoever made the statue knows it's illegal, and will not "dig their hole deeper" by affirming that it's authorized. (However talented as a sculptor, the guy is a dirt bag who is stealing another artist's work.)

From a legal, practical standpoint, Thud's chances of being prosecuted is virtually zero.

From a moral standpoint, Thud is clearly guilty-- complicit in a moral and legal crime. No question about it. This is not "fair use," or a "derivative work." It's a flat out case of copyright infringement.

The courts have allowed "parody," but this case isn't parody. The test case was a "humorous" parody of Orbison's "Pretty Woman," in which the title character got seriously ugly as soon as the wedding was over.

CONCLUSION:
Legally and morally, I choose to be "squeaky clean." I quit occasional marijuana smoking altogether a decade ago-- because I knew some Mexican guy may have lost his life in the "pot wars." I knew I would be funding corruption-- and even murder.

The same is true of this case: Buying from an unauthorized manufacturer cheats the original creative artist. That's just wrong-- and not justifiable.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Your conclusion that copyright law has moral implications lacks merit. Legality and morality are two different things.

[Taxman]

Your conclusion that copyright law has moral implications lacks merit. Legality and morality are two different things.I don't find it any more lacking in merit than anything else he has posted here.

[xyzzy]

:sherlock: Yes, there are black, white, and gray areas in all of this. There are also the range of what is "moral," legal, and the probability of personal legal consequences.

Regarding Thud buying a "pirated" character from someone who didn't pay a license fee, Thud is (1) morally complicit in a crime, (2) subject to real-but-very-unlikely legal action, and (3) would positively be prosecuted for using the sculpture in a poster or any clearly commercial endeavor.

If the maker of the statue provided a written statement that the figure was licensed, Thud is home free-- but that won't happen. Whoever made the statue knows it's illegal, and will not "dig their hole deeper" by affirming that it's authorized. (However talented as a sculptor, the guy is a dirt bag who is stealing another artist's work.)

From a legal, practical standpoint, Thud's chances of being prosecuted is virtually zero.

From a moral standpoint, Thud is clearly guilty-- complicit in a moral and legal crime. No question about it. This is not "fair use," or a "derivative work." It's a flat out case of copyright infringement.

The courts have allowed "parody," but this case isn't parody. The test case was a "humorous" parody of Orbison's "Pretty Woman," in which the title character got seriously ugly as soon as the wedding was over.

CONCLUSION:
Legally and morally, I choose to be "squeaky clean." I quit occasional marijuana smoking altogether a decade ago-- because I knew some Mexican guy may have lost his life in the "pot wars." I knew I would be funding corruption-- and even murder.

The same is true of this case: Buying from an unauthorized manufacturer cheats the original creative artist. That's just wrong-- and not justifiable.

If you want to say that it's morally wrong, that's fine. But you should stop talking about the law because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Cite some case law here, or quit being a punk.

:sherlock: There is so much case law regarding copyright that it's impossible to list it all. Regarding derivatives, Batlin is key-- but the "borrowed" portion of creativity must be solidly copyrightable. If the copied piece is in the public domain, it may or may not infringe on the copyright of another piece based on the same public domain item. (Batlin concerns the degree of similarity between two Uncle Sam figures.)

In the case of "music sampling," the Bridgeport decision forbids it. A drum beat, for example, can not be sampled. This deprives the copyright owner of income, and deprives the original drummer from being employed for the new job. Each of the sampled items needs a clearance from the copyright owner. The only recorded music that is currently in the public domain is from the early 1920s.

"Fair use" applies to (1) limited "quotations" from a copyrighted work for the purposes of scholarly review or criticism, or (2) combinations of parts of legally purchased works obtained from the copyright owner for personal home use for the enjoyment of friends-- articles that are not resold.

CONCLUSION
Copyright law is has many gray areas and may need to be decided by individual cases in individual jurisdictions. The one certain thing is that you can duplicate anything for private display, from which you don't make money-- without a copyright owner's permission.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

If you want to say that it's morally wrong, that's fine. But you should stop talking about the law because you have no idea what you're talking about.

:sherlock: See above.

[xyzzy]

:sherlock: See above.

Please cite any law by which Thud could face criminal prosecution, as you claim above.

[Artie Pink]

It's fun to watch two lawyers argue. It's also fun to watch one lawyer utterly destroy one guy who read a law magazine or something once.

[Thudpucker]

Ugnaught's back? I thought he was banned.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Please cite any law by which Thud could face criminal prosecution, as you claim above.

:sherlock: There are a lot of questions flying around, but I'll see if I can sort some out.

Selling a statue of a licensed character (without a sub-license) is positively illegal copyright infringement. The seller can be prosecuted. It is very unlikely that the buyer would be prosecuted-- as long as the buyer uses it only for personal enjoyment among friends.

Who is hurt by this? The copyright owner, whether or not he is the original artist or a corporation to which he sold his rights. Under the law, a corporation has the rights any individual has. Cheating a corporation, you are cheating he artists by lowering the amount they can be paid for their rights.

There is still the moral issue that the buyer is financing an illegal act.

Regarding Andy Warhol's prints of Elvis, Superman, Marilyn Monroe etc., Warhol would have to secure a license to these images-- because they are copyrighted. It would be considered a derivative work of co-authorship.

Marcel Duchamp's "Mona Lisa With a Mustache" is also a derivative work, but Leonardo DaVinci's original painting is in the public domain-- so there is no need for copyright clearance.

A photograph of a classic statue such as Michelangelo's David would not be in the public domain-- even though the statue is. (The photographer would have supplied a significant amount of creative expression in lighting, angle, etc.) Copying the photo for private home enjoyment, is "fair use" if the copy was made from a legally obtained original.

The First-Sale Doctrine allows you to buy a copyrighted article, and sell it, give it away, or burn it(!) as long as the article is used for its original purpose. A painting may be transferred from collector to collector, but it cannot be copied (or printed on a billboard) without written permission from the original artist.

In my case, I commissioned 11 huge murals to be painted for use on exercise video sets. Then I was sued for copyright infringement-- even though the murals were used for their intended purpose! That is a frivolous lawsuit. It would have been illegal for me to print them on T-shirts or calendars-- but using them for their intended purpose is absolutely legal.

By searching "copyright case law fair use," "...derivative," etc. you can find many of these answers, but your situation needs to be very parallel. Yes, in court any two lawyers are paid to argue any two sides of a case-- at great expense to you.

I'm not sure if I mentioned the Whimicality case law, stating that a copyright is invalid if obtained through fraud. There is also the Atari case law, stating that a video game using fairly standard, generic gaming moves can be copyrighted if the sequence of the moves is significantly altered.

Yes, Intellectual Property law is complex.

Next question?

[Artie Pink]

:sherlock: There are a lot of questions flying around, but I'll see if I can sort some out.

Selling a statue of a licensed character (without a sub-license) is positively illegal copyright infringement. The seller can be prosecuted. It is very unlikely that the buyer would be prosecuted-- as long as the buyer uses it only for personal enjoyment among friends.

Who is hurt by this? The copyright owner, whether or not he is the original artist or a corporation to which he sold his rights. Under the law, a corporation has the rights any individual has. Cheating a corporation, you are cheating he artists by lowering the amount they can be paid for their rights.

There is still the moral issue that the buyer is financing an illegal act.

Regarding Andy Warhol's prints of Elvis, Superman, Marilyn Monroe etc., Warhol would have to secure a license to these images-- because they are copyrighted. It would be considered a derivative work of co-authorship.

Marcel Duchamp's "Mona Lisa With a Mustache" is also a derivative work, but Leonardo DaVinci's original painting is in the public domain-- so there is no need for copyright clearance.

A photograph of a classic statue such as Michelangelo's David would not be in the public domain-- even though the statue is. (The photographer would have supplied a significant amount of creative expression in lighting, angle, etc.) Copying the photo for private home enjoyment, is "fair use" if the copy was made from a legally obtained original.

The First-Sale Doctrine allows you to buy a copyrighted article, and sell it, give it away, or burn it(!) as long as the article is used for its original purpose. A painting may be transferred from collector to collector, but it cannot be copied (or printed on a billboard) without written permission from the original artist.

In my case, I commissioned 11 huge murals to be painted for use on exercise video sets. Then I was sued for copyright infringement-- even though the murals were used for their intended purpose! That is a frivolous lawsuit. It would have been illegal for me to print them on T-shirts or calendars-- but using them for their intended purpose is absolutely legal.

By searching "copyright case law fair use," "...derivative," etc. you can find many of these answers, but your situation needs to be very parallel. Yes, in court any two lawyers are paid to argue any two sides of a case-- at great expense to you.

I'm not sure if I mentioned the Whimicality case law, stating that a copyright is invalid if obtained through fraud. There is also the Atari case law, stating that a video game using fairly standard, generic gaming moves can be copyright if the sequence of the moves is significantly altered.

Yes, Intellectual Property law is complex.

Next question?

Wikipedigudibuh

[Dreaded Anomaly]

There is still the moral issue that the buyer is financing an illegal act.

Legality and morality still aren't the same thing.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

It would cost them practically nothing to send out a C&D letter. They haven't done that.

:sherlock: There is a practical reason that copyright owners would want to ignore infringement of their copyrights-- especially at conventions.
(1) Talented artists bring more excitement and larger crowds to the event, (2) comic publishers can scout for fresh talent, fresh ideas, trends, tastes, and (3) comic publishers love their fans! Without fans, there's no comic business. They would want as much contact as possible with the people who drive the market and trends.

Regarding Thud's original question, I can't imagine that her purchase could possibly cause her trouble. It's the seller who might get a C&D letter-- if they produce unlicensed products on any real scale.

[Artie Pink]

:sherlock: There is a practical reason that copyright owners would want to ignore infringement of their copyrights-- especially at conventions.
(1) Talented artists bring more excitement and larger crowds to the event, (2) comic publishers can scout for fresh talent, fresh ideas, trends, tastes, and (3) comic publishers love their fans! Without fans, there's no comic business. They would want as much contact as possible with the people who drive the market and trends.

Regarding Thud's original question, I can't imagine that her purchase could possibly cause her trouble. It's the seller who might get a C&D letter-- if they produce unlicensed products on any real scale.

What have you got against (1) underlining things? :sherlock:Try it sometime!

[Taxman]

What have you got against (1) underlining things? :sherlock:Try it sometime!What have you got against the ignore list (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/profile.php?do=ignorelist)? :sherlock:


This message is hidden because Udiguhgudibuh is on your ignore list (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/profile.php?do=ignorelist). Try it sometime!

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Legality and morality still aren't the same thing.

:sherlock: You're right. Many legal things are immoral (evicting a destitute grandmother from her home), or moral but illegal (glaucoma sufferer smoking marijuana).

Then there's the area of "situation ethics": An incarcerated woman knows that the prison guard will let her escape to care for her children-- if she has sex with him. What choice should she make?

[Artie Pink]

:sherlock: You're right. Many legal things are immoral (evicting a destitute grandmother from her home), or moral but illegal (glaucoma sufferer smoking marijuana).

Then there's the area of "situation ethics": An incarcerated woman knows that the prison guard will let her escape to care for her children-- if she has sex with him. What choice should she make?

Someone's been watching too much Lifetime Channel!

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Someone's been watching too much Lifetime Channel!

:sherlock: Here's the plan. You distract the prison guard by rolling the marijuana for him, and torch it up. When he gets seriously hammered, you sneak out with the woman. I rescue grandmother, and we all meet at the safe house-- my place.

[xyzzy]

:sherlock: There is a practical reason that copyright owners would want to ignore infringement of their copyrights-- especially at conventions.
(1) Talented artists bring more excitement and larger crowds to the event, (2) comic publishers can scout for fresh talent, fresh ideas, trends, tastes, and (3) comic publishers love their fans! Without fans, there's no comic business. They would want as much contact as possible with the people who drive the market and trends.

Yes. I agree. Which is why I said "you can assume that they're either okay with it, or think that their legal challenge would fail. Either way, you're good." To which you responded, "The only reason the license owner doesn't sue is because they don't think it's "an income producing expenditure"-- that the defendant doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile." That's when I pointed out that a C&D letter isn't a huge expenditure. And now you seem to have backpedaled on your point quite a bit.

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Yes. I agree. Which is why I said "you can assume that they're either okay with it, or think that their legal challenge would fail. Either way, you're good." To which you responded, "The only reason the license owner doesn't sue is because they don't think it's "an income producing expenditure"-- that the defendant doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile." That's when I pointed out that a C&D letter isn't a huge expenditure. And now you seem to have backpedaled on your point quite a bit.

:sherlock: Having just reread this thread, I find that everything I said is true-- but I deliberately stressed the raw legal facts of what could indeed happen. The reason the "worst case scenario" will not happen rests in the legal principle called estoppel by laches and also estoppel by silence.

Estoppel by laches is a doctrine by which courts can deny relief to a claimant (publisher) who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. Estoppel by silence arises when a party is under a duty to speak but fails to do so. (It's also called estoppel by standing by, or estoppel by inaction.)

In plain English, the publisher/copyright owner's past course of behavior in ignoring infringement sets a precedent upon which you can legitimately rely-- until the publisher/copyright owner informs you that his policy has changed.

:cool: I hope that this rather spirited thread has been beneficial. Believe it or not, I started a company that eventually grossed $2 billion (yes, with a "b") but had to sell it because of an obsessed-but-incompetent lawyer for the opposition. (After 12 years in court, I plan to collect enough crumbs to retire in relative comfort.)

The court recognizes that the claimant (the copyright owner, publisher in this instance) has a duty to put you on notice that what you are doing is not all right with him-- before taking any action against you. (Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.)

[Artie Pink]

Stop saying "estoppel".

[Udiguhgudibuh]

Stop saying "estoppel".

:sherlock: Okee-dokee, me estop now.

[Artie Pink]

:sherlock: Okee-dokee, me estop now.


:lol: You're alright, man! :thumb: