Copyright Questions

[kolfacekilla]

Hello. I was wondering what some of the more experienced poster artists' thoughts were on copyright issues? I have used imagery that was not my own in a few posters, sometimes where it was obvious (say Chewbacca for example) sometimes not (just some guy in a magazine drinking a beer or something). Is there a general consensus what is and isn't ok, what is considered an "homage" and what is just a rip off? Alright, well, that's my topic. thanks

[Anonymous]

Hey Killa...

I doubt anyone of these fuckers know... and if they did they wouldnt say, as theyre not certain... You see, youll see a few earlier threads on this topic, but no one answers...just looks. Kozic has had some real experience here, maybe he will answer, Jermaine has used many a likeness... as have loads of people, but no one really says, it has to be like this or that, or changed this much... appropiation is a word bandied about in place of ripped off this image... Me, I think so long as its not instant recogniseable then sweet... cause that should pertain to more than the 30% change thing... I really dont know, as my experience is limited...no lawsuits nothing, Ive made so little money, and havent defamed anyone really...so I cant imagine a knock on my door. Good luck in an answer... Ill watch ya thread hoping someone will shed light on ya quest.

[JGex]

Melbot, the reason there may not be many answers is because this is a very touchy subjet with more than just a few angles to it.... there are issues dealing with using found images, band names, and using pop iconography etc. Some images can be defined as parody, which is OK in most instances, but not in others.... using press photos without permission is usually a no-no, but it can also depend on the band and the photog.

Yes, some poster artists have been sued. Some bands are very friendly to work with, some aren't. Sometimes it's not the band at all, it's the merch guys or the management who are not "poster friendly."

In other words, this is a HUGE "grey" area with many angles that has so many different rules and definitions, it can't be explained in a short or concise post.

There are other threads where this subject has been discussed in more specifics....

[lure]

there are rules and as pm points out some bands/labels might let you bend them in regards to their own images/logos etc.

i'm no copyright lawyer but here's my understanding as an average joe:

when it comes to a found image, from a legal point of view, you shouldn't use it, unless it's published as a royalty-free image. who ever did the illustration, shot the photo, or is in the photo can claim ownership of the image or rights to it. there is no "homage" usage that i know of.

there are images in the public domain. i've heard differing opinions on how old an image is before it is in the public domain. some say 50 some say 100. i dunno. there are some images that may be old enough to be "public domain" but are still owned by an existing estate.

if you're talking about chewbakka or something as recent as that, there are definitely ownership issues there. that shit is protected out the wazoo.

the rules for editorial use are different. you can get away with a lot there. you even see mickey mouse redrawn and reinterpreted in editorial (and you never fuck with the mouse. disney'll eat you alive!) but gigposters woudln't be considered editorial usage. it's advertising.

in many cases, though people use these images illegally on gigposters anyway. the runs are short. they generally have a limited lifespan and a small, targeted audience. most won't get caught. and if you do, you might just get a cease and desist letter. or if sued, they'd have the burden of proving damages.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lure on 2002-04-12 09:48 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lure on 2002-04-12 09:50 ]</font>

[Sash]

My understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled in the '60s (in the case where DC Comics sued MAD over their Superman parody) that it's okay to parody, to satirize (meaning your parody has to be distinguishable in some way from the original, you can't just use the exact character). Satire is a literary/cultural tradition, etc, etc. Now w/ appropriation, it's a huge gray area. Like, Warhol based a huge, lucrative career on it... was he ever sued? I never heard he was. Because it's like satire... you can argue that by changing the setting the character or image is in... it's distinguishable enough. One other thing is, mainstream culture itself now tends to appropriate cutting-edge culture so they may be starting to recognize that these "parodies" or "appropriations" are giving their products a certain clout. If they think they're getting more out of not suing the artists, they won't.

[Sash]

Hey lure... we're practically neighbors. We should hook up sometime. I can see it now: the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Orlando Axis!!

[lure]

but MAD is editorial content. you can get away with that i believe. but gigposters aren't editorial so i bet the same ruling wouldn't apply.

yeah, we're almost neighbors! but, i'll come over there, you guys have the best strip clubs!

[kolfacekilla]

i thought this might be a kinda grey area, since i've asked other people and everyone kinda shrugs and looks the other way. its tough. as for there being other posts about the same subject, i'll look thru the archives, i had a feeling there would be some discussion, but couldn't find it, but i probably just missed it.

i've never (ok hardly ever) just used an image and slapped it on a poster, that don't make for good posters in my opinion. i (as i've learned from those better than me) take images and recombine them (sounds techno), using things i like, creating interesting images whose source image could hopefully not be identified. a drawing from a picture i find, something like that.

the only problem is i read about some painter who painted this scene with all these blue cats, and some sculptor made a sculpture based off this painting (granted it was a total rip off, like making a mickey mouse sculpture from a comic book). the sculptor was sued successfully. so, basing ones art off of another persons art, which can even be loosely defined as say yearbook photos or snapshots, is not a good idea.

for the record i have begun taking photos for my own imagery. plus i will never make billions, so if they sue i'll just hand them the keys to my '87 toyota camry.

in the "questions answered" forum, which kozik started, he actually posted some info regarding copyright in his work. check it.

[Jermaine]

Whatever you do, don't screw with:

-DISNEY
-Lucasfilm

[caribou]

jermaine:

hmmm...don't screw with lucasfilm, eh? does that mean you've gotten some grief over your luke skywalker/han solo poster?

kolfacekilla:

kozik touched on the copyright question in his interview on the onion. check it out, it's pretty interesting.