ARTCAST #108 I Have The Right To Make And Sell My Art

Saturday, November 22nd, 2014

Hi all ...Today I had my Storenvy store shut down for copyright infringement ... Personally I feel I have the right to make and sell my own art.

Download the 'audio only' version of this show - (no longer available)



Thanks, and see you Monday 

84 comments:

Chris Hack said...

via Google+
that sucks. so sorry sir.

Jesse Cobb said...

via Facebook
That's fucked up man. I can't believe they shut your store down.

Kevin W Cross said...

via Facebook
Oh man... I've done my versions of various characters to sell on my Storenvy too. I hope this isn't the future of things. It's like when YouTube wouldn't let me post videos with my own songs just because I have albums on record labels out there.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
It's actually NOT copyright infringement. The properties don't sell "hand drawn limited edition" portraits of movie stills, so you aren't competing with them in any way.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
I'll have to find some of the resources I've read about this topic, but unless you're claiming them as your own and mass producing them, storenvy is mistaken. I"ll try to find the links!

TL Mack said...

via Facebook
Go get them, Jeff. That's ridiculous!

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
Hm, maybe I'm mistaken after all. Take a look at this video:
http://chrisoatley.com/fan-art/

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
I personally feel it's dumb to go after people like us who create interest in those characters, keeping them alive well after the property is considered "old."

Brent Naughton said...

via Facebook
That is pathetic. Apparently some artists do not want to have to have to compete with you. A very sad statement about their ability and confidence in their own work. Sorry you are going through this and sorry Storenvy does not take time to hear your side of the story.

Christopher Hack said...

via Facebook
you know the thing that bothers me the most is that this guy! decided to spend his time. messing with your life. what a scum bag. he's a good artist. what gives him the right to get involved in what you're doing. he should just enjoy what he has. i'm sure many of us would be thrilled to be in his position! what an asshole!

Kieran Beech said...

via Facebook
Haven't watched episode yet but it's more than likely Jeff someone will have reported you. Something quite similar happened to a friends eBay store. Funnily enough just as they were doing quite well for themselves. Stoke very jealous people out there.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
I'll be watching the video this evening to get your story. It's really a shame that this happened

Dede Willingham said...

via Facebook
Watching vid now, that is terrible!

Anthony Hochrein said...

via Facebook
Wow. Who brought that on?

Silke Tapken said...

:(

Amber Shelton said...

via Facebook
Legally, you really don't have that right. The law looks at it like this - If you sell a commission, the buyer is thinking "I really like THIS GUY'S art, so I will buy it." If you sell art of a known character, the buyer is thinking "I really like the art of THIS CHARACTER, so I will buy it." You are therefore benefiting from someone else's property.

Kevin Cross said...

via Google+
So sorry, Jeff! I'm in your corner and agree with you!

Brandon Kenney said...

via Google+
I'm sorry to hear about all the bs Jeff and I hope it's not something that will seriously hinder your work in the long run. Listening to you explain your thoughts about selling your own physically created interpretations is very interesting, and you bring a perspective that I haven't really considered. I personally have steered clear of prints just to avoid these problems, but that certainly doesn't mean I agree with any of it. I wish there was a simple answer my friend.

Wuzzums Fuzzums said...

LINKED COMMENT
From a legal standpoint all fanart is illegal. You doodle Batman, DC owns that drawing, and if you sell it then in the eyes of the law it's theft. It's absurd, I know, which is why they usually turn a blind eye on the matter. In Japan however such behavior is encouraged actually, it's considered free advertising.

I doubt it was WB or whomever that got your account closed, I also think it was that person you mentioned that filed some complaint. The online store of course does not want to deal with any legal issues and seeing how the law is on the side of the plaintiff, they had no other choice than to shut your account down.

Who knows, maybe the guy got shut down himself for selling fanart and so he got the license to avoid that. Thus now he's upset that other don't have to jump through the same hoops. Or maybe he saw an opportunity to get rid of competition by getting said license. It's unfair either way, and I'm sorry you have to deal with all this BS just to sell your work.

Kevin Phillips said...

It has always been my understanding that if an individual wants you to do a commission painting of Superman beating up Donald Duck in front of Caesar's Palace, there's nothing to stop you from painting the piece and selling it to an individual. Now if either you or he display that piece, especially as part of an ad, you/he are (potentially) in trouble. Unfortunately, the same applies to prints. You can't sell prints of copyrighted characters. I think you can sell prints of Harrison Ford, but not Han Solo. Movie stars are in the public domain, but not the characters they play.

Still, it's a shitty deal. I hope you can continue to get commission work and charge enough to make it worthwhile. I think Art Casts are still a good advertising forum to sell the (excellent) kind of work you do.

VlogOfRavenD said...

That sucks, but technically, we aren't suppose to be selling fan art without permission of copyright holders (I am confused about the parody thing though). Just like if you paint and sell art based on Disney's characters, you cannot sell them unless you had permission, or like obtain a license to do so (which means putting down money). For those people selling Monroe art and shirts, if they don't have a license to do so, it's actually illegal and risking legal action against them (will they win the case like the person with the Tiger Woods thing? Don't know). Hey, I know we see it a lot, but just because other people are doing it, it doesn't mean it's legal. You may see a lot of people sell Disney art or something on Etsy without permission, but it's actually illegal and people really have gotten in trouble for it. However, it's likely assholes reporting and specific people out of the crowd getting shut down. Unfortunately, you ended up being one of them (glad you're not getting sued though). As you said, someone probably is trying to run you out of business. Get a bitter person, they'll definitely try to slim down competition and shut you down. If he has a license to do some fan art, good for him, but what an asshole.

I admit I was commissioned to draw a couple celebrities for someone WAY back then as a teen, but technically, it was illegal for me to do so because I had no permission from the copyright holder. These days, I will refuse a celebrity portrait or of movie screen captures or any other copyright images, or characters. I won't even draw Grumpy Cat for them. And no, I am not obtaining a license from anyone.

I am, however, going to draw some famous internet cats in summer of 2016, and to be "legal" I asked permission from owners like the owner of Colonel Meow and she recently granted me permission to use one of her photos. I did tell them I will not sell the original or make prints, and she's thankful that I will not be doing so. But hey, if no permission, the cat will not get to be in my future art website.

EDIT: From what I have heard anyway, apparently if the copyright holder wants to, they can have you take art down even if you're not selling it. I guess it also includes fan fictions. Anne Rice doesn't want people posting fan fiction of her characters and story.

VlogOfRavenD said...

via Google+
Hi, Jeff. I came back to make another comment. You know what. Thinking more clearly, maybe the guy wasn't as big of an asshole like I thought at first. I mean, we as artists are no exception to the law. You may be drawing your interpretation of the character, BUT the law says something else. Someone did also mention to me people get upset over the Chinese people reproducing other paintings, but then think what you went through is no fair. That gave me better thinking and thought "You know what? That is right." I don't know. Maybe you should purchase a license to do these works? OR how about create your own characters? I mean, you can make a comic, graphic novel, some story book, or if you can, animation or something of your own creation. There's artists out there who make money out there without having to resort to showcasing a bunch of copyrighted characters. I believe you are able to do it, too. You got some fans, so maybe they might like something you can come up with? I mean, if your fans like things such as sci-fi, fantasy, or action heroes, or whatever it may be,you know what your fans like. I mean, wouldn't that be cool as fuck? I'm currently on some projects other than fine art, and I am creating my own comics, and novels. Also, if you did happen to create your own characters for some book, comic or cartoon series,and then find people monetizing off your characters, now be honest, are you gonna want someone else making money off YOUR character? 

Jesse Cobb said...

via Google+
Hang in there Jeff! This is a load of crap. You are not doing anything illegal. If it was truly illegal then it would be banned at comic book conventions and EVERYWHERE else. As such you don't see this idiot going into say the New York comic con and telling everyone in artist alley they can't sell lord of the rings art. Its just all crap.

Rupam Grimoeuvre said...

via Facebook
I'm sorry for what happened, Jeff. Yeah, fan art is really a super complex thing, the legal side of it, that is. I have never found any satisfactory or simple explanation of what is allowed and what is not in fan art, because there are so many complexities; which I understand the reason of. And yes I also think what happened happened because of the prints. No one can stop you from selling your original paintings, but prints are tricky. But that was a bummer!
I hope you'll find a way to make up for the loss. I'd suggest creating your own IP at this point, as you already have a fan base, that would be a good idea.

Jeff Lafferty said...

Dont worry about it guys, I'll figure it. Everyone stay positive, that's what I'm going to do ...

-Jeff

Greg Klodzinski said...

via Facebook
jerry vanderstelt has honor as human being or artist if a person feels like they got hurt some one to feel good about there self then they are selfish and weak and have heart and spirt in what they do. don't let this guy's bs pull down you rock on jeff

Greg Klodzinski said...

via Facebook
i mean have no heart and spirt sorry about that the cat jumped on the desk when doing that but you know what mean.

Steven Hall said...

via Facebook
Arseholes, that's what they are, ur success Jeff Lafferty, screw those guys u don't need em

Kevin Rayski said...

via Facebook
You don't need to worry about them Jeff I'll keep buying commissions from you

Kieran Beech said...

via Facebook
If it was the guy. I'll just openly say it 'he's a dick.' A jealous one at that. At times we hit stumbling blocks but it's those moments that test us, they can break us or they can make us stronger.

This is me speaking from a situation that is threatening my own business too. I've just received poor news myself. I'm a little winded but I also know now it's time to step up or I go back to the daily grind.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
How the heck does an artist become a licensed artist??

Andrew Jones said...

via Facebook
Let's face it, according to the law, just *making* art with copyrighted characters is illegal, whether you sell it or not. Period. Is that ridiculous? Hell yes, but none of us make the rules. It's up to each of us to decide what we're going to do. I'm taking a chance right now, because via Facebook
I'm a nobody. But someday that might change. Then again, a guy like Skottie Young can do a Spider-Man warmup sketch and sell it in his store for $200. Does he get a pass because he's "Skottie Young" or is actively working on Marvel projects? I have no idea. I think everyone that does fan art, myself included, needs to own it, and not tell ourselves fairy tales.

Anthony Hochrein said...

via Facebook
I can't believe it, but I can at the same time. Someone has to be made an example of and you wound up in the cross hairs this time. I want to see you rise above this.

Kevin Phillips said...

via Facebook
As a purely practical matter, if you sell an original painting or drawing or whatever to an individual (thru a commission), I don't see how that can even be known, much less stopped.

Mark Raats said...

via Facebook
I know Jerry personally and I know Jeff (although I have not met him in person) and I respect them both as top artists. I am not going to make a judgment either way on this because I can see it from both sides suffice to say that I have spoken to both of these artists on precisely this matter in the past, but it does not stop me from feeling profoundly sad that this has occurred.

Instead of judging let me rather share with all the members here the facts regarding licensed art because there seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding this matter and this gets hard-working folk into strife. I agree with Jeff’s sentiments that as an artist he feels that its his right (as is the freedom of speech) to make art, but with every right there needs to be considered others rights as well.
The bottom line is that Movie and comic characters (to name but two) are licensed through Copyright and Registered trademarks globally as are scenes, footage, props and a million other things that we see in popular culture every day. Because the studios have taken the time and money to put restrictions on this, artists of all persuasions need to be aware that no matter how much we protest, the IP is owned by someone else and if we leverage off that IP without considering the restrictions then there can be consequences…

There are two main areas that effect artists both digital and traditional and I would like to address each because they are very different.

ORIGINAL fan art:
This is probably the simplest to address because we are generally only talking about an original piece that was created. That said, I must stress that this comment only applies to TRADITIONAL art and not Digital art, because there is no original in digital art and in order to realise a digital piece in physical form, it needs to be PRINTED.
Because of this Digital art falls into the category listed below.

The bottom line is that even traditional original art is breaking a million copyright and registered trademark laws because the artist does own the IP. That said, when it comes to one-off traditional pieces the studios will more than often turn a blind eye to the fact that the artist is breaking the rules because most of them recognise that the artist is exercising his/her right to do art and that he/she is (if the artist is not bringing the genre, franchise or product into disrepute) is probably adding value to the franchise and promoting the franchise without the studios having to do anything themselves. Its for this reason that most artists are given the latitude to do fan art without restriction but it must be stressed that this is a CONCESSION its not a right and the studios are entitled to pull the plug at any time they choose. One of the comments above mentioned that some of the Cons prevent artists from selling fan art and this is most likely because they do not want to run the risk if offending the studios or executives involved.

To sum up, original TRADITIONAL art is not allowed if you follow the letter of the law, but unofficial concessions are normally given even though its not strictly legal. -cont***

Mark Raats said...

via Facebook
DIGITAL ART and PRINTED art:
This is more than likely where 99% of artists make their biggest mistake because artists are not only breaking the laws that apply to the original art IP restrictions but they are also breaking the law regarding the replication of art and they are now not only trespassing on Studio IP but they are treading on the licensed agreements of outside, independent companies. Printed art is big business and licensees pay tens of thousands of Dollars if not millions of Dollars for the right the reproduce art and in fairness to Jerry, this is where he is compromised the most because he pays $$ thousands to WB for the right to make official prints.

The minute a piece of licensed art is printed (even as a one-off print of a digital piece), the artist moves from being simply an artist (single, traditional pieces) into the space of a business/dealer/vendor because the reproduction is no longer an original, its a print. The mere act of making a print puts the artist squarely into the space of companies such as ACME archives - to mention only one - because now tens of thousands of reproductions can be made and sold without royalties being paid over to the studios - something all licensees have to do by law.

One should also bear in mind that the actual negotiations that a licensed individual or company has to go through to secure that license is torrid and extremely hard work and this adds to their irritation when individuals come in and take even a tiny part of the market share the bigger business has paid good Dollars for. In the past I have been involved in securing licensed agreements and I know from first hand that this is a very difficult process. Its also incredibly expensive and this all adds to the anger that floats around when the rules are broken.

TO sum up, it doesn’t matter if you do only a single print or a million of them, the bottom line is that the process of making prints IS strictly forbidden. There are NO concessions and this is where most artists are hammered.

As I mentioned in the lead to this post, I know both of these individuals and therefore can see it from both sides. Although Jerry is very successful as an artist it must be remembered that he invests a mountain of money into his business for the right to make reproductions and he needs to (as does Jeff), make his living off his investment. Although some folk will argue that Jerry is fortunate because he’s successful, I would also like to point out that hi-profile artists are under even more scrutiny from the studios than smaller artists are and generally none of them risk making unofficial prints because the studios they represent watch them carefully and immediately shut them down - so its not all peaches and cream being a hi-profile artist.

This is a terribly emotive subject and in a prefect world perhaps things could be more simple but sadly, in the real world, they are not…

Regards
MARK

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
Thanks for the insight, Mark!

Jesse Cobb said...

via Facebook
It's certainly a grey area. But in my opinion if making prints is so condemned and very much illegal, then you would see ads such as the ones about pirating music or movies. It would not be allowed on ebay, etsy, big cartel, etc. It would also not be allowed at comic book conventions. But as such I've NEVER heard of any artist being shutdown in artist alley. I don't think WB or Disney would go into San Diego Comic Con's artist alley and tell someone that they can't sell a print of Batman or Darth Vader. So that tells me and every other artist it's okay to stay in that grey area. And as such as long as you created the piece of art, then you can make prints of it. I see nothing wrong with it. If i created some character, obscure or popular, and someone sketched it and made prints off it, I'd be damn flattered! But i think out of all of this, my biggest problem is Jeff was turned in by a fellow artist from what i understand. To me that is a dick move. All of us artists are very much a sorta hodgepodge family, club, band of brothers/sisters who are united by our love of art. We have to stick together and help each other out. And to turn in one our own, like some school kid tattle-telling to the teacher....its still a stab in the back. But as i said this is just my opinion. I'm not famous, i haven't sold many prints or original pieces....I'm just an artist in a world of a million other artists.

Brent Naughton said...

via Facebook
All of that said, I can no longer respect an artist that goes out of their way to negatively affect a fellow artist’s livelihood. I am uncomfortable with any artist that seeks out specific artists to make it difficult for them to sell their artwork and support their families. What artist will be shut down next? This particular situation seems personal from my point of view and that is very disappointing for many of us. Just my opinion of course, as I would hate to now have a target on my back as well.

sithlord151 said...

jerry vandersteldt is a well known artist, he's done a lot of everything, Star Wars especially and works for a lot of companies that cater to that and other properties. To a certain degree I understand the whole copyright infringement, and really don't want to be called out on it, but fan art is a touchy subject. some companies will let it slide while others will enforce it till the world explodes because they own it. via DeviantArt
I've done Star Wars and Star Trek and never had a problem, at least so far. The fact that he called you out is stupid, he makes way more money than you or I together, but I think that it comes down to competition. You are stealing money from his pocket, and for that he has to threaten you, I don't agree with it either. Hopefully it'll work out for you, and nothing else will be shut down.

Gibran Redinger said...

via Facebook
Fuck it... Your fantasy game is on point.. you dont need fan art Jeff..

Kenny Keen said...

via Facebook
Sorry to hear that, Jeff. You can still sell original art and they can't stop you there. Don't let it discourage you and keep making awesome art! Going to go watch your video now.

Daniel E Burke said...

LINKED COMMENT
I am sorry to hear this. At every convention..there is millions of people selling fan art. I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

It' not the end of the world if you can't do fan art. You don't need fan art. I bet you can do well with creating OC's, a story line to go with them, and sell original pieces. Of course, I am sure there are still people out there willing to commission you.

youtubasoarus said...

LINKED COMMENT
Not sure why they wouldn't have taken down the offending works? WTF. This is the kind of thing that freaks me out about trying to get into commissions and trying to draw IP characters.

What's also odd is that if WB wanted artists who wanted to sell their IP works privately, then why wouldn't they just sell licenses? Doesn't make sense at all. They should direct people through the proper channel if the argument they're making is that you shouldn't be able to sell IP works. Total crap.

Sorry to hear about this Jeff. :(

Also, fuck that asshole for starting shit up like that. What a douche bag. The guy feels you're on his turf or whatever, well that's not for him to decide, that's for the market to decide. If people want to buy his work or yours is the customers decision, the guy is a dumbass.

Sutton1022 said...

LINKED COMMENT
I am totally on your side with this. I had my Etsy store closed about 5 months ago because the Walking Dead owners said I was trademark infringing. What I was doing was selling the Walking Dead blank sketch covers with MY drawings on them. I still to this day don't understand how they singled me out... I think I only had 9 sales in 3 months or something so I wasn't raking in millions. I see people who print the screenshots from TWD on mugs and sell those in their stores but I got shut down???! Just know you're not the first or the last to get harassed by these haters. Btw I checked out Jerrys work and I am pretty sure he went right after you because you're a stellar artist and you can do what he's doing for probably a lot less money. Keep your head up.

Yann Vaugne said...

via Google+
u've got all my support, art never die, and yeah it's art we're talking about, not f...... copyright

Sabrina Geraats · said...

via Facebook
You're successful and well known, so that's why they went after you. You know you're doing something right when the top dogs are on your case. Fans will still ask for commissions, people know how wrong this is.

marcos pereira said...

LINKED COMMENT
Jeff, while i understand your anger, i think they're not that wrong either. That being said, you have all the potential to create your own pieces. Maybe it is a sign for you to start you own projects, you like fantasy art, you have a following, there's nothing that can stop you to do that and no ass...es to bother you. Now, it won't be easy (money wise, bills keep coming!) but for you it won't be impossible for sure.

Dylan Blair said...

Dude, don't even worry about it. The paintings are yours and you have the right to sell them. lets say I took a photo of you, the photo wont belong to you because you are the subject, it belongs to me because I took the photo... Exact same thing with your paintings man. keep your chin up :D

marcos pereira said...

LINKED COMMENT
He has to worry about it, you don't know what you're talking about. About the photo thing, again, no clue what you're saying, while you can take a picture of somebody, being that somebody the "subject", that person may not own the photo, but has all the right to tell you to erase it, it's his own image and has all the rights about it (if he's the subject of your photo), now if you don't want to erase it, you have NO RIGHT to publish it or keep it, and you in for trouble. You, as an individual, have all the rights about your own image.

Cory Sprague said...

via Facebook
Maybe try Etsy, they never shut people down for that.

Robert Marzullo said...

via Google+
I totally agree with you about that. You are creating your interpretation of that character or image. That is what people are impressed with and purchasing. You should be able to sell your art and prints of your art no matter what the content. In all reality you are promoting their property not hurting it. What I find mind boggling is that people use this to keep artist down. Are they not aware that it is hard enough to be a professional artist and make a good living? Why stop people from creating good art and making a living from it. Why is it okay to create the same art and give it away to every person on the planet but not okay to make $1 of each person? Do they really expect everyone to get a licensing deal with them? I have characters that I create and promote. If someone draw a picture of that character and sold it for $50 or whatever, I would give them a high five and say thanks for helping to promote my character. Keep creating good art Jeff and sorry to hear about this incident. Good luck to you!

Dylan Blair said...

via Google+
Robert Marzullo ... Patronising much? This is how the photo analogy works... By law, I own the metaphorical picture regardless of who or what it portrays. I can then sell and profit from said picture legally.

Andrew Jones said...

via Google+
+Dylan Blair I'm sorry Dylan, but you're absolutely wrong on that. Everyone owns their own likeness. It's why filmmakers must get people to sign a release to appear on camera and use it in a documentary, etc.

marcos pereira said...

+Dylan Blair I can believe how clueless you are kid.........Go ahead then, get yourself in trouble.....

Jeff Lafferty said...

+marcos pereira Look I don't want you guys getting in a fight on my comments. Calling someone 'clueless' is uncalled for. I don't care if your right or wrong, there's no reason to be disrespectful ... I'm going to start deleting comments if you guys start trolling each other.

Jeromy Taylor said...

via Google+
If you crossed supermans eyes and make him look dumb that's totally protected by law. Look at Mad Magazine. Present the characters respectfully and it is a crime.

Thatmainchick said...

via Google+
i think sometimes it comes down to jealousy. They say when you are at the top of your game thats when people come out of nowhere and want to do things to make you fail. I know I've seen and heard rumors of peoples work being trolled on websites like ebay and etsy and getting reported so that their work gets removed. I say look at this as a complement. Obviously the person is feeling threatened by your personal growth and success. So much so that he is making it his business to try and make you stop what you are doing. I cant blame store envy they are just protecting themselves. Copyright infringement is a very real thing to be worried about cause even if a big company might not be worried about what you companies hosting the art on the other hand may be more at risk.

Maybe this is also an indication that you should expand your subject matter outside of movie art and fan art. Rethink your approach and find new ideas to develop that no one can go against. create your own characters and make a store and sell paintings featuring them. Find ways to make your fan base appreciate and love them just as much as they love anything else you do. Like dean yeagle has done with his character mandy. It will be refreshing for you and something that can be added to your talent that brands you as an artist. dont let this discourage or frustrate you. let it fuel you and let this person that is mad cause they dont like what you create sit back and be even more mad when they see how successful your work can be regardless of what you create. After all is not about the subject matter its about creating amazing art and sharing it with others.

darkblitzrz8 said...

I do not see this as a bad thing. I think this is most likely a sign, a time for you to paint draw something new ... create something new . people love your artwork already not because the movie that inspired the art but , its the art it self i guarantee if you have a different out look and dig deep into your self you will find and pull out some amazing creative paintings

Trina McCoy said...

via Facebook
Solo sorry!

etheangel2220 said...

+Jeff Lafferty
Looks like you will have to open up another store and keep going until they shut you down again.
...I dont know how I feel about that guy contacting you. If he has a point about having to pay a licensing fee for what he does, then it would seem unfair that you are doing the same thing but you dont have to pay the fees...That is not to say that you cant paint what you like. I say you should be able to paint whatever you please, but if you are selling work using characters from established franchises, in which an official process exist to be licensed to profit from those characters, then that is where I make the distinction. In the end though, I think it is quite petty for this other artist to go out of his way to report you, and I have the same opinion that the artist with the stronger work will sell more in the end, but if he has the legal right to report you then there isnt much you can do.

My only question is why not just create original characters/content? You are a great artist and your work can definitely stand on its own without having to rely on these pop-characters.

Jonathan Myers said...

via Facebook
Jeff- that truly sucks. I think my store got shut down too. You are super talented and your original art- especially fantasy art is topnotch like Mark Raats stated. I'll bet my bottom dollar you can succeed doing original illustrative work no problem. I plan on following that precise path too. You are a talent that transcends licensed art.

Jeff Lafferty said...

via Facebook
That sucks about your store Jonathan, I hope I didn't bring unnecessary attention to you and others in this group, if I did I'm sorry guys

Andrew Jones said...

via Google+
+Jeromy Taylor Yes, but what Mad Magazine does is protected by parody law, which is a whole other quagmire.

marcos pereira said...

via Google+
+Jeff Lafferty fair enough.

Jonathan Myers said...

via Facebook
Don't sweat it Jeff. I'm going to focus primarily on original illustration going forward. You're so damn good at illustration anyways. I kept thinking- man, why isn't this guy illustrating for Tor, Bantam, Wandering star etc. Your skills are wonderful and I love your talent. I could care if its Bilbo Baggins quite frankly. Helluva lot cooler seeing a Lafferty Minotaur or Pegasus. Excited to see what your next painting is bud.

Eli Camacho said...

via Google+
Wait since when was it possible to get a license to be the only person exclusively to draw fan art for a franchise?? Last time I checked everyone made fan art of everything and I've never heard anything like that...This sucks man...I pray you get through this...I'm also an artist trying to make a name for myself so I know stuff like this really sucks.

RevoRobotica-Liam said...

via DeviantArt
If it's really an issue, obtaining the license is not terribly difficult. Every company has a licensing department that is willing to work with talented artists, and your work is amazing enough to be approved. Honestly, the artist challenging you should have simply put you in contact with his Licensor, instead of propagating an internet flame war.

Good luck man, licensing is not as complicated an issue as people would like to believe.

The-Dude-L-Bug said...

via DeviantArt
If you were directly copying his style,
or were portraying the figures in some defaming or malicious manner,
or your sales rivaled his, I could possibly see some basis for it...
but your art is amazing in appearance, limited in production & price.
It only increases the fans desire for the characters.

It's all about control. Such reactions seem to be especially common when they aren't the original creator of the character; they are "privileged" and want no interference with their own profit.

Sadly it will only get worse.
DNA is "patentable" and the PTB rush headlong to nanotech inserted modifications...
it's only a matter of time before "infringement" makes illegal to even draw the flowers.

Rod Pereira said...

Ow man, WTF. This is so ridiculous. You shouldn't stop man, search other ways to keep selling your art. Don't Stop man, don't stop.

Johannes Vick said...

LINKED COMMENT
I am so upset for you over this.

Peter Palmiotti said...

via Google+
That's crazy! Its weird that we just talked about fan art the other week, I know you can find your way around this and its only a slight setback. Rooting for you man, don't let this stop you.

Steve Mitchell said...

via facebook
Thanks Mark Raats. Very helpful. I knew most of this but its not popular to post. Our IP as artists ends when it takes from someone else's IP. Like it or not. Precisely why I stay away from entertainment art as a resale-able print product. Entertainment art based on known characters is popular because the studios have spent millions to make them popular. Its their IP. Its a lot harder to make money by creating and selling art of original characters no one has heard of.

From my understanding though, a celebrity likeness (or any person's likeness) is fair game for art and even art prints, if sketched on location, taken from photos you take yourself in public or is derived from multiple reference photos taken by someone else in public (not an identifiable copy of another photographer's or artist's work in other words). However, it must be art for art's sake. If you use that likeness to promote another product or advertising of that product then that fails the use test.

However, as you said, use a celebrity image taken directly from an identifiable movie scene (studio IP) or studio promo photo (studio and photographer's IP) in movie costume and full character (more studio IP) try to sell those images and you have a potential problem, especially if your work starts to get noticed and becomes successful. They'll shut you down in a heartbeat without a license.

Brent Naughton said...

via Facebook
Perhaps I am alone in this thought, but I believe the art world could use fewer “eager” hall monitors.

Jesse Cobb said...

via Facebook
You're not alone Brent. I think out of all this, the thing that kills me the most is the other artist turning Jeff in. I know I'm just starting out and I'm not as good as Jeff or Jonathan yet, but I love sketching movie art and comic art. It's what makes me passionate about the idea of doing art full time. To me that's the whole point of art. It's our passion, our beliefs, what makes us happy. We are only alive for so long and to be denied what makes us happy undermines the whole point of living in the first place. We're all unique and beautiful, not some mindless drones. It makes me so mad when someone is told they can't sketch something. So I say sketch whatever you want and be happy. You may have to keep it on the down low, but they can't stop it completely. This group may end up becoming a sorta "speak-easy" if they do indeed start trying to shut down fan art. lol.

Steve Mitchell said...

via Facebook
I totally understand the venting and frustration, but he take away for me from Jeff's experience is this... WATCH YOUR BACK! Your only defense is to know the law whether you agree with it or not. Take the time to find out what your rights really are, not what you HOPE they are. The current copyright laws in question go back to 1976. They aren't new. In the end a soapbox declaration won't protect us. Sketching what we want won't usually get us into trouble but making a dime off someone else's Intellectual Property just might. I don't think anybody on this group is interested in turning anyone in, but as Jeff found out, the rats exist and won't go away because we don't like them. Being shut down due to infringement is not a new phenomenon, but since the internet, creators have become more zealous protecting their IP because infringer's have become more zealous in copying it. Is a lot of it ridiculous and overkill?? YOU BET! I had a video removed from Facebook back in 2007. It was made just for friends and family, not for profit, but it included a movie soundtrack as background music. Facebook didn't want it up there just in case it came back on them. I thought it was absurdly over cautious but they still had that right. Its their social network and I agreed to their TOS. They have the right to be a turd and boot me off completely if they want. Fair or not. So BE WARNED! Our feelings of entitlement are irrelevant.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
They may have done a general sweep of people selling prints that are not transformative or derivative. Meaning, it may not have been personal to you guys specifically, and was instead a sweep by Storenvy. I did a quick, not at all in depth, search and I can't find anything like what you guys do, only transformative and derivative type works. I know Etsy does this from time to time.

Of course, if you were told it was reported by the other artist, this post is completely moot

Anthony Hochrein said...

via Facebook
Thanks for the info, Tawny. This raises flags for me- I can HOPE that it wasn't because of getting "ratted out" by that artist.

Jesse Cobb said...

via Facebook
I know a soapbox declaration won't protect us, but I know way too many people that make prints off of movie and comic art that they've made. Hell, I've done it in artist alley at cons. And that is no different than what Jeff does. My point is, if others can get away with it then everyone can. But I agree with the watch you back sentiment. But sadly it shouldn't have to be that way.

Tawny Fritz said...

via Facebook
Unfortunately, that doesn't work with any activity deemed illegal. When driving with the flow of traffic, if you're the one to get pulled over, you're the one to pay the fine. It sucks but it is what it is. I was ignorant to many of these stipulations myself until this very thing happened, so while I'm certainly NOT happy that this happened to Jeff, I am grateful that I now know what the difference between his art and "transformative/derivative" art is. Silver lining, I guess.

I DO hope, Jeff, that you decide to submit your fantasy art to some publications. I'd love to see your art at Spectrum and IlluxCon. I attend both and am part of the fantasy illustration industry, so if you want any info, I am here to chat

Anthony Hochrein said...

via Facebook
I think it's about damn time that Jeff's art was gracing puzzles, posters, plates and everything else. He's too damn GREAT!

Steve Mitchell said...

via Facebook
Understand completely Jesse. I know a ton of em too. Point is, if the original owner of the IP decided to come after them, they're toast. Pure and simple. They're just getting away with it for the time being. The fair IP owners don't mess with small potatoes and in most cases. SOME studios even like the PR they get from fan art. They're the smart ones. Crap, If I were Universal or Warner Bros. I'd be encouraging MORE fan art. However, once you start making substantial bucks off someone else's IP. LOOK OUT!

Jesse Cobb said...

via Facebook
Indeed Steve...indeed. I think we need to get a kickstarter going for a book for Jeff's Fantasy art!