Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Regarding the debate of whether comic artists should continue selling unauthorized prints/sketches of characters they don't own, I think Bissette and his legal advisor are 100% correct.  So from now on, I won't be doing any sketches or commissions at shows of any character that I don't own.  Am I rolling over in fear of Marvel?  Maybe, but as it states below, they're in their legal right to come after me if there's ever a dispute.  I love to complain about the Big Two, but I can't (in good conscience) get upset at them if I'm breaking the rules myself.  Being DC exclusive, maybe I can get a waiver that allows me to sketch DC characters, so I'll keep you updated.

From Steve Bissette's FB page:

ALERT, ALL COMICS CREATORS: With permission, I'm quoting key points my dear friend and own legal advisor/contract consultant (since 1992) Jean-Marc Lofficier raised on his posts to a Yahoo forum discussing Ty Templeton's cartoon concerning the Gary Friedrich v Marvel judgment. Jean-Marc succinctly notes WHY this judgment has changed EVERYTHING for anyone who has worked for Marvel, or what this judgment changes (probably irrevocably) about the landscape for all concerned:

"...with all due respect to Ty, he's talking (drawing?) out of his ass.

So to clarify again, here is what I thought is important to remember here:

1) This is the first time Marvel is using convention sales of copyrighted Marvel characters as a "weapon". They are of course perfectly entitled to do so, legally speaking. But it does mean that, from now on, all of you here who draw sketches of Marvel characters for money at conventions or sell sketchbooks containing pictures of Marvel characters are on notice that you might be sued (usually for triple the amount you made) should Marvel decide to go after you.

My legal advice to you guys is simple: STOP and destroy all sketchbooks for sale with copyrighted materials in it. I'm serious. You've just been put on notice by this case.

[Note: In a followup comment to a question on the matter of selling sketches/sketchbooks at conventions featuring Marvel characters, Jean-Marc added:]

If Disney and/or Marvel have a policy to deal with that sort of business, I would encourage anyone planning to sell sketches, etc. to contact them and obtain a waiver or a permission of some kind under that program.

Ivan is incorrect about one thing: Disney, if not Marvel, does have a full office staffed with para legals of young lawyers whose only job is to look for copyright/tm infringements and send C&D (cease & desist) letters. I have seen them. They don't do it for the money or to be a pain the the ass, they do it based on the legal theory that if you don't actively protect your (c)/tm, you run the risk of it being used against you as an affirmative defense in an infringement case.

Based on the GHOST RIDER case, it is, in my opinion, only a matter of time until Disney, now aware of the issue, sends one of their young attorneys with a stash of blank C&D letters at conventions and start handing them out to everyone selling Marvel sketches without authorization.

Receiving that letter will oblige you to hire a lawyer and even if Disney lets you off the hook (which they probably will), you might be out of a couple of grands by the time the process is over -- or you run the risk of being stuck with a $15K bill if you fight them.

Again, I emphasize: this is sound business practice for Disney; NOT doing it entails risks far greater than doing it. They have gone after children's nurseries before which had Mickey painted on their walls for the same exact legal reason. And that was far more time consuming and bad PR-wise that going after some comic book guys at artist's alleys.

It is only a matter of time.

So if they have a waiver/permission program as Ivan says, join it; if not, stop.

[Back to Jean-Marc's original, full post:]

2) Although there never was any serious dispute that Marvel owned whatever share of GR Gary Friedrich was claiming (personally, I'm not a mind reader but I think Friedrich was hoping for some kind of settlement), there remains two legal issues that Ty obviously didn't grasp:

2.1) When Moebius drew his SILVER SURFER with Stan Lee, he got royalties and he was still getting them when Starwatcher split in 2000. You will note that modern-day WFH agreements spell out that the money you're getting will be the sole compensation you will ever receive and you're not entitled to anything else. It is spelled out because if it is not, courts are at liberty to interpret the contract and decide whether or not you should be gettong something extra.

The back-of-the-check contract signed by Gary did transfer ownership of GR to Marvel, and the amount of that check was the consideration for publishing rights, but nowhere did it actually state (as it does today) that it was the ONLY consideration to which Gary might be entitled in the event of a film or a TV series. The Court could have easily decided that on the absence of that clause, Gary was owed something.

2.2.) There is a famous case about singer Peggy Lee who won her suit against Disney for their reuse of her songs in LADY & THE TRAMP on video, because that medium didn't exist when she signed her original agreement with the Mouse, and contracts at that time didn't specify the now standard "and other media to be invented in the future". The Court chose to interpret that lack of specificity in favor of Peggy Lee. When Marvel sold the rights to GR to the studio which produced it, they likely sold the video, DVD and game rights. These media did not exist when Friedrich signed his back of the check contract which did not list any and all future media. Therefore, based on the Peggy Lee case, the Court could have found that Marvel didn't own those rights, and therefore couldn't resell them, or, as in the Peggy Lee case, simply that they owe the plaintiff some kind of percentage, that's all.

So it remains my contention that Marvel owes "something" to Friedrich (and Ploog as well) based not on the publishing, but purely on the disposition of the multimedia rights to GR. That the Judge decided otherwise is a tough break for creators, and unjust.

3) Which brings me to my next point, which is that documentary standards are being unfairly applied throughout the judicial system, and somehow mistakes always seem to favor the corporations, not the small guy. The enforceability of a contract depends on accurate documentation which must be produced in Court. If you have a mortgage, but the bank cannot produce your properly signed promissory note, then the court has the possibility of nullifying your mortgage. It's happened in a few rare cases, but more often than not, people have been thrown out of their homes despite banks being unable to produce a properly signed note.

In this case, has any of you seen the back of the check signed by Friedrich?
Was that check properly endorsed? Was there anything crossed out? Why should mistakes in documentation automatically benefit the corporations, and the little guy should be held to standards of evidence that the companies themselves don't respect? Why did the Judge assume that the paperwork was in order & automatically benefited Marvel? What I'm saying is, if people can lose their homes despite proper paperwork, well, then, Marvel could lose GR despite its paperwork. It's up to the Court.

So whether or not you feel any sympathy for Gary and his cause, this is another loss for the Little Guy which, in the greater scheme of things, impacts all of us."

SPREAD THE WORD. SPREAD THIS LINK.

And QUIT doing, creating, selling ANY sketches or sketchbooks or prints featuring Marvel/Disney characters, IMMEDIATELY. And let fans know WHY you are no longer doing them, and/or CANNOT do them ever again.
  • Listening to: Charlie Rose
  • Reading: Trotsky
  • Watching: Top Gear UK
Add a Comment:
 
:iconartmin44:
artmin44 Featured By Owner Edited Jun 30, 2015
I would be surprised if Marvel went after any artist, it's a win win trade off, artist make a bit of extra cash and Marvel get their characters exposed/advertised to fans, old and new, costing them nothing. imagine if they did, DC popularity among fans would sour if they said, No problem!! and thanks, I would love artist at every con to make money selling images of my universe, you can't buy that level of creator/publisher/fan unity you have to foster and grow it.    
Reply
:iconsurfaceart:
SURFACEART Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2015  Professional Artist
pretty much sucks if you are a small time artist-but I am not surprised at all by this news, I have been doing it for years-drawing sketches and making prints of established characters that are not my own -haven't been told once by either convention or company to stop-hell-I haven't even been approached. I understand where they are coming from, I am myself an independent creator and willing to protect my properties but I would be honored if artists were drawing my characters as long as credit is given and that the creations aren't pornographic in nature-it further exposes the character to the public and in turn increases their popularity....But Disney is Disney! :/
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
I don't even do any moeny buisness on my art.
Reply
:iconrobomommy:
RoboMommy Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Probably Marvel and Disney fanarts and fanstories find a better place in the personal diaries we keep under the pillow.
Reply
:iconrobomommy:
RoboMommy Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Gladly, the director of Disney's Wreck-It Ralph appreciates fanarts and we got him a scrapbook for Christmas last year. Wish there were more people like him.
Reply
:iconalien18jp:
alien18jp Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2013
Great post. But I dont get why people like singers or bands can do cover versions in pubs clubs or whatever and thats ok? Same principle. Making cash from other peoples creations.
Reply
:iconsouless311:
Souless311 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Venues are supposed to and are responsible for paying fees to the ASCAP for those artist to perform those covers.
Reply
:iconalien18jp:
alien18jp Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013
Thanks for clearing that up ;-) I thought it was a bit strange because the concept is pretty much the same. 
Reply
:iconsouless311:
Souless311 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
no problem

Reply
:iconactivoid:
Activoid Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2013  Professional Filmographer
Wow, horrifying and sad. But I'm glad I read this.

I guess if I had a bunch of people drawing my characters and selling them on prints for cash, I'd probably try to take action, too. But it's just a shame that it's a mega-corporation with an endless supply of money (or so it seems) and resources that's doing it, not individual artists or even a small collaboration of artists. What a shame.

Also, for people who have sketches in their sketchbooks that happen to have characters that are property of Marvel/Disney, people don't have to destroy the sketchbooks or anything like that (only assuming there is very little copyrighted material in there), but they could just tear the pages out instead and leave the original works. Or maybe that's just common sense.

What really gets me, though, is not being able to draw commissions for other people at conventions anymore. I mean, I guess you could draw private commissions for people, because fuck the internet police, but making them publicly known is going to be a thing of the past. That's really too bad. NOW what are artists going to draw for quick cash at conventions? Original art? People rarely care for that shit, if they're at a convention. Rarely.

Maybe makers of Disney/Marvel fanart will have to turn to the black market for business, selling their art alongside heroin, cocaine, and illegal weaponry. Haha, kidding, of course. I just wish the law was.

Thanks again for sharing.
Reply
:icondreamerwstcoast:
Dreamerwstcoast Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2013   Traditional Artist
I remember commenting on this topic a few years ago, and it was brought to my attention, that there is a universe of "Public Domain" characters of there. Any artist could fill their sketch books, digital portfolio with and nobody could do anything. Being creative people you could do your own rendition of Tarzan, and that likeness would be yours. You could reprint that sucker as much as you want. Because it would be "Your Original Work". Not Tarzan, but the image of the character would be yours.
[link]
[link]
Try them. be creative. And do what you can to stop making characters, that we don't own and don't get paid for, more popular.
Reply
:iconartofsw:
artofsw Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
So does that mean, all the pros who sell prints at cons have to stop too? I would think a person who walks up to jim lee and says, can you draw me a ninja turtle would have to be dissappointed when jim lee says, sorry I cant draw that. lol
Reply
:iconseangordonmurphy:
seangordonmurphy Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2013
No, it's just my personal thing from now on.
Reply
:iconlordchirayoju:
LordChirayoju Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2012
Very well put. It's interesting for me to compare with the scene in Japan, where sketches, prints and yes, fancomics based on official series are allowed and a staple in conventions, mostly because they seem to make to make the original comics more popular. Had this happen in Japan on a wide scale, the fans would have boycotted the publishers, since most artists and writers got their break by churning out fancomics. There is only a single case that I could recall where the publisher of Doraemon sued a fancomic artist for publishing his own take of how Doraemon would end, which became a huge sensation among fans that it grabbed their notice.
Reply
:iconpaime77:
paime77 Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2012
I know this was about Marvel and Dc, but...

[link]


Hasbro has banned all non Hasbro artists from selling Transformers sketches at BotCon
Reply
:iconyelzamor:
YelZamor Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Aw, then my dreams of Snake are dashed.
Ah well. But you're right, no one needs that potential risk. As someone who has considered sketching at cons, I never felt confident to sell copyrighted character doodles.

You may alternately be asked to do portraits (as my colleague did last weekend at the LSCC)... he considered charging higher for those because they are trickier and more annoying to do.
Reply
:iconalexcruz:
alexcruz Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2012
My opinion of his position in the case Gary Friedrich vs. Marvel Enterprises: [link]
Reply
:iconhi-rez95:
HI-REZ95 Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
well, im gonna keep drawing stuff i dont own, because isnt that my right so long as i dont sell it?
sheesh, so much much butthurt these big companies go though now :/
Reply
:iconwgpencil:
wgpencil Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2012
I wonder if they will ask artists to stop drawing his characters and putting in o deviantart or blogs or sites...
Reply
:iconbrycedius:
Brycedius Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2012
thank for the info, thats was really informative. I will buy original work from you.







side note.
Its a shame that in the movie and in comics now a days that there's not much creativity from the big names. new character designs..but same story, and sometimes they go back and to the 70's and 60's and redo those stories. I ready for Original work again
Reply
:iconh4lfm4d:
H4LfM4d Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012   General Artist
I was curious about the legality of selling art like this. now i know, and knowing is half the... wait is that a copyrighted catch phrase that almost tumbled off my fingertips?
Reply
:iconquarterstonecomics:
QuarterstoneComics Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012
This will irrevocably change and harm the medium. I've always felt copyright strangled many promising developments and avenues in the medium. Now Marvel will be swallowing and regurgitating it's own saliva for the next 20 years.
Reply
:iconyelzamor:
YelZamor Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Lol. Now that's a metaphor and a half!
Reply
:iconhallowgazer:
HallowGazer Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you for a very informative journal.
It also helped getting a new light on why big companies are in for suing people who are drawing their characters.

But to make sure I got this right: The issue only arrises as long as people are taking money for drawing these copyrighted characters (respectively, if they're making any form a profit from it).
No harm in sketching out requests for free, right?
If so, I still don't fully get the picture how Disney went after painted walls in children's nurseries.
Reply
:iconred5-1138:
red5-1138 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
Sean,
With all due respect, I love your artwork and enjoy reading your journal posts. But you really got everyone's panties in a bunch with this one. It seems that you prematurely hit the panic button with this issue. The top brass at marvel are saying that the Friedrich lawsuit was a one-off and does not signify any new policy to go after artists who produce sketches of their characters at conventions. After all, it was Friedrich who sued Marvel in the first place. The lawsuit began 5 years ago, before The Mouse ever bought Marvel.

Here's what Joe Quesada and Dan Buckley had to say:

Joe Quesada:
Let me put this as simply as I can: Marvel is not looking to make any new policy announcements through this lawsuit — a lawsuit that began five years ago.
As a case in point, the Internet and the creative community became incredibly concerned when Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, thinking that Marvel now wouldn’t return original art to its artists, even despite my publicly stating the contrary. As you can see, that was unfounded.
Dan Buckley:
We in no way want to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans. We want fans to speak and interact with the creators who wrote, penciled, inked, lettered, colored or edited their favorite stories. Part of that positive interaction is that a fan can walk away with a signed memento or personalized sketch from an artist.
Reply
:iconquarterstonecomics:
QuarterstoneComics Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012
Marvel/Disney got petty about it. Their aim was to make a point. The point WAS made and it was understood. Of course the brass at the top aren't going to admit anything. come on man.
Reply
:iconred5-1138:
red5-1138 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012
Sure, you could say that Marvel "got petty about it." But let's keep in mind that Friedrich wasn't just simply selling original sketches or limited prints of his own original sketches. He was actually selling reproductions of previously published artwork by Marvel. Hell, it wasn't even reproductions of his own artwork that been previously published. This was artwork by other artists. If Marvel wanted to send a message to artists at conventions regarding sketches and limited prints, then they would have started sending out C&D letters 5 years ago, when they counter-sued Friedrich. They didn't need to wait 5 years for a protracted and expensive court battle to stop artists from selling sketches. They could have even sued the conventions for promoting and allowing the practice to continue.

A little paranoia goes a long way. Rumor and conjecture spread like wildfire across the internet. Some people have already started deleting posts of their original artwork from their DA galleries over fear that Marvel is suddenly going to descend upon them with an army of lawyers to sue for every penny they've got and their first born child. Everyone needs to simmer down a bit. The sky isn't falling. If Marvel wanted to end the practice of selling original sketches, then they would have done a hell of a lot more than counter-sue Friedrich 5 years ago.
Reply
:iconthe-benshaw:
The-BenShaw Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
You are right but the fact that Marvel was in legal battle with Friedrich and won sets a very dangerous precedent that they "could". Also setting up other companies like DC or Devil's Due or Boom studios etc.....whoever owns the rights could make cases and Marvel paved the way. I agree that they probably won't but it's the door of possibility which has been swung open is what's dangerous.
Reply
:iconping-tiao:
Ping-Tiao Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
I am not going to quit taking commissions for copyrighted characters. My commissions are sometimes for pictures of loved ones, but most often people want me to draw a comic or cartoon character. I'm a starving artist and every dollar counts! Right now I'm drawing Maleficent, a Disney character, for $50. That $50 determines if I can have electricity AND food this week, but without it I might have to choose between the two. I don't think Disney can enforce this policy 100% of the time and I probably have nothing to worry about, but if for some reason I get on their radar I may find myself choosing between homelessness or getting a fulltime job and putting my art supplies on the shelf.

I like your work Sean and I'm glad you're getting paid for it. You can afford to obey Marvel right now, but many can not. If Marvel/Disney wants to come after me for drawing their characters, I will let them. I have no money they can get out of me, but I do have an internet connection and some media savvy friends to run their name through the mud with. Fear isn't something I ever let stop me in my artistic endeavors and I'm not about to start now. I've been drawing copyrighted characters for money since grade school and I'm not about to stop. When people commission work from me it's because they like my art. They could get a picture of Maleficent elsewhere, but they came to me for it because they like MY art and would like to see how I interpret the character of their choice.

Where I draw the line is with unauthorized merchandise and other objects. I don't plan on making my own Maleficent comics, not making prints, not making tshirts or toys or any of that stuff. I draw the line at mechanical mass reproduction. Nobody is going to tell me what the fuck I can and can not draw though!

I'm sorry that you are a blip on the radar that could get lawyer missiles launched at. This is a goddamned unfortunate situation, but this is the kind of crap people feared Disney would do when they bought Marvel, and Disney made all these fears come true.
Reply
:iconseangordonmurphy:
seangordonmurphy Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012
I respect your decision. Good luck and be careful though. :)
Reply
:iconquarterstonecomics:
QuarterstoneComics Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2012
I wouldn't be admitting you do these commissions where it's documented friend. [link]
Reply
:iconlevel-3:
level-3 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
This is very informative stuff! I'm spreading it now!
Reply
:icongabrielgavina:
gabrielgavina Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
I see the shadow of a mouse. It's hughe, and long. Be afraid of the mouse!
Reply
:iconfoxberrystudios:
foxberrystudios Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012  Student General Artist
:iconthisplz:
Reply
:icongaltharllin:
Galtharllin Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
sorry, I meant I agree
Reply
:icongaltharllin:
Galtharllin Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
I gree!
Reply
:iconhoytsilva:
HoytSilva Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
[link] i think this article might clear up quite a few questions we all had about the outcome of the litigation.
Reply
:iconcinexploits:
Cinexploits Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
In a related note and speaking to the future, I received an email from Chris Ecker and Gary Carlson of Big Bang Comics this morning, and we’ve been discussing what we could do to a) help Gary Friedrich out, b) set up a way for artists to be able to draw licensed material at conventions and c) promote the heck out of the idea of comics people taking care of our own.

We’ve yet to work out all of the details (we only started this morning), but in the near future Big Bang Comics and Pulp 2.0 Press will offer artists the opportunity to purchase a license so they will be able to freely draw Big Bang trademarked characters at conventions for a year. 100% of this small fee will go directly toward helping Gary Friedrich out, and then the rest will be funneled into the Hero Initiative and / or other charitable organizations that serve our comics community.

We hope other indie companies will come on board with us and license their characters to artists to use for convention sketching. Pulp 2.0 is a small outfit, and like other indie companies and individuals we wouldn’t be where we are without the help of friends, mentors and community. It’s time we used that philosophy to take care of our own and set the stage for the future where we work together.

As I said earlier, Gary and Chris just started this idea this morning so we have a lot of work to do yet. There are a lot of details to work out, but I am excited at what this promises for our community – support for creators who need it, the establishment of a system for making sketches “legal” at conventions and a greater sense of purpose.

I’ll keep you posted.
Reply
:iconlittlebunnyelite:
LittleBunnyElite Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012  Professional Photographer
so basically, you're saying I have to through my entire gallery and delete works I just drew for fun?
Reply
:iconseangordonmurphy:
seangordonmurphy Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
Do what you want...probably you're fine.
Reply
:icon10th-letter:
10th-letter Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
Obviously not. You drew them for fun, not to sell them.
Reply
:iconharley00:
harley00 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
i didnt read through the entire convo but a fellow d.a member put up a link for this its worth a read [link]
Reply
:icontrinivee:
Trinivee Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012   General Artist
Hey, just bringing this to your attention; I don't know if you've already read this interview;You can read the full thing at: [link]

Joe Quesada:
Let me put this as simply as I can: Marvel is not looking to make any new policy announcements through this lawsuit — a lawsuit that began five years ago.
As a case in point, the Internet and the creative community became incredibly concerned when Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, thinking that Marvel now wouldn’t return original art to its artists, even despite my publicly stating the contrary. As you can see, that was unfounded.
Dan Buckley:
We in no way want to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans. We want fans to speak and interact with the creators who wrote, penciled, inked, lettered, colored or edited their favorite stories. Part of that positive interaction is that a fan can walk away with a signed memento or personalized sketch from an artist.
Reply
:iconplummypress:
PlummyPress Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012  Student Filmographer
Maybe this will make the general convention-attending public more open to creator owned, small press, indy work.
Reply
:icondavidvart:
DavidVArt Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I spoke to Stephen right after he published this. And its truly one of the very few truly informed and intelligent explanations out right now. As I was telling him, if people do a little digging, this very thing is Disney's M.O. They went after the creator of Darkwing Duck for doing paintings and prints and con sketches. Yes con sketches. That lawsuit is one that helped rewrite the return of copyrights to creators. Disney sued him and eventually paid enough and fought enough to have the laws favor the corporations. I'm like you Sean, I can't bitch at them if I break the rules and I can't be mad at them for running their business and protecting what they've paid for. Whether what they paid was fair or not, it was agreed upon at the time by those involved. But we as creators have to be more well informed. The comic industry is used to functioning on misinformation and hearsay and we just can't do that anymore. We have to search out the truth and do our history checking. Otherwise we could end up in serious trouble. People saying that Marvel produces sketch covers to entrap artists, that's the type of silliness that we just can't tolerate. So thanks for posting this. It was an amazingly intelligent and factual article and the word needs to be spread for sure. Thanks again. And stop being so damned awesome. :D
Reply
:iconseangordonmurphy:
seangordonmurphy Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012
Wow I'm checking into that darkwing duck thing! Thanks for the tip.
Reply
:icondavidvart:
DavidVArt Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Sure thing!! I was actually wrong. It was the creator of Scrooge McDuck. His name was Carl Barks. Check it out though. Its VERY similar to this case in a lot of ways.
Reply
:iconmdavidct:
mdavidct Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
i think this help to get things clear and know all the case and not the sell news that was published [link]
Reply
:iconpaime77:
paime77 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012
Next they'll start going after people who use Marvel characters for their deviantart avatars

j/k
Reply
:iconcarlpearce:
CarlPearce Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2012  Professional
Bollocks to Marvel. I'm so sick and tired of their corporate bullshit. I don't even buy their comics anymore. After 20+ years they just pissed me off too much.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconseangordonmurphy: More from seangordonmurphy


Featured in Collections

Journals by HallowGazer

Articles by legrosclown

Journals by JDWasabi


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
February 14, 2012
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
57,736
Favourites
95 (who?)
Comments
283
×