Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

:iconseangordonmurphy: More from seangordonmurphy


More from deviantART



Details

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

Stats

Views
50,509 (4 today)
Favourites
86 (who?)
Comments
278
×
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:
 
:iconalien18jp:
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 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:
Thanks for clearing that up ;-) I thought it was a bit strange because the concept is pretty much the same. 
Reply
:iconsouless311:
Souless311 Nov 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
no problem

Reply
:iconactivoid:
Activoid Aug 6, 2013  Student 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 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 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:
No, it's just my personal thing from now on.
Reply
:iconlordchirayoju:
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:
I know this was about Marvel and Dc, but...

[link]


Hasbro has banned all non Hasbro artists from selling Transformers sketches at BotCon
Reply
Add a Comment: