F@#K Lichtenstein

Posts : 302 Join date : 2012-09-14 Location : Salem, MA

There SHOULD be a workaround, but I'm not positive there is.

One of the tests for "fair use" is whether a derivative work impacts the market for the original work. I don't think Lichtenstein was ever sued, so this was never tested, but he could have made the argument that the fine art galleries where he sold his paintings were a totally separate market from the comic book marketplace. He was not taking away sales from Irv Novick or whoever or their publishers.

Us being comics fans, it's not really credible for us to claim that we are producing homage art work not aimed at the comic book marketplace. Gary Friedrich was selling his prints at conventions, also aimed squarely at the comic book marketplace. Thus giving Marvel a strong case to claim that he was intruding on their territory, and the court agreed.

I don't think that is fair or right, since I strongly feel that Friedrich and other creators should be able to profit from their own creations, but that's the legal landscape we are stuck with today.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

ChrisW wrote:: Probably not. It's a different artist doing it. The law is fine-tuned about those things.

It's not an original idea - or a bad one - that artists should be able to sell prints of their work. I think the first place I saw it was Dave Sim, speculating that older artists - and everybody else, but he was talking about older artists - should be given limited reprint rights, singling out Marie Severin "Aquaman" covers as something that he would immediately open his wallet for, as long as Marie Severin was the one authorized to sell them and profit from her own work.

As far as doing it Lichtenstein-style, then you would run afoul of the hundreds (thousands?) of laws regarding intellectual property that have been written since the Pop Art period and today. Many lawyers were well-paid to think about the toy based on the video game version of the movie that includes specific reference to these comics. Even if it's a dramatic-looking panel, the big companies still have a reason to protect their rights to Unnamed Background Character B shouting "Look! Up in the sky!"

Peter Urkowitz wrote:: There SHOULD be a workaround, but I'm not positive there is....

What about the gallery show in the first post? They did Lichtenstein thing...
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/05/16/dave-gibbons-rian-hughes-garry-leach-and-more-at-image-duplicator-tonights-exhibition-launch-dedicated-to-reappropriating-the-work-of-roy-lichtenstein/

Posts : 342 Join date : 2012-09-23

That seems like an example of what Peter mentioned, the Fine Art market being arguably separate from the comics market, making it harder for comics companies to demonstrate a loss in a case of copyright infringement. Or did you mean a possible case against the Gibbons et al show by the Lichtenstein estate? That would be some stinging irony, wouldn't it?

Anyway, if say Marvel artists blew up some of their panels Lichtenstein-style and sold prints, I think Marvel/Disney would react pretty much as they currently do when their artists operate a such a side business. What I've heard is that in times past Marvel gave pretty much a blind eye to it as long as the operation was kept small. That is, a few prints sold at conventions from a table and nothing featuring their characters in story-form in an actual publication. Convention sketches and commissions of course being 'safe'. There is some expectation that Disney now being the overseer will tighten up these loopholes, they do like to keep their lawyers busy and I'm afraid I just can't see a ' Lichtenstein-defense' working on them. It's not like fairness even enters into the equation!

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

But the counter suit Marvel filed against Gary Friederich proves that the "blind eye" is selective. It was a shot across the bow of evey Golden or Silver Age creator who was even thinking of filing a suit to try and claim any movie money.

Posts : 342 Join date : 2012-09-23

No disagreement there, Joe. No doubt that Disney/Marvel is at their most vigilant in defending copyrights when it comes to movie properties. Just a matter of protecting what is a much bigger pie I guess. The thing is, they could come down on any and all unauthorized visual portrayals of their characters. That is something all the artists in convention's artist alley depend on. Not me though, I'm not fast enough for it. So far, there's been a tacit understanding that it's okay and that will probably continue, but I don't think I'd sleep well knowing a portion of my livelihood depended on Disney deciding NOT to litigate.

I guess they could always put a word balloon in every sketch of a Marvel character having him/her say, " Good thing, I'm a parody!"

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

I'm sure they want the practice to continue, it gives them a legal recourse in case of anyone misbehaves.

Posts : 342 Join date : 2012-09-23

DisneyCorp's quest for domination will be satisfied someday.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

From Bleeding Cool...

"It seems Image Duplicator has got people talking … The private view, attended by a number of artists including co-curators Rian Hughes & Jason Atomic, Dave Gibbons, Garry Leach, Steve Cook, DJ Food, Robin Barnard and friends, has been covered extensively, and people can’t get enough of the ongoing discussion about Lichtenstein and his work..."

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/09/orbiting-roy-lichtenstein/

Posts : 302 Join date : 2012-09-14 Location : Salem, MA

That'll teach me not to click on first post links! (Maybe.)

Fascinating project, that whole show!

It doesn't look like any of the comics companies would have much to complain about there, though who knows these days? Ed and Joe, you are probably right that as long as none of the creators are suing the big companies, the companies will leave them alone on relatively small projects like this. But it could all come up if anyone ever needed to go to court.

Posts : 343 Join date : 2012-10-04 Location : Ohio

It looks like Disney doesn't always get everything they want...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/ghost-rider-lawsuit-held-court-gary-friedrich-sues-marvel_n_3423051.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

Posts : 560 Join date : 2012-09-13 Age : 46

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/21/swipe-file-a-very-mean-fish/

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Quote :: Husband and wife team, Matthew and Louise Judd, are now back at the markets after downsizing and reinventing the business, and are feeling reinvigorated with a new range of original art on canvas inspired by the Graphic novels and Comics of the 1950′s, and Pop Art of the 1960′s. “We do this because we love it,” said Matthew

First off, some of that stuff was from more recent art than the 1950′s, and 1960′s, not that the dates they gave should matter, unless the images have fallen into PD, there are some Jim Lee, Mike Deodato, Paul Dini, Steranko...

“We do this because we love it,” said Matthew, and not for the money at all!

Does anyone know what they charge for stuff like that?

Their site was down I think, ( http://www.meanfishdesign.com.au/ ).

Hell, I could do that. I have a projector and I paint very fast. What a bunch of shit.

Here are some less obvious stuff,
http://obdm.com.au/stallholders/mean-fish-design/

Posts : 343 Join date : 2012-10-04 Location : Ohio

Joe Lee wrote:: Their site was down I think, ( http://www.meanfishdesign.com.au/ ).

Maybe the lawyers got to them. affraid

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Dude, your avatar would make an awesome painting.

Posts : 560 Join date : 2012-09-13 Age : 46

So what about in the case of commissioned art from a fan, and the client wants the artist to emulate a cover they like but add their likeness to it? Would that be listed as an homage or pass the smell test if the artist, put "artists name" /original artists or "artists name after original artist" to awknowledge the source?

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

I think "awknowledge the source" makes you a better person, admitting the swipe as it were. But I think it may put you in a worse position legally. Just a guess.

I've seen some examples of people doing it though, recreating covers.

One way around it might be to do the "two-minutes later" thing. Have you ever seen where a guy will do a reproduction of a cover but it's as if it was two minutes later, so the scene has progressed a little. It's not the same exact composition. But it can be pretty cool. Very dramatic. And you aren't exactly lichtensteining anything, you have to "awknowledge the source" it's part of the point, so you get to pay homage without directly tracing anything or doing anything wrong, well, other than using company owned characters. I think they printed a bunch of those two-minutes later commissions in Alter Ego magazine.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Speaking of copyright violations...

http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2011/08/pissing-calvin-decals-miss-the-point-a-rant/

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Now this is cool...

http://hiconsumption.com/2013/04/the-secret-life-of-superheroes-series-part-2/?utm_source=scribol.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol.com

Posts : 343 Join date : 2012-10-04 Location : Ohio

Sorry for the bump, but it's worth it!

"Victim of Lichtenstein's Copying Draws A Comic About His Experience"
http://io9.com/victim-of-lichtensteins-copying-draws-a-comic-about-his-1657963941

Posts : 39 Join date : 2013-12-18

Yep, totally worth it.