Have you ever downloaded and image and frame it?

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

This may not apply - but - when Syco tried to release the Fergino "Hulk" statue Marvel stopped them - because they own the copyright to the character - even though they had nothing to do with the sculpt that was created.

Yes - but Syco still has copyright in the statue, meaning, Marvel could not just take it and sell it. All they could do is prevent Syco or get money damages.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

I don't follow this logic. That would mean every work of art that was not offered for sale would not be covered by a copyright and the law just does not read that way (nor is it applied that way).

No - you are right - it IS against the law - I am not arguing that point anymore. What I am saying is that the artist is showing a piece on a public site - not offering it up for sale - and not looking for money for it. I think printing it out and hanging it up on your wall to admire is not the same thing as stealing songs that bands are trying to sell - or artists are trying to sell for that matter.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

Yes - but Syco still has copyright in the statue, meaning, Marvel could not just take it and sell it. All they could do is prevent Syco or get money damages.

But they don't have the copyright to the statue - because they don't have the copyright to the character it is of...

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

No - you are right - it IS against the law - I am not arguing that point anymore. What I am saying is that the artist is showing a piece on a public site - not offering it up for sale - and not looking for money for it. I think printing it out and hanging it up on your wall to admire is not the same thing as stealing songs that bands are trying to sell - or artists are trying to sell for that matter.

Sure. And, it's quite possible the artist just wouldn't care and might be flattered by it. And this type of stuff happens all the time with no repercussions coming from it.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

But they don't have the copyright to the statue - because they don't have the copyright to the character it is of...

That's we're it is convoluted. They do not have cr in the character but they do in that 1 representation of it. However, they can not do anything with it and broke the law in creating it.

I will shoot my buddy an email and ask him to confirm this again. I always disagreed with it, but that doesn't mean much.

[ratchet]

It is confusing - because I know what you mean that Marvel cannot take the sculpt and do whatever they want with it without the artists consent and most likely compensation - and same goes for the artists to Marvel - but since the artist cannot do anything with the piece does he own an actual copyright to the piece - or is it considered something else?

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

NOw, at the end of the day, does anyone care? Not likely other than perhaps the artist.

Some copyright owners seem to care.
I imagine it generally comes down to the amount of chutzpa.

[Luminous]

Well, I did some research on this subject since Underdog decided to drop some knowledge on us. It turns out it technically is "illegal". Copying an image for personal use that is protected by Copyright, despite not profiting from such work or claiming it as your own, is illegal...... technically.

I was sure that the Fair Use Doctrine would be under effect in a situation like this. However, despite the fact that fair use is always subject to interpretation, it is still pretty specific (I use that term lightly) about how one may use something that is copyright protected. So if someone decides to print an image for the purpose of displaying it in their own home, it will be up that person to try and claim that it was either done so for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. That's IF you ever need to defend such a claim.

The fact that fair use is subject to interpretation makes this particular example utterly ridiculous to me. I can't imagine it being difficult to claim that the image was printed for one the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention the fact that printing a downloaded image isn't exactly traceable. If artists were really concerned about this sort of thing they wouldn't be openly sharing their work on something like the internet. There are way too many loop holes for anyone, including the government, to give a damn.

Obviously a risk exists if someone decides to print and display an image that is under copyright in their own home. How big is that risk? Well that is up that person. My opinion? It seems practically non existent.

[Nidgit]

I have a question though. Is the artists work automatically protected under copyright law or does the artist have to actively 'copyright' his work.

If I draw a fantastic original sketch (yeah right) and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it, is that an automatic copyright infringement or should I have somehow 'copyrighted' the image.

And if I draw a fantastic sketch of a Marvel character and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it are we both infringing copyright.

And finally, where the f.... have all my socks gone. It seems no matter how many pairs I buy, I never have enough socks

[Bullseye]

Interesting discussion. I got the go ahead from one artist to print a copy for myself but no response from the other as yet.