I think it will be ok to be honest, it's not for a commerical project currently and it kind of illustrates a room that I grew up in so its kind of a historical thing that actually happened.
the majority of the room does not refer to the items they just help explain the narrative. not sure f that would come under fair useage or not.
I am not claiming to have made all the items or invented them
mainly the comics are 2000 ad , warlord and some 'mad', and 'cracked' magazines + posters
guess so, its more of a folio/personal piece, but will probably post it online., so ot could still be an issue
a lot of my work these days features real world signs/items ,so really I will have to look in to this more.
It's like you are not allowed to illustrate things that actually exist , just because a company owns it?( I guess not)
if you made a 3d model of the louvre for example, could you not include any of the exhibits inside, because they are in a way a commerical item, not sure really
yes 'really,' poopipe you were being a bit provocative when you used the term 'stealing' . could have just said it was not allowed
I consider it more to be more fan art really and it can be a grey area as you well know. I have modelled an 3d object of a comic book/poster and placed it in my scene. The scene is the main focus here, the objects are from real world and incidental.
I mean does that you cannot model a walkman and place it in your scene?
There was a big hoo ha a few years ago when people were doing spiderman 3d models on PC
and that legendary star wars mod which got taken down, not sure if they let him do it in the end
EDIT, i think there might be a distinction about 'objects' for example, if I made a 3d model of a mug with star wars written on it, is that a copyright issue?, but if I copied a star wars poster in pen and ink and tried to sell it , then that would surely be 'theft' or maybe fan art ha ha
if anyone has an expert opinion in this I would be grateful
This piece was interesting, but seems that if in doubt do not use anytihng, which is shame unless you have a good lawyer
seems that 'fair use' is a not really a thing that is easily interpreted. There is a guy on you tube who does music stuff and teaches guitar technique, but his stuff has been taken down by you tube ,
because he shows clips of the performers. Without a lot of money/lawyers fees he is screwed really
Not an expert, but from my layman learnings, fan art is indeed a very grey weird area to navigate. For example a person who seeks too honor a recognized copy written work by creating something derivative, would enjoy less protection than if an artist decides to create an insulting parody of it...go figure!
cheers scaboi, it does seems really that i should stay clear of this whole area in future( mafter reading the links). this current piece was just a bit of fun, but other pieces not
in my scene I have loads of comic books that i modelled, but textured with real scans/[pics + posters, so its in a certain context, but still seems that maybe i can't do it. The piece ws supposed to show how mcuh I valued these comics growing up as part of the narrative/nostalgia thing. All the comics/posters are from late 1970s early 1980s
I could contact the authors/artists, but they proabably have better things to do
"[...]but they proabably have better things to do"
In my opinion when all said and done, highly unlikely someone will bother shooting off a cease and desist letter as you already rightly put it above so go ahead upload the scene - just use the fan art label.
(As another 2000AD fan, cool idea for your project btw. actually have newsprint copies that smudged your fingers with ink, bought when still at high school in 1979 )
yeah will probably just make the comics less prominent or something
I have also put in a an' evel kneivel' box there as well, but that could be are worse as they can be quite litigious + will have an action man( GI joe in the US)
The weird thing is that all the comics I have are now yellow with age. I have one copy of 2000 ad and Starlord from 1979, it's almost disinegrating but since in my scene they are supposed to be brand new, it could be tough
The comics in my scene are newsprint versions, not re issues. I still have about 200 copies ( mostly in the shed still)
also inluding these, me and my brother used to own this particular one back in about 1972 lol
yes 'really,' poopipe you were being a bit provocative when you used the term 'stealing' .
That's fair
One of those situations where written words don't carry the same inflections as if I'd said it using my mouth. So - apologies.
I'll preface the next bit with ... None of this would stop me doing what you intend to do. Also not a lawyer.
As an alternative to your Walkman example (I've never had to deal with a Walkman or Sony ) most car manufacturers are particularly sensitive about certain aspects of their vehicle design(eg.the grille) but care a lot less about the rest. Provided you change the grille (etc) and don't use their logos/model names you can generally copy a car pretty faithfully. The specifics are unique to each manufacturer of course.
More pertinent to your use case.. I've seen multiple instances where background assets like bottles have been flagged up as a risk by internal lawyers for having the same shape as recognisable brands - even where labels have been changed. These lawyers are of course professionally paranoid and are paid to protect a huge multinational against other huge multinationals so you have to take that with a pinch of salt.
The concern I'd have with using a magazine cover is that you're copying an actual end result - literally taking a picture and using it as a picture. You could (legitimately as far as intent goes) argue that this is documentary in nature if it came up but nobody can tell you which way that would go.
The whole thing is dependent on how litigious the copyright holder is feeling, whether they even notice and very specific nuances of an individual case (basically like UK tax law ) Theres also the matter of precedence - the reason Fox were such dicks about Spiderman fan art is that they felt they'd have a weaker case against (eg) a bootleg Spiderman movie by Disney if they'd let people get away with representing Spiderman in the past.(paranoid corporate lawyers)
My approach personally would be to go ahead with the project and if someone complained I'd make the changes they wanted making.
cheers poopipe, good post, I will just bash on with the project and if i get any cease and desist stuff, will take it from there. my work is currenty not very high profile, so I don't expect any problems in the near future.
seems like a whole legal minefield I would rather not get in to really. Anyway I have suddenly become more in interest in the actual lookdev of the piece, attention span is not very high :0
odd though i feel as though comic books on the floor would not be as problematic as a big poster on the wall
might have to remove all the car logos on my korean street scene also + the HITE and heineken logos
Replies
But
No, that would be stealing
It was entirely accurate.
they almost certainly won't but It's their IP and they can stop you using it if they want.
One of those situations where written words don't carry the same inflections as if I'd said it using my mouth.
So - apologies.
I'll preface the next bit with ...
None of this would stop me doing what you intend to do.
Also not a lawyer.
As an alternative to your Walkman example (I've never had to deal with a Walkman or Sony ) most car manufacturers are particularly sensitive about certain aspects of their vehicle design(eg.the grille) but care a lot less about the rest. Provided you change the grille (etc) and don't use their logos/model names you can generally copy a car pretty faithfully. The specifics are unique to each manufacturer of course.
More pertinent to your use case..
I've seen multiple instances where background assets like bottles have been flagged up as a risk by internal lawyers for having the same shape as recognisable brands - even where labels have been changed.
These lawyers are of course professionally paranoid and are paid to protect a huge multinational against other huge multinationals so you have to take that with a pinch of salt.
The concern I'd have with using a magazine cover is that you're copying an actual end result - literally taking a picture and using it as a picture.
You could (legitimately as far as intent goes) argue that this is documentary in nature if it came up but nobody can tell you which way that would go.
The whole thing is dependent on how litigious the copyright holder is feeling, whether they even notice and very specific nuances of an individual case (basically like UK tax law )
Theres also the matter of precedence - the reason Fox were such dicks about Spiderman fan art is that they felt they'd have a weaker case against (eg) a bootleg Spiderman movie by Disney if they'd let people get away with representing Spiderman in the past.(paranoid corporate lawyers)
My approach personally would be to go ahead with the project and if someone complained I'd make the changes they wanted making.