Where do stylized Props fall under Copyright status?
interpolator
For the past few months, I've been working on new props for my cartoon. But because the level of detail is now the most complex I've done, I'm starting to worry about a subject that's very important.
Copyright laws. I understand that any blatant likeness or use of copyrighted ideas constitute infringement. However, what happens when you make something that is very strikingly close to the original, but there are enough exaggerations and subtle nuances that make it different?
For example, in one of my old threads I got this critique:
(maybe not the original car, but it looked close to me)
Copyright laws. I understand that any blatant likeness or use of copyrighted ideas constitute infringement. However, what happens when you make something that is very strikingly close to the original, but there are enough exaggerations and subtle nuances that make it different?
For example, in one of my old threads I got this critique:
When I look at concept art for The Iron Giant, it's not afraid to point out they are based on existing ideas (i.e, Jeep, Cadillac, F-86), but at the same time, they recreated or drew new concepts for them. Does Warners' avoid a copyright strike because of this? Does this also mean Warners gets to own or call all their new props original?skankerzero said:All the details in the Iron Giant animation sheet have been simplified and the proportions slightly exaggerated. If you stop and study it you will see what I'm talking about that.
This is why your recent batch of renders fail. You're not exaggerating your proportions or simplifying the details. You are simply applying flat shading and hand drawn textures to realistic models.
(maybe not the original car, but it looked close to me)
Replies
In terms of legality, there aren't super hard and fast rules. However, if you want to stay legal, you should probably avoid copying a single artistic creation too closely. If you combine two different influences, even if it's obvious what those influences are, and you stylize/change various things, you are on pretty safe ground.
If you create a God of Thunder, and he looks a lot like Marvel's version of Thor, but with lots of small changes, you would be in murky legal territory, unless it was a parody.
For example, say I drew a modern battle tank. There aren't much variations to make it completely original without changing the concept as a whole (i.e, futuristic tank, fantasy tank). But as long as I don't state the intent, I could have a tank that looks 99% like a M1 Abrams and say it's mine?
Worst case, I could see someone asking you to take it down from your website.
I've never heard of an individual 3D artist being sued over 3D modelling a design from a movie/tv-show. Even where profit is concerned, I've seen take-down notices, and not much else.
As for major film studios making stylized versions of real things, I'm sure they have a legal team helping them avoid potential issues. Cars all look fairly similar, really, so, change the shape of a tail-light, add a made up logo, and you'll probably avoid trouble.
Say you shoot some photo reference around town. You photograph a parking ticket dispenser. You model it based on the photos. The shape and other features of that parking ticket dispenser may be trademarked.
Instead, you get a bunch of reference of lots of ticket dispensers. You do some sketches, test some ideas and then come up with a final concept. You model based on that concept. Now, if there is a dispute, at least you have your sketches and concept art to show some original thought went into it. Still doesn't mean you can't get in trouble.
I wouldn't worry about it unless you are working for a large studio. If you are at a large studio, the lawyers will directly or indirectly tell you what you should be doing.