Licenced or Art?
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- monospaced0
I can't tell if they're for sale. http://www.forma.co/es/re-vision…
- fredddddd0
Hipster Heroes.
- animatedgif0
Eaaaaaassy_money.wav
- I¨'m sure they are rocking it out with their cocks, in a penthouse - suntaning on a private yachtattentionspan
- detritus0
If the current series of Arrested Development is anyting to go by, he's either paying a license or being sued to shit to by orthodox members of the law firm Feinberg, Feinberg, Feinberg & Feinberg.
- _niko0
- http://sangremaleva.…_niko
- Why does it have to look so western?fredddddd
- it's called a "style"sine
- mantrakid0
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answer…
Most importantly: "...parody is a DEFENSE to charge of trademark and/or copyright infiringment. It's not an automatic exemption from being sued-- nothing is. In order for a defense to have any worth, first you get sued in federal court, then you have to hire a lawyer to assert this defense, perhaps among others, and then you have to litigate the case to the point where you can establish the applicability of this defense."
"It may be possible to argue that your drawings will be a parody. However: (a) it is relatively rare that an alleged infringement is found to be a parody; and (b) you will probably have to incur a large amount of legal fees to get to this decision."
ie. you get sued first - you're using 'parody' to hopefully get out of being sued, but incurring legal expenses in the process which you cant avoid because you are being sued.
- doesnotexist0
doesn't look like licensing. that usually involves approved art from whomever and you follow a strict guideline of character usage. this seems like ^ parody.
- mantrakid0
This is fucking grey area city... what about this:
'In the case of art, there is something called 'appropriation', wherein any images/elements from popular culture maybe be used to create a work that places it within a different and entirely new context (that is different than it's original/intended context). This is a key aspect to appropriation, and the items used/referenced are popular culture or public domain items; in the case of a Jackie O's photograph, as a private possession of previously unpublished reknown, this would fall outside the realm of appropriation into some sort form of copyright infringement.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App…)
so is the question hazy based on the difference between something being "artwork" ie a one-off, apparent statement of some kind (however trivial or deep) compared to something being created with the intent to mass produce - ie posters, lunchboxes, tshirts etc.? I think that's what it is.. so basically could you sell one-off tshirts featuring spiderman, as long as you are declaring them as art and not a commercial product?
- pango0
If it's limited edition then it might pass as art. if it's an actual product for mass production then yes they will get sued not just for the use of the logo.
again, I ain't a lawyer.