Now we all know that creating a celeb lookalike and changing the name is perfectly acceptable. Now say there is an artist and he has drawn a character in a specific style. Can you duplicate the look, change minor features and give it a different name? Will that be legal or does he/she own the rights and likeliness to it?

It happens all the time. IMHO it's not ethical. It's dangerous too since it invites a lawsuit. Mileage may vary.

Well let me narrow it down. Say I created a simpson type character, using the style of simpson illustrations, but its a character not seen before. Do they own the rights to the style? EG the look of the eyes and mouth?

Well let me narrow it down. Say I created a simpson type character, using the style of simpson illustrations, but its a character not seen before. Do they own the rights to the style? EG the look of the eyes and mouth?

No, I don't think that the components of comic character features can be owned.

Cool. I will dig deeper just to get clarification. Thanks

Style is one thing - you can't really do anything about that because two different people can come up with a similar looking style artistically - but the characters themselves, that should (and is) illegal as far as I know.

Attached Link: Ironman helmet

my Poser Animations

That would fall under fan art and as such, I'd say no. It's not.  An argument could be made it's no different than a 2D artist selling a drawing of Spider-Man but even then, technically, Marvel should be getting a cut. Some companies look the other way at things like this but others are pretty hardcore when it comes to their properties. I would say avoid selling copies of established characters but I'm no expert.

As for the celebrity likenesses - here's something to chew on: Luke Skywalker bears the face of Mark Hammil. So where does the line get drawn on that one? :-D

Personally, I'm all for modeling/drawing likenesses as an excercise for improving one's skill but I'd much rather create something of my own - not just for the sense of control but for the freedom of expression. 

The folks selling the Ironman helmet need to be careful.  Marvel is incredibly predatory about copyright infringment and they have the Disney dollars to back them.  This is a direct rip off of their copyrighted material and can create some very nasty legal situations.  If you are curious as to how nasty, just do a search for Marvel and copyright lawsuits.  They even sue their own writers and artists.

The site selling the Iron Man helmet have tons of copyright infringing stuff for sale. 

They even sell model Daleks, which is a bit bloody stupid since you can get mine, Mechmaster's, Billy-Home's and many others for free and of at least as good quality.

Come to think of it, there are a couple of free Iron Man suits around as well.

They seem to be as careless about copyright as the Squid.  And priced as stupidly, too. 

If you create a character that is too much like another character, then the legal owners of that character can legally challenge it. 

I have heard of situations before where Disney, for example, has shut down production of other characters and films due to the art looking too much like Disney art. Disney has a particular style that has evolved over the years, and new Disney artists are required to adapt their style - along with adding their own ideas and influences where permissible, which comes naturally from a new artist working on a particular design - because no two artsts styles will ever be exactly the same unless its intentional.

I can only relate this from what I was told directly by two of my 2D animation instructors, who were both former Disney animators and worked on films like Aladdin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, and a few others. 

Disney does look for these kinds of infringements and will drop the hammer on every one they find, so if they can do it, others can as well. 

~Shane

Quote - I have heard of situations before where Disney, for example, has shut down production of other characters and films due to the art looking too much like Disney art.

Howard the Duck's highly successful monthly Marvel title was pretty much quashed by Disney.  Howard allegedly resembled Donald a bit too much.  At one point a diagram of the design changes required to Howard before the character could continue to be published was printed.  A great deal of focus was placed on small details.  The shape of the bill (Marvel had to thicken it), shape and placement of eyes, how certain feather details were depicted.

Nowadays, I suppose Marvel could restore the original Howard without fears.  Hmm.

I don't think matt groening's art style is copyrighted so make sure your character is distinctive and you'll be fine.  Make a homer to sell, that's another issue.

Quote - As for the celebrity likenesses - here's something to chew on: Luke Skywalker bears the face of Mark Hammil. So where does the line get drawn on that one? :-D

Hasbro makes action figures that bear the likeness of Mark Hammil. Sideshow Collectibles makes statues that also bear Mark Hammil's likeness (much more closely than Hasbro even). Both of them have a license to do so from Lucas Arts, but neither of them can really be considered competition with Lucas Arts or each other, as they each specialize in a different type of product designed for a different purpose. 

One can pretty much bet that if someone else tried using Mark Hammil's likeness in unlicensed products, they would get cease and desist letters from lawyers of all 3 companies - and possibly even Mark Hammil himself. (is he still alive?). Back in the late 90's/early 2000's Lucas Arts went on a witch hunt for fan art on the internet, sending C&Ds to every site they could find that had anything to do with Lucas Arts proprietary content - be it original art (fan art) or images from their films. It created a huge stink, and I'm not really sure if they've ever stopped doing it. SOPA and PIPA deals specifically with this sort of thing.

Celebrity likenesses are very dangerous waters, and any artist that values his time, career and personal finances is best to avoid attempting something like that without express permission, unless he's doing it soley for the purpose of demonstrating his skills in a portfolio, or contract bid to a company who holds the rights to said likeness. 

Zbrush central is full of character sculpts ranging from Marvel superheroes to celebrities, but none of the artists that create those likenesses can legally use them for anything other than demonstration of skill, and maybe some contests here and there. 

~Shane

Costumes and symbols are also covered.  Simply putting Wolverine's costume on a female and calling her Badger will not save you, since all you did was change the gender and the name - the over all look and intent will get you into trouble.

Likewise, keeping the look but changing the colors will not help either.  Changing the Fantastic Four's uniforms from blue to red and calling them the Quintessential Quartet also fails.

I am surprised my just how many vendors here get away with what are, basically, digital clones and that the site allows these.

Has anyone ever even heard of a user/member/vender in any 3d communities actually being sued by a big name company like Marvel or Disney?  

I'm just asking since I'm hearing that they are notorious for going after people and also hearing that there are so many products that infringe on their copyrights, yet I've never heard of any person in a 3d community being gone after for it.

I am not a lawyer, but I would think that taking those features and applying them to a new toon would probably be fine as long ans the new toon does not look like the original in disguise - changing the girl's hair color and adding goth makeup would still be the same character; face (but not bone structure) on another girl with a different, dark hairstyle might be okay, but putting them on a male / monster / inanimate object would be even better (I think), unless the story specifies that the original girl was morphed (as in Beauty and the Beast).

Intent casuses as much trouble as results, especially if released without credits and for cash.  Not saying you would, just saying. :)

I always found it sad, but amusing, that Warner Studios sued Tom Fogerty for sounding like himself when he jump started his career again.  They own the Credence Clearwater Revival library (somehow) and put him out of work for a couple more years while the case worked itself through court.  I think I remember the judge saying something like "how is he supposed to sound like anyone but himself?  This is stupid."

It occurs to me to mention the Sweet Chastity comic published in / by Penthouse, where most of the supporting characters were obvious characatures of famous people, Vincent Price especially.  No idea what the artists / magazine needed in order to print those.

Quote - Well one of my favourite illustrators is Dean Yeagle. I love the way he does faces and expressions. I wanted to create a figure morph in Zbrush emulating the style, obviously not duplicating the character but along those lines. I mainly wanted to emulate the mouth nose and eye styling on a different character. But if doing so is going to be an infringment then I'd rather not.

Personally I think you'd be relatively safe with something like that. It seems a bit more generalized than creating a clone of something like Family Guy or the Simpsons and renaming your characters, as your original post suggested.

Are you copying a specific character of Yeagle's? Or just borrowing influence from it?

A number of artists have tried to mimic Tom of Finland in their work for years, but fans know what are and aren't authentic Tom illustrations. I don't think anyone's ever been sued over it.

~Shane

Put yourself in the position of the artist you are, or might be, copying.  Think "is this person stealing my livelihood?"; if you can honestly answer "no" then you might not need other people's reassurance to go ahead.  If your answer is "yes" then it's between you and your conscience.  Just my opinion; I get influenced all the time, but I hope I don't steal.

Quote - Has anyone ever even heard of a user/member/vender in any 3d communities actually being sued by a big name company like Marvel or Disney?  

I'm just asking since I'm hearing that they are notorious for going after people and also hearing that there are so many products that infringe on their copyrights, yet I've never heard of any person in a 3d community being gone after for it.

Keep in mind that this works right down the line.

If someone buys a product which is copied from or heavily influenced by something else (and they may not be aware of this as a buyer) and then creates commercial artwork for a client, that may then be seen by a much wider audience than the 3d community and could cause potential problems for a company that never had any intent to infringe anyone's intellectual property rights.

You never know where a product may finally end up being used.... look at this thread for example. I know it's not the same as this topic, but it does show that you don't know where something might end up, how it might be used and who it could cause problems for later.

I've gotten C&Ds from disney, chaos comix and DC, but they didn't sue me. alotta artists who did tasteless cartoon parodies I used to know - they also got the C&Ds, and some had to shut down.  nobody who used poser got them that I know.  poser stuff is below the radar for the big beverly hills attorneys IMVHO.  they haven't got paralegals' time to waste on penny-ante stuff any more.

p.s. they didn't send me a C&D over the thing to the left of this msg, as it's not a parody of you-know-who, but rather a parody of a character by Ralph Bakshi (world's greatest cartoonist).

Quote - Well one of my favourite illustrators is Dean Yeagle. I love the way he does faces and expressions. I wanted to create a figure morph in Zbrush emulating the style, obviously not duplicating the character but along those lines. I mainly wanted to emulate the mouth nose and eye styling on a different character. But if doing so is going to be an infringment then I'd rather not.

It's already for sale at Daz.

I know it's splitting hairs, but for whatever reason I'm more comfortable with the idea of people ripping off Frank Millers work than Yeagles.  Ethically, I know it's the same. Maybe it's that I remember Yeagles work from posting on the drawing board with Shane Glines, Bruce Timm and the rest of them, so they're more human and real to me and less some distant bstract well compensated creator.  Again, no ethical difference, just for some reason I'm less comfortable with it.

The thing is, every artist is influenced by some other artist, either deliberately or subconsciously. There's really no getting around that.

I think the best approach would be to borrow elements from those that inspire you and improve on them to make it your own. If you're just going to copy someone else's work line for line, what's the point? That's what we have photo copiers for. That's not art. 

~Shane

at original poster , who told you that ?

its a "Right of publicity" issue which I think is state law giving anyone rights over the use of their likeness.  

Quote - > Quote - Well one of my favourite illustrators is Dean Yeagle. I love the way he does faces and expressions. I wanted to create a figure morph in Zbrush emulating the style, obviously not duplicating the character but along those lines. I mainly wanted to emulate the mouth nose and eye styling on a different character. But if doing so is going to be an infringment then I'd rather not.

Personally I think you'd be relatively safe with something like that. It seems a bit more generalized than creating a clone of something like Family Guy or the Simpsons and renaming your characters, as your original post suggested.

Are you copying a specific character of Yeagle's? Or just borrowing influence from it?

A number of artists have tried to mimic Tom of Finland in their work for years, but fans know what are and aren't authentic Tom illustrations. I don't think anyone's ever been sued over it.

 

~Shane

Strictly borrowing influence.

Quote - > Quote - Well one of my favourite illustrators is Dean Yeagle. I love the way he does faces and expressions. I wanted to create a figure morph in Zbrush emulating the style, obviously not duplicating the character but along those lines. I mainly wanted to emulate the mouth nose and eye styling on a different character. But if doing so is going to be an infringment then I'd rather not.

It's already for sale at Daz.

I know it's splitting hairs, but for whatever reason I'm more comfortable with the idea of people ripping off Frank Millers work than Yeagles.  Ethically, I know it's the same. Maybe it's that I remember Yeagles work from posting on the drawing board with Shane Glines, Bruce Timm and the rest of them, so they're more human and real to me and less some distant bstract well compensated creator.  Again, no ethical difference, just for some reason I'm less comfortable with it.

Im just talking facial features. Not doing hair or anything else.

Quote - nobody who used poser got them that I know.

A former Poser forum power user had some trouble with DC, many years ago, over risque images of Wonder Woman and Supergirl.  I haven't heard of this sort of thing happening more recently, but it has happened.  IIRC, the person was forbidden to work with the likenesses of DC characters in the future, although I don't know how formally that restriction was established.

"Talent borrows, genius steals"-Oscar Wilde

Hardly a new issue. And one that will never go away. Artists study other artists word, as do writers. How much is influence, how much theft? Keeps lawyers happy.

Quote - Has anyone ever even heard of a user/member/vender in any 3d communities actually being sued by a big name company like Marvel or Disney?  

I'm just asking since I'm hearing that they are notorious for going after people and also hearing that there are so many products that infringe on their copyrights, yet I've never heard of any person in a 3d community being gone after for it.

Sued? No. Given a cease and desist order? Yep. Typically thats the way it falls out. You are served legal notice that if you do not cease sales immediately, that you will be served with a lawsuit. Most people are MORE than happy to comply, rather than be hit with legal fees, and potential damages.

Disney even sent a C&D to a children's home that had done murals with disney characters in them.

I think I recall at least 4 or 5 instances of C&D ocurrances in the poser community, but there are probably 10 times more, because typically no one brags about being served, and products are just quietly removed from stores for no reason.

Hopefully bad art in general isn't copyrighted or else there could be a lot of C&D orders... or is it unfortunately bad art in general isn't copyrighted and we can't get a court to stop it.

Decisions, decisions.