I've been making images based on The Far Side with Poser models since 2001. In January 2016, I received an e-mail from Anne Unckles of Perkins Coie LLP, representing Gary Larson's FarWorks, Inc saying I was infringing on their works. As a quick note: I made sure to include a line in the description of my images giving Gary Larson full credit so people would know I wasn't stealing his idea. I wonder if the lawyers would have found me if I did not include this text and uploaded the images as my own original idea?

They first said that the infringing works were "too numerous to mention" and they sent me a screen shot of my entire Humor Gallery, which included a large number of images that are not based on The Far Side! (Aren't takedown notices supposed to list the exact item and URL that's infringing?) They also complained that I was selling the images without authorization, which I wasn't doing.

Since I assumed they wanted the images to be clearly marked as "not for sale", I changed the code on my site so no images were available for sale at all, even my own artwork.

I didn't hear from them again until almost 3 months later, on April 4. Their new letter said they wanted the images removed from my site completely. They also said they found copies of my images at DeviantArt and that this could "constitute ongoing infringement" even though the images at DeviantArt were uploaded at the same time I uploaded the images on my site, sometimes as far back as 2007 or 2008. How was I supposed to know they wanted me to remove the images from DeviantArt when this is the first time they mentioned it? And this letter included the phrase: "[remove] from the Internet", which now means every single site I ever uploaded my images to, over the past 15 years. I then deleted my images from DeviantArt, Renderosity, Facebook, and FlickR... even though, again, I thought the issue was that they didn't want me selling the images.

I didn't hear from them again until a month later, on May 6. This time, they sent me a list of 10 URL's on my site to jpg images which I had deleted back in April. They didn't give any details, so I don't know if they're seeing a cached version from a Google Image search and then copying and pasting the URL. They also sent me links to 2 images at ArtWanted (which had been there since September 2010), which I forgot about. I deleted the images at ArtWanted as they requested.

On May 9, they sent another e-mail confirming that the 10 images on my site and the 2 images on ArtWanted had been deleted, but that they found another 5 URL's on my site. I again told them that these images had already been deleted, but they didn't tell me how they found these images.

I always believed my images would be considered transformative fan art since I wasn't selling the images, I was giving the original artist full credit, and I was turning a hand-drawn cartoon into a fully rendered image. But I don't have the money to hire a lawyer to argue this issue and I don't know if the issue is even worth fighting over.

So, anyway, if anyone else is making their own versions of The Far Side images, I recommend you delete all of them, even ones that have a different title.

Thanks for the heads up. If I had the money to hire a good lawyer, I'd be inclined to fight them on the basis that some of Larson's jokes are rehashes of old themes.

For the record, I like the Far Side stuff. As far as I know, Larson stopped doing them quite some time back, so maybe he has no part in this threat to you. Their methodology seems rather scattergun, not that it would be any help in defending yourself.

Far as I have gleaned from various reports and news articles about fan art, it really isn't legally kosher, but no one can initiate legal action except the copyright or IP owner ( creator / company / estate of creator / etc ). Even in Japan, where the fan works community is huge, there is a tolerance by owners of the IP to the extent that some fan art may be created for sale as long as unit numbers do not exceed a certain amount or value. Very generous, but the weight of the law still can be brought to bear on any fan works, if the IP holders so deem necessary.

Yup. Even my Dalek models are technically in breach. The BBC and Estate of Terry Nation tolerate fan built Daleks provided there's no commercial aspect. Note the word tolerate. They could ask me to remove them and I wouldn't have any option but to do so.

It gets my goat that there are some individuals selling Dalek models here and there, most of them badly made and laughably inaccurate. There's a lot of 'em on Turbosquid, much to their shame.

My personal opinion is that these guys should relax, if you are not "ruining" his art/concept or do anything offensive with it and you give him credit and doesn't cash in on his work, then he/they should appreciate that some people like what he made and are helping to promote it. Imagine how many people have made south park, the simpsons or Disney stuff.

Besides that in regards to legal matters, im pretty sure (depending on where you live) that the lawyers have to proof that you have sold any of the drawings, if they want to nail you for that. Besides that you could always try to contact the copyright holder and ask for permission as other have mentioned, its might not necessarily be his doing, but most likely his publisher that's behind it without him knowing about it. And if he is a decent guy, and you explain to him that you are just a fan, he might give you permission to post them.

Keep in in mind that fan art derivatives are technically illegal and most holders of the copyright are being tolerant and have full authority to do just what the Gary Larson lawyers did. This same legal right protects us and our original art from plagiarism. Most franchises and well known artists see these fan art creations as free publicity. Others, as seen above do not. Here are a couple articles to help clear the issues up.

Is Fan Art Illegal?

The Messy World of Fan Art and Copyright

Disney doesn't "tolerate" anything. They just haven't noticed you... yet.

Also, as long as we're talking about 'fan art" and copyrights, here's an interesting You tube video about Superman being technically in the public Domain and why he's not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzZIQJMYKc8

First @ bonnie thanks for those informative links.

This matter has been the subject of much recent discussion over in my sci fi forum on Google+.

while it may indeed be true that ,in the past ,Trade/copyright/IP holders have been quite tolerant of "Fan Art".

It seems, however that this modern age of the "monetization' of online content has changed the paradigm.

Paramount has clamped down on all Star Trek based"Fan films" and recently shut down two that were in production via legal action in court.

Both films were raising money via "crowdfunding" sites to presumably spend on the production.

Here is the problem.

since we live in the age were everyone&anyone with internet access can declare himself a "Brand" with the potential of online monetization.

Trademark/IP holders have understandibly become much less liberal in letting thier "brands"be used to add potential value to the "brands" of others.

In the case of Paramount/Star trek, they have a a valid point that using their trademarked brand to add value to an online solicitaion for funding ,even for a so called "non commercial fan film" is an infringment.

Now I am certain the OP of this thread is not using Farside art with intention of directly benefiting financially.

But we have to accept the reality of this permanent shift in the visual arts culture just as air travelers have been forced to accept being treated like potential mass murderers in the new "heightened security" age of man.

Odds are they found your images because you credited Larson. You could show and ask Larson for permission. Normally the take downs do require each individual item to be listed with it's link. Many times you get a notice and depending on the website host they receive the take down notice and decide whether to comply. This sounds like a para legal doing work trying to justify the lawyer's fees to the client. I'd suggest confirming via google that the attorney is real. Odds are he is but still....

As to your work, you could repost it without mentioning Larson and his comic line directly and state that you are inspired by a particular artist and these are homages to his work. You could also state fair use doctrine (google it to familiarize yourself) and satire as well as you not selling any work or making any money from said work. Odds are you're on the radar of that office and they'll check your posts at the different websites. Removing the work kind of in their eyes and interpretation admits to their complaint that you were possibly infringing. Sadly that's the way many attorneys think and operate :( If you really wanted to cause the attorney some grief you could send a letter to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and see if they will give you advise or take your case free (as they do tend to fight for these kind of things).

There are several companies and artists who are really bad about abusing DCMA takedowns without any justified reason.

Oh and side note, Warner/Chappell and the Warner Music Group famously abused this in film and other media in regards to the song "Happy Birthday" which it turns out by judges ruling they don't own. A documentary film maker challenged them and discovered through investigation that for many years Warner (thought they owned the song which it turns out used the melody from another song they didn't own "Good Morning to You"). It turned out the original creator had used the melody in their creation of the original. One would think the judge would have ruled that Warner still owned the lyrics but this had to do with whether the song was in public domain (which it should have been). Warner had been receiving about 2 million a year with their "pay up as we own it" to every media that used it.

infinity10 posted at 12:48PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268747

Far as I have gleaned from various reports and news articles about fan art, it really isn't legally kosher, but no one can initiate legal action except the copyright or IP owner ( creator / company / estate of creator / etc ).

I'm not sure what you mean by "legally kosher" since IP holders usually hire lawyers to handle the search and takedown business.

I asked the lawyers if they would go back to Gary Larson/ FarWorks and see if he would approve of my images or let me pay for a license to display my artwork, but they said he said no. Maybe I could go around the lawyers and try to contact him directly or maybe he'd just tell me to go through his lawyers.

wolf359 posted at 12:52PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268772

Now I am certain the OP of this thread is not using Farside art with intention of directly benefiting financially.

No, I would never sell any of The Far Side images that I made. Even when I sold my artwork at art shows, I never printed or displayed any of these images- not even in a portfolio book. However, you have a good point about "branding". Back when I started making the images, I got the reputation of being the guy who makes Far Side images. I have no real way of knowing whether this was good or bad or whether it made me more popular. But I've also made plenty of original images, so it's not like these were the only ones that I made.

Wolf has it right that the current trend is "Everything belongs to somebody" and the "somebodies" will try to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible.

The issue isn't always money, though; many brand owners are concerned that their products aren't used in a way they don't agree with. BBC have, on several occasions, acted to stop what they call improper use of their creations, such as the Daleks, and other Doctor Who related characters, Tom Waits has an absolute ban on any of his songs being used for any advertising, marketing or political purposes, and many bands have waded in when politicians have used their music. Disney have always been somewhat zealous about protecting their property. Whether or not that will relax any now that the company is Pixar in all but name remains to be seen. If not, then I guess all the Marvel based fan art is royally shafted, too.

Fan art, and the right to produce it, is a privelege, not a right. I'm grateful there are some companies out there who allow it. I just wish more of them were sensible about it.

As far as I remember Gary Larson has asked that his work isn't shared by 'fans' on the internet. It was a few years ago so i'll have to dig it up.

The company mentioned in the OPs post are a large international business that will protect their clients IP and have done so on many occasions.

In this instance I think it would be an easy IP case for his lawyers to win as Mr Larson has made clear his feelings on the use of his work on the internet.

edit: found the link to his request. http://web.archive.org/web/20130807052556/http://www.creators.com:80/a-note-from-gary-larson.html

SamTherapy posted at 4:11PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268833

Wolf has it right that the current trend is "Everything belongs to somebody" and the "somebodies" will try to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible.

The issue isn't always money, though; many brand owners are concerned that their products aren't used in a way they don't agree with. BBC have, on several occasions, acted to stop what they call improper use of their creations, such as the Daleks, and other Doctor Who related characters, Tom Waits has an absolute ban on any of his songs being used for any advertising, marketing or political purposes, and many bands have waded in when politicians have used their music.

Since you brought up the political aspect of it, in my mind the musicians who ask a particular politician to stop using their music is in the wrong. In most cases, these politicians have paid a blanket license fee to play whatever music they want. If the musician doesn't want, say Trump, playing his music, because he doesn't like Trump, then Hillary should also be banned from using the same music. They do have the right to exclude certain music or even their whole library from the license, but once the politician has paid, unless the musican is going to give them their money back, and they never do, (strange how that works, isn't it) they should just suck it up and be quiet. In most cases, the politician would simply stop playing the music. I wouldn't. In fact, I'd play it more, just because I could.

EClark1894 posted at 5:00PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268846

SamTherapy posted at 4:11PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268833

Wolf has it right that the current trend is "Everything belongs to somebody" and the "somebodies" will try to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible.

The issue isn't always money, though; many brand owners are concerned that their products aren't used in a way they don't agree with. BBC have, on several occasions, acted to stop what they call improper use of their creations, such as the Daleks, and other Doctor Who related characters, Tom Waits has an absolute ban on any of his songs being used for any advertising, marketing or political purposes, and many bands have waded in when politicians have used their music.

Since you brought up the political aspect of it, in my mind the musicians who ask a particular politician to stop using their music is in the wrong. In most cases, these politicians have paid a blanket license fee to play whatever music they want. If the musician doesn't want, say Trump, playing his music, because he doesn't like Trump, then Hillary should also be banned from using the same music. They do have the right to exclude certain music or even their whole library from the license, but once the politician has paid, unless the musican is going to give them their money back, and they never do, (strange how that works, isn't it) they should just suck it up and be quiet. In most cases, the politician would simply stop playing the music. I wouldn't. In fact, I'd play it more, just because I could.

Generally the politicians haven't paid and whether they are in violation depends on the circumstance. Major venues have licences in place that allow music to be played however an issue can be raised that playing that song means an endorsement for that candidate. That's probably where the politicians run afoul. When Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee got sued by Survivor, because the song was played on an impromptu stage in front of the courthouse, there was no blanket license for playing the song so it was a copyright violation. But generally you want to ask permission so all your bases are covered and not assume you can just play a song.

Here's the article in case you want to look: http://www.salon.com/2015/09/10/can_r_e_m_demand_donald_trump_cease_and_desist_playing_their_song/

Interesting. I once asked Joseph Mallozzi in Periscope how he felt about fan art. He would periscope after some DarkMatter episodes during the first season and he basically said "fan anything" so I guess it just depends on the trademark holder as to whether they see it as an infringement or free publicity.

Any music licensing can have restrictions imposed by the copyright owner. Many bands have restrictions on their music being used for commercial, political or religious purposes. We do, in the unlikely event anyone would want to play any of our stuff at a rally/sermon/sales drive. Anyone paying a royalty would still have to comply with those restrictions.

There seems to be a great deal of concern that the looming international trade treaties might be the end of fan culture as we know it. I've read a few articles in the past year or so, but... danged if I can find the links I thought I saved. Apparently Japanese cosplayers are especially concerned about the ramifications of the treaties. The whole thing freaks me out a bit.

Disney's handling of copyright clampdowns seems to be a bit inconsistent. They haven't been as diligent with the Star Wars or Marvel superheroes properties as with their own animated properties, as far as I can tell.

Yvonne Craig gave permission to fans to use her image in creative works, before she died last year. I don't think her statement would protect anyone if DC-Time Warner or Paramount, or the owners of whatever characters she portrayed, were to begin a crackdown.

Fandoms have been lucky to have so much internet openness and tolerance. I guess that could end at any time, perhaps quickly. Eep.

I'm no kind of lawyer, but I do occasionally have to make a judgement about copyright issues, usually to informally advise artists about how to protect themselves and less usually to warn them when they might be breaking someone else's copyright.

Example: an artist that I produce fine art prints for does celebrity portraits. No way they'd get the celeb to sit for them, so they collect a dozen or so photos of a celeb and use those to paint an impression of the celeb: no problem there, they're not directly copying anything. But recently, when Prince died unexpectedly, they needed to produce a portrait in a hurry. They found a photo - one single photo - online and copied it, albeit in paint. They weren't happy when I suggested that they were leaving themselves open to a copyright claim. Yes, they'd used skill and effort to produce their work, but it would be hard to convince anyone that it wasn't 100% based on that photo.

At the risk of stating the obvious: if you copy a creative work that is still within copyright, you are infringing the rights of the owner. It doesn't sound like you can claim that any of the usual exceptions apply (non-commercial research, review, parody, educational use) so I'd comply with their take-down requests promptly.