I drew a freehand pen Steelers colage in the shape of the 3-triangles symbol...an obviously copyrighted symbol by the NFL. The symbol is filled in by smaller drawings, such as the pens symboll, the captain morgan guy, the Family Guy charaters, Laobardi trophy, and about 1000 other little pics. Can I sell prints of the tha original artowrk, or does that violate copyright laws? Did Andy Worhal need permission to paint the cambbell soup can, since he profited from the sale?
2007-12-16 15:08:59 · 5 answers · asked by xinsirhc 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I have already given away a few prints of this artwork in frames to my friends as gifts to my friends, without accepting money. I would assume that as long as I didnt profit from it, it is ok to disribute privately.
2007-12-16 15:22:02 · update #1
Not really sure on that one. My understanding is art work does have some special loopholes. And if you are not using the image in a manner that competes with or harms the football team I don't think they would have case against your art work. However, your art work contains some of their art work so you might owe a royality of some type. Certainly talk to an attorney before you publish it or invest a lot of money in producing copies.
If you just gave a few out as gifts they likely would not ever come after you. And they would need to show some kind of damages. But again before you go all out and publish the work talk to an attorney. Likely only charge you a couple hundred bucks to set you on the right path and keep you out of trouble on that.
And rick above is correct that sounds like a "derivative work". I have filed copyrights for music and that is a question they have on the application "is this a derivative work" of something else that has been copyrighted. Then you need the permission of the copyright holder. And that's where the royalties come in. If they allow you to go foward and publish they want a little somthing from your profit. Rap artists are famous for creating derivative work in music.
2007-12-16 15:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by mikearion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
collages and found art that potentially violate trademarks and copyrights is a matter of considerable dispute. there is certainly no firm ground here, and it would take one or two federal court cases to sort out. Andy was a pioneer and unfortunately the Soup can painting really did not resolve the basic issues.
The reason for the legal uncertainty is that we have conflicting rights. An artist has constitutionally protected rights of expression. And publishers have constitutionally protected copyrights. Who wins? Generally this is a case where a court has to establish boundaries.
2007-12-18 04:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by lare 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you've made is called a "derivative work", and would be a violation of the Steelers copyright.
Campbells never moved against Warhol for using their design, because they were happy with the publicity.
Richard
2007-12-16 15:13:13 · answer #3 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you want to use trademarks in your artwork, you are free to ask the owners for a license ahead of time. Willful Neglect is not a defense, and somehow I am doubting your "collages" are not of the same class as Andy Warhol's works.
2007-12-16 18:02:05 · answer #4 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have created a derivative work, not an original work. This is a copyright violation. Making it bigger and monochromatic does not change that. Let the contest organizers know the situation.
2016-04-09 20:59:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋