Input on art issue?

[Chamber005]

I know everyone always says when it comes to legal issues "If you're not sure, don't do it", but I'm literally split down the middle on this.

If I have a painting that I created and in that painting I had, say, Frankenstien or Dracula or Creature from the Black Lagoon or the Wolfman or a Predator or Alien painted in the style of the original movie costumes and that painting ended up in a shot (not the focus of the shot, just in the background), is there any legal issue so long as I'm the one who actually did the painting?

To me it's my art and I created it so it's original work; people sell drawings and paintings of Wolverine and Spiderman and Superman all the time (but, obviously, do not use them as intellectual properties) so this would be even less of an infringement than that.

Any verdict on this?

 

[Tommy K]

If the image is trademarked you could run into problems whether you painted it or not. If your shoot is for profit or public consumption you probably should seek permission. Why not just change the artwork if it isn't a focus of the shot?

 

[Chamber005]

If the image is trademarked you could run into problems whether you painted it or not. If your shoot is for profit or public consumption you probably should seek permission. Why not just change the artwork if it isn't a focus of the shot?

I was using the artwork as a sort of nod to the old Universal horror movies. I'm not sure how an original painting of someone who looks like, say, Wolverine, could be trademarked.

I get Batman and Superman because they have actual trademarked symbols on their costumes. But if I have a painting of The Mummy or something (and in this particular case it's The Gill Man), that seems like a pretty flimsy area to be enforced. If I was using an actual promo photograph or something I could see the issue, but an original painting? You really think there's a legal issue there?

In the end I have a back-up plan that involves painting a more abstract mural on the wall, but right now The Gill Man pretty much fills that entire space and, I think, offers a really cool looking back drop.

 

[Tommy K]

"Looks like" and "is" are two different scenarios. Yes images are absolutely copyright protected as is any other original work. Your painted image has to be different enough from original that it wouldn't be seen as an infringement by the original creator. All of these creature that you mentioned, I am sure are property of someone, be it a film studio or comic maker like marvel etc. Paint an original creature creation and keep yourself in the clear.

 

[Chamber005]

"Looks like" and "is" are two different scenarios. Yes images are absolutely copyright protected as is any other original work. Your painted image has to be different enough from original that it wouldn't be seen as an infringement by the original creator. All of these creature that you mentioned, I am sure are property of someone, be it a film studio or comic maker like marvel etc. Paint an original creature creation and keep yourself in the clear.

Hm. I see your point. I'll do the mural instead. Doing a painting of a creature that isn't quasi-recognizable as The Gill Man would defeat the purpose of it existing in the frame (which was supposed to be, like I said, a nod to the horror flicks of yesteryear).

Thanks

 

[Steve House]

I was using the artwork as a sort of nod to the old Universal horror movies. I'm not sure how an original painting of someone who looks like, say, Wolverine, could be trademarked.

I get Batman and Superman because they have actual trademarked symbols on their costumes. But if I have a painting of The Mummy or something (and in this particular case it's The Gill Man), that seems like a pretty flimsy area to be enforced. If I was using an actual promo photograph or something I could see the issue, but an original painting? You really think there's a legal issue there?

In the end I have a back-up plan that involves painting a more abstract mural on the wall, but right now The Gill Man pretty much fills that entire space and, I think, offers a really cool looking back drop.

Recognizable characters can certainly be protected by trademark even without graphical symbols like Superman's "S" being associated with them. Try marketing a product bearing a picture of the "Peanuts" characters or Mickey Mouse and see how long it takes a process server to show up on your door, even if you've created an original drawign of the character and haven't directly copied a drawing done by Schultz or the Disney studios.

 

[cyclone]

Interesting info in regarding to the Frankenstein monster. In a court case, it was agreed that Universal owns the iconic look of "their" monster: elongated forehead, flat on top and, most importantly, bolts in neck. You'll notice that, although the story is in the public domain, no other studio's Frankenstein monster has bolts in their neck.