copyright pictures

[glorygirl]

i was wanting to make tarot cards using my favorite characters like neopets/kingdom hearts/disney.
i am not wanting to sell them make these for my own deck would i get into trouble?

 

[Umbrae]

The serious answer is yes. If somebody sees them other than you, you could get in trouble. Copyright law is nothing to sneeze at. I'm watching a few of those 'cases' from afar as we speak.

 

[baba-prague]

I agree with Umbrae but would add that if you are doing your own drawings of the characters and for your own use only, then it might count as fan art. I'd try to check first though as it's a very grey area.

BUT, the minute you use images produced by other people (such as the Disney studios) and publish them - and "publish" includes showing on a website these days, then yes, the honest answer is that you might well get a complaint.

I know we piss people off on this board when we point this out but it seems better than saying nothing and watching people having to stop a project that's been a lot of work. To give you just some idea of how closely the big brands guard their names, logos, characters and so on, I know someone here who started a small photo studio (just doing local work) and called it Pradar. She got a letter - and this is true, I'm not making it up - from Prada, to say that they would take action if she ever did ANYTHING to do with fashion under the name Pradar. So yes, Umbrae is right when he says it's nothing to sneeze at. But think about using your OWN images (your original drawings etc) and like I say, it might be fine as "fan art". Wish I could help more. The mods here may be able to add more advice.

Oh -and it's great that you asked this question!

 

[Nevada]

I'm no lawyer, but I would suggest using caution. Probably the research you'd have to do to make sure you aren't doing something illegal would outweigh the value to you in pursuing such a project. I'm personally more concerned for an individual's artwork rights more than a huge corporation's--but don't rely on corporations to feel that way.

From local news in my area I know one of those companies you mention is notorious for vigorously defending their copyrights. If memory serves, they went after a local non-profit daycare center for using their images without permission, years ago. So I would be very cautious that your personal use of the images is strictly personal, if you use them at all. I wouldn't use such a deck to read for others--whether you accept payment or not.

Baba-prague makes a good point about ensuring you understand the definition of "publish".

Why not create your own images? It might be a lot of fun, and then you'd have that fabulous feeling of owning a very personal deck that's all YOU.

Nevada

 

[glorygirl]

picture?

i dont want to sell them just make them for my own use i would make a public one with different (My own) characters for public use?if i was to give public readings

 

[Alta]

Yes, I suppose, as long as you never put them on public display in any way. In the privacy of your own house, you can cut and paste and Photoshop as you please. Just don't let it leave your house, physically or electronically. Or, in any way make money with it, even in your house.

 

[TheOld]

I got difficulties to see how someone can have problem if he read with a deck that have some copyright pictures on it.
i can't figure the sitter going to disney to say, he i'v seen someone read me tarot with one of your images and after disney comming back to sue the guy and more important to prove it LOL...

anyway if that ever happend to me, i'll use it to make myself some publicity (the guys who have been sue by Disney to had use their pictures in a tarot reading hehe)

sure it wouldn't be a good idea to put a donald duck tarot card on a website but to read with it , i can bet money that there's wouldn't be any problem.

where's the line he ?
Love
Omeada

 

[rota]

This question of copyright keeps coming up and keeps coming up. It's a legal minefield these days. The lawsuits keep piling up, as Big Corporations step down hard and strive to make their footprints ever deeper. And it has a dampening effect on creativity, as the collage-fans continue to point out.

I'm part of a group of artists, for instance, who work in collage and found art. It's a big fat problem when someone shows or sells a work that uses some part of, say, a Coke label. The artist was only interested in a shape or a color, but Coke thinks it's an unfair comment on their global hegemony, and sends them a snippy letter suggesting legal proceedings. 'Fair Use', in my view, *should* include using any artwork any way you like, but that's not how it's working out.

I want to see artists fight back, and I want to see Big Corporations lose their power. If you want to take them on, I support you. This fight is a lot like the Range Wars of the 1880's, when big ranches would fence off huge swaths of land, and small ranchers would clip the barbed wire and run their herds through anyway. You can guess how that turned out -- big ranches hired people with rifles to protect their fences; small ranches couldn't hire anybody.

So for anybody who would like to someday sell a deck, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by doing your own artwork. (Which is then copyrighted to you and only you...)

 

[euripides]

art in a vaccuum

This is such a difficult issue - I used to use loads of collage in my art, but its not worth the risk now. Or I dig out really old stuff that I'm fairly sure has expired. But art doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and artists have always commented on the world around them and on other art... there ought to be some way of exempting art from copyright.

On the flipside though, I can see how if I've created an image, and someone else appropriates it for their own ends - however 'harmless' THEY might think it is, I may well be furious!

Actually using the images to make a collage does not in itself breach copyright. However exhibiting (considered a form of advertising) and selling the artwork WOULD breach copyright. I'd suggest that a tarot reading MIGHT be considered a form of exhibition=advertising. But with a one-off, handmade pack, I think you'd be pretty safe. But of course, then its frustrating if someone loves it and wants to exhibit it.

Its all very well saying that you should use your own artwork, but what if you WANT your work to reflect popular culture? What can you do then? Do it anyhow, then negotiate with 50 different megacompanies, most of whom wouldn't touch Tarot in case it annoys the Bible Belt?

argh, its so, so frustrating!

good luck with your endeavor, whatever you do.

Euri

 

[cirom]

This is such a difficult issue - I used to use loads of collage in my art, but its not worth the risk now. Or I dig out really old stuff that I'm fairly sure has expired. But art doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and artists have always commented on the world around them and on other art... there ought to be some way of exempting art from copyright.

On the flipside though, I can see how if I've created an image, and someone else appropriates it for their own ends - however 'harmless' THEY might think it is, I may well be furious!

Euri

I think those two comments sum up the dilemma.

With all due respect, while I agree with everyone using examples of how mean the "big boys" such as Disney and Coke are when protecting their brand imagery etc. Where would you draw the line. I spend hundreds of hours creating my illustrations, (years in the case of a tarot deck). What are you suggesting that in the name of "freedom" someone should be entitled to take my work and use it in theirs. Would you deny any limits on that? I fully recognize collage as an art form, I acknowledge that the end result is intended as an original in its own right, and certainly more than the sum of its parts. But its a Pandoras box of abuse as well. A fragment of the final image using the coke logo, or Donald Ducks head seem innocent enough I agree and certainly would'nt appear to be a threat to the corporate owners...but I repeat where would you draw the line (excuse the pun). Do you think you should be entitled to use say one of my images in its entirety but maybe just reduce it in size, or slightly faded. ? How about only half of it or just the main character but without the background. You get my point. Its easy to point out the innocent and harmless examples, but extend them step by step and eventually yes you would evolve into no holds barred scenario where no creative person would be able to control their own images, writings, music. That is fundamentally unfair as well as being unworkable.
For my part I am extremely flexible, I am constantly asked if my images can be used for any number of uses, from personal web sites, bloggs, banners, prints for auctions and charities. Even for commercial uses i.e. books where the author can't afford to pay. I don't think I've ever said no.
But I don't think it right that a situation would exist that I did'nt even have to be asked.
I don't have an answer to the example of collaged work, I truly don't know what would be a fair balance. But its naive to simply say that art should be exempt from copyright.