Famous People

[screenxpress]

I have a potential job coming my way to print some shirts for "Charley Company" and there's been talk about having an image of Charlie Sheen.

Opinions on print or no-print.  And Homer, you don't have to respond.  I know your answer, lol   

[Frog]

Famous? Who's Charlie Sheen, oh wait, he had a famous father, guy named Afro right?

Afro Sheen Ad 1 (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

[screenxpress]

LOL.....I had to check to see if that was a real product too.

[prozyan]

That . . . is a mess.

[squeezee]

I wouldn't advise it, Charlie needs to pay for his rehab somehow and has some legal friends.

[Dottonedan]

Try this.  It's got some good info on the subject.

http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/

[blue moon]

Try this.  It's got some good info on the subject.

http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/

Actually, I do not agree with that opinion. The original poster (on the graphicsartguild.com) is told that under no circumstances is he allowed to use somebody's likeness, which is not true!

The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. The idea of fair use
reflects copyright law’s careful consideration of First Amendment principles, as
fair use permits later authors “to use a previous author’s copyright to introduce
new ideas or concepts to the public.”

[Frog]

It appears that if the guild had its way completely, many of us would not have been able to cut our teeth on artists like Jack Davis, Will Elder, and Harvey Kurtzman in Humbug and Mad, and the other great satire comix and Mags of our youth.
Then, we have political cartoonists as well. Surely their caricatures of famous people are legitimate fair use.

[squeezee]

There's copyright - unless you have an original photo or artwork then you will infringe the artists copyright.
Plus there's right to publicity - you have no right to profit from another's likeness.
Politicians have the same right but don't tend to enforce it.
There is a reasonable right to fair use, but that covers newspapers & the like, not t-shirts.  Even if it's a cartoon 

[Dottonedan]

keep in mind, that this is just an educational post and not a job at anyone....

Try this.  It's got some good info on the subject.

http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/

Actually, I do not agree with that opinion. The original poster (on the graphicsartguild.com) is told that under no circumstances is he allowed to use somebody's likeness, which is not true!

The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. The idea of fair use
reflects copyright law’s careful consideration of First Amendment principles, as
fair use permits later authors “to use a previous author’s copyright to introduce
new ideas or concepts to the public.”

You are quoting something that is not connected to what this individual asked.   Here it is.

Dear Mark,
As a budding artist, I'd like to know something about behind-the-scenes protocol. I have only one question:

Do you have to request permission or otherwise contract with persons or corporations, (such as Star Trek), before rendering caricatures of them and selling them? The reason I ask is because I would like to sell caricatures on t-shirts of famous and fictional people and am ignorant of copyright law regarding caricatures. I cannot seem to find an answer.

Thank you so much,
T-shirt Trekkie

I would also venture to say that it's not an opinion but fact. A fact based on actual law and past experiences in dealing with the law. Thats what they do.

I tried to go back and read where it might have said "under no circumstances"  In fact it does explain under what circumstances. Under the circumstances where you were to get approval by the owner.  He says, "in short" you cannot. That would imply that in the long of it, you can find someplace that does enable you as long as you follow the rabbit trail of other laws. It has to fit with some guidelines in order for it to be "fair use".
You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.

[Dottonedan]

It appears that is the guild had its way completely, many of us would not have been able to cut our teeth on artists like Jack Davis, Will Elder, and Harvey Kurtzman in Humbug and Mad, and the other great satire comix and Mags of our youth.
Then, we have political cartoonists as well. Surely their caricatures of famous people are legitimate fair use.

again,  they were not selling them on product but in editorials under the wing of criticism or comment that fall sunder fair use. Mad Magazine is not a product showcasing the art for the sake of selling the art. It is the vehicle to show that criticism or comment.

[blue moon]

You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.

If it is just him and nothing else, that is correct. But if there is a donkey kicking him out of the Governor's office with a tag line "I'll be Back" crossed out, that would be OK. So, yes, under some circumstances it can be done legally.

[Dottonedan]

You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.

If it is just him and nothing else, that is correct. But if there is a donkey kicking him out of the Governor's office with a tag line "I'll be Back" crossed out, that would be OK. So, yes, under some circumstances it can be done legally.

Ah ha!  This my friend is where you learn the ways. The force is strong with you but you have much to learn.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is no longer holding public office that the tax payers pay for. So we can no longer call it "political satire" if he's not a paid politician.
We can no longer get away with making fun of him using his name or likeness  and make money from selling product. He's now a private citizen with big money. Not only can he talk that pants off of women, but he can sue the pants off of you....

[Frog]

First off, don't get me wrong. I am constantly turning down obvious rip-off, and possible problems. I am just intrigued by the gray area.

So, I have to assume that this is constantly being tested. Likenesses on printed pages in magazines and comics or comix, ok, posters not.  Pages torn out and mounted on walls?
Pages made of cotton? Pages printed on shirts?

There must be a gray area still being sorted out.

A different issue, but as for Mad magazine and comics not selling art to showcase art, I feel that you are short changing some brothers in arms for credit. It is the absolute nature of the high end of this genre. Of course I may buy an otherwise funky comic for the Jack Kirby,  or other specific artist's work.

In a similar vein, what about this guy, he certainly produces art to be showcased as art.  Does he get releases first?

[Dottonedan]

I don't know who those guys are in that art.  By the looks of it, it might be a typical situation where a painting done by an artist as a portfolio piece. Many artist can copy other licensed art and show it on a website like http://www.Conceptart.org or something to show off skills and/or practice and get critiques. Do you know more about this image?