Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD
I agree on the question of legality as I have never seen any proof that the estates or licensing fees were ever followed. If you are making them for yourself it's one thing, but these are made strictly for profit thus illegal without royalties.
|
Generally, there's a line between artwork (no fee required, generally, under any theory due to First Amendment considerations) and commercial product (fee required). A painter, for example, does not have to pay a fee to anyone to paint and sell an original Babe Ruth portrait; that's considered fair use and protected artistic expression. But he would probably have to pay a fee to create a mass produced commercial card set from the art. That's probably why the listings on these cards stress the work and customization that go into each piece, probably why they engage in so much hand distressing of the cards, and probably why the art cards are very limited editions: they are trying to set up an art defense. The further you go towards mass production and away from customization, the closer to the line of copyright and trademark and publicity rights. And believe me, the publicity racketeers are watching this. There are law firms that spend all of their time trolling the Internet on behalf of clients looking for uses of their clients' names, images, products, trademarks, etc., then shaking down the users for damages under the copyright, trademark and publicity laws. The remedies under these laws are draconian; even a small improper commercial use that makes very little money can result in crippling damages and liability for attorneys' fees.