How legal is it?

[Kotaro]

How legal would it be to illustrate a certain writer's work for one's portfolio?
I adore this writer, unfortunately it's been more than a month and her literary agents haven't replied to my mail in which I sought permission to illustrate her work, which wouldn't be sold under any circumstances.
The thing is the sci-fi channel and other people haven't exactly been sincere in their visual renditions of this writer's work, she was very unhappy with it since they changed or rather, commercialized it. Mine wouldn't be anything other than captured images from one or two of her short stories, and I intend to remain true to representaions of race and character, which she is very particular about. I feel a rather urgent and heartfelt need to illustrate her work, since nobody has ever other than for book covers, and time may run out by the time I ever get to it (she is a bit oldish).
This is precisely what she says on her personal site
If you are requesting to quote or copy or reprint or use my work in any way, please do not send the request directly to me -- that just slows the whole process down.
Except it's been ages since the literary agent replied, , and I haven't drawn a line (neither has anyone out of pure appreciation, as I looked up) because I'll need feedback along the way and intend to put up my WIP here...

Anyone ever have this problem? :[

[DavePalumbo]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think creating a piece for your portfolio has about a 0.000000003% chance of landing you in a lawsuit. If you're not using it as a means of turning some sort of profit (like selling prints, etc.) then it basically would fall under the category of "fan art", which I believe is perfectly legal. If you want to adhere to the letter of the law, you might put a small print "characters copywrite ________" at the bottom. Some companies (Marvel comics comes to mind) actually encourage you to show them pieces with their characters if you want to get work from them (once again, so long as you don't use them beyond portfolio samples).

[Red_Rook]

Art schools, give out a huge amount of assignments that are book illustrations based on real literature, I just did one that was assigned to me, and I promise you a huge amount of people have those in their portfolios, seriousely dont worry about it. This is free promotion for your book the worst most horrible thing that could happen is you may get a cease and desist letter from your lawyer telling you to knock it off, but no half sane person would do that.

Just out of curiosity what books are they?

[Farvus]

I was thinking about that too beacause I have some really great Sci-fi books that would be good for concept art (it's like making a movie from a book). The writer could be pleased that someone is promoting his book this way. Especially with really good art :).

[Flake]

It's not Ursula K. Le Guin is it?
(just thinking of writers whose work has been butchered by the scifi chan..)

Back on topic, you'll be alright with fanart. If you do get a "Cease and desist", well...cease and desist.

[Seedling]

How legal would it be to illustrate a certain writer's work for one's portfolio?

It is not illegal to make such work. It is illegal to profit from such work or to take profits away from the owner of the intellectual property.

"Profiting from such work" doesn't include getting a job due to having such work in your portfolio. It should be fine for you to have such work in your portfolio. Illustration classes regularly have "illustrate this story" assignments.

[Kotaro]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think creating a piece for your portfolio has about a 0.000000003% chance of landing you in a lawsuit. If you're not using it as a means of turning some sort of profit (like selling prints, etc.) then it basically would fall under the category of "fan art", which I believe is perfectly legal. If you want to adhere to the letter of the law, you might put a small print "characters copywrite ________" at the bottom. Some companies (Marvel comics comes to mind) actually encourage you to show them pieces with their characters if you want to get work from them (once again, so long as you don't use them beyond portfolio samples).


Well that's a relief, I approached a popular literary discussion group on her work for suggestions and insights and I got a rather cold reception, I was tempted to tell them that they might be being more protective about her work than she is :)
Strangely no one was eager to see the outcome. Bunch of wet blankets.


Art schools, give out a huge amount of assignments that are book illustrations based on real literature, I just did one that was assigned to me, and I promise you a huge amount of people have those in their portfolios, seriousely dont worry about it. This is free promotion for your book the worst most horrible thing that could happen is you may get a cease and desist letter from your lawyer telling you to knock it off, but no half sane person would do that.

Just out of curiosity what books are they?

The writer is Ursula Le Guin of Earthsea fame. The thing is her work's been twisted out of shape first by the Sci-Fi miniseries, changed the story, added some bizarre characters, and then by Miyazaki's son in the anime film Gedo Senki (it'll be released in the US by 2009), apparently it was a sweet film but not really close to the essence of the original story. So that's twice someone's misrepresented her work, and being an amatuer writer myself I can imagine how she feels. So she might have a knee jerk reaction to someone trying it again. So that's why I was rather diffident about the whole project.

I was thinking about that too beacause I have some really great Sci-fi books that would be good for concept art (it's like making a movie from a book). The writer could be pleased that someone is promoting his book this way. .

'Her' Farvus, 'her' :wink:

Especially with really good art

I'm still learning. No where near where you guys are. I hope to get some support and feedback here.

[Kotaro]

It's not Ursula K. Le Guin is it?
(just thinking of writers whose work has been butchered by the scifi chan..)

Back on topic, you'll be alright with fanart. If you do get a "Cease and desist", well...cease and desist.

It is not illegal to make such work. It is illegal to profit from such work or to take profits away from the owner of the intellectual property.

"Profiting from such work" doesn't include getting a job due to having such work in your portfolio. It should be fine for you to have such work in your portfolio. Illustration classes regularly have "illustrate this story" assignments.

Okay, hopefully if she ever sees it she won't want to kill me :) though she should have sued the Sci-fi guys....


Aarrgh, another thing, what if your 'portfolio' involves a personal site, online work that can be downloaded? Cz i'll definetely be doing that sometime........

[Red_Rook]

Then, its still part of your portfolio, its self promotion, makes no difference.

[Kotaro]

'Kay.
This is all very reassuring :)

[lordofthebling]

Once again proof that copyright threatens and inhibits creativity.

[Elwell]

Once again proof that copyright threatens and inhibits creativity.
Only if you don't understand it.
The consensus of the thread is that there is no legal impediment to Kotaro's project.

[Ilaekae]

"Once again proof that copyright threatens and inhibits creativity."



How damn simple does this have to get before some idiot who thinks it would be great to just steal any shit they pleased by abolishing copyright law understands?

The original question is answered thus...Do it.

You have the right under "Fair Use" provisions of the Copyright act (and also under the "parody" provisions of the same law, since you're reinterpretting the author's characters in a new medium for a "non-competitive" purpose--making it a technical parody. You cannot sell copies of that work though, since you would THEN be intruding upon the author's intellectual rights.

Copyright law is very simple, except when someone tries to twist it to benefit themselves financially. Disney (among a few thousand other weasel corporations) is guilty of that, and so is every single sack of shit on DeviantArt/Etc., that has tried to get laid or a job by using someone else's work.

[lordofthebling]

I stand by what I said. Just do your research. Throughout history, copyright has done nothing but corrupt the creators, and culture has suffered as a result. In fact, when it was originally written, it was meant to protect creators without stiffling innovation and free speech. So it only lasted a short time (I believe about 14 years). Today, it lasts until the end of the creator's life, plus an additional 70 years. If you can't see how screwed up that is, you really need to get your head examined.

Fair Use as we know it is gone. It was written to allow new creators to build upon whatever culture had already been established without fear of persecution. Today, the copyright cartel has completely dismissed it and other freedoms, and is using everything in their power to oppress and dominate the industry. This has got to stop.

[Kotaro]

:rendered: Well, there might be a bit of truth to what Lordofthebling says. Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison being people who have been rumoured to have stolen their ideas for the phonograph and the telephone. Actually it works both ways, depends on who reaches the patenting office sooner :)

[Kotaro]

Um, stupid unrelated question---how do I show the link to my sketchbook as a signature at the bottom of my posts? I haven't had any visitors and am very comment hungry.

[Elwell]

:rendered: Well, there might be a bit of truth to what Lordofthebling says. Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison being people who have been rumoured to have stolen their ideas for the phonograph and the telephone. Actually it works both ways, depends on who reaches the patenting office sooner :)
Patents and copyrights are two totally different things. Your analogy is inaccurate and irrelevant.

[Kotaro]

Patents and copyrights are two totally different things. Your analogy is inaccurate and irrelevant.


Elwell, my comment was meant as an insight into the spirit of the discussion---people taking ideas and profiting from what might not truly be theirs. You really didn’t have to take it so literally. On the other hand if anyone wants to know about patents vs. copyrights vs trademarks…vs….are there anymore? ---they can always find out from legitimate sources on the web.

[Seedling]

Elwell, my comment was meant as an insight into the spirit of the discussion---people taking ideas and profiting from what might not truly be theirs. You really didn’t have to take it so literally.

Copyrights and patents are very different things. Your opinion is severely uninformed.

[Ilaekae]

Alright, Lordofthebling, I'll play...


(1) "Once again proof that copyright threatens and inhibits creativity."

Give me some examples to prove your statement above that don't include outright theft or piracy.


(2) "Throughout history, copyright has done nothing but corrupt the creators, and culture has suffered as a result."

Throughout history! Mygawd, I must have slept through all that turmoil.... So...how about giving me at least one specific example...?


(3) "Fair Use as we know it is gone. It was written to allow new creators to build upon whatever culture had already been established without fear of persecution."

Say what!?!? Could you please post the actual statement in the original Copyright act, or any other version of it for that matter, that allows specifically what you just stated? I have a different definition of Fair Use in mind, but I'm willing to learn...


(4) "Today, the copyright cartel has completely dismissed it [fair use] and other freedoms, and is using everything in their power to oppress and dominate the industry."

Now this scares the hell out of my AIDS-damaged ass! But...I need a little help again, because I'm reeeeeeaaallllllllly stupid. I googled "copyright cartel" and nothing comes up but a bunch of people who, for the most part, are either concerned with getting free music or preventing someone from getting it. Can you give me an address for this Copyright Cartel so I can ask them directly what I as a visual artist and writer have to do so I don't offend them? Maybe just a name of an officer if you can't find the address...

Oh...and I'm most curious on exactly how they were able to dismiss the Fair Use part of the copyright law. I hadn't heard about that happening... Guess I should watch more TV and read less...

[Kotaro]

I suppose I ought not to pursue this thread in a bid to convince everyone that I know the difference, I’ll just think twice before adding my two bit insights, however ‘irrelevant.’


However, am very grateful to all who took the time to answer my questions. It’s appreciated. Thank you all :)

[Prometheus|ANJ]

Here's what Lawrence Lessig thinks... or thought, because this presentation is 5 years old now. It shows how copyright has changed since 17xx, and you're not that old are you now Ilaekae?
http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/free.html

[Qitsune]

How does stoping someone from copying inhibits creativity?

[Red_Rook]

Lawrence Lessig is very much one of the great copyright lawyers of our time, the man knows what hes talking about, he founded creative commons for a reason, because current copyright law is poorly suited to the times. Maybe you dont think it affects us so much as visual artists right now, its more of a technology and research standpoint that gets inhibited. Its not that copyright law should be abolished its that it should be amended. Recent copyright law specifically the Digital Millenium Copyright Act really does infringe on a number of fair use issues, free expression, research, competition and computer security.
Please listen to the presentation, copyright law is FAR more complex then most people think, im no expert by any means but its something that interests me.

check out http://www.eff.org/ they do some good stuff.

[lordofthebling]

Alright, Lordofthebling, I'll play...


(1) "Once again proof that copyright threatens and inhibits creativity."

Give me some examples to prove your statement above that don't include outright theft or piracy.First of all, piracy and theft are 2 very different things. Lean the difference, or take a seat.

There are many examples I can provide without scouring the almighty internets. However, since a link to information by Lawrence Lessig has already been provided, I'll be brief.

One such example (and a very important one, I should add) is the Betamax case. The film industry, fearing that personal VCR's would allow people to make unauthorized copies of films, and that this would apparently bankrupt the industry, sued Sony and attempted to end production and distribution of the Betamax. However, the court ruled in favour of Sony, citing that although the device in question could be used to aid piracy, it was also capable of substantial non-infringing uses, such as recording your favourite television programs for personal use.

This struck a great blow for consumer rights, however.......today the exact same thing is happening with the digital realm. Thanks to the highly unethical DMCA, it is actually illegal in America to circumvent copy protection, even for personal use. That means no copying your DVD collection. It has also resulted in lawsuits against makers of DVD copying software. One such title was 321 Studios' DVD X Copy. It was not designed for any sort of illegal purpose, and the makers of the software even had a disclaimer saying that they did not condone film piracy. Even so, they ended up in court, and lost. Since then, more titles have gone under, (such as DVD Decrypter) simply because the software creators are afraid of legal trouble.

And as if that weren't bad enough, the film industry has also targeted the personal video recorder. Using the Broadcast Flag, they are trying to convince Congress to control the production of media devices (such as the TiVo) in such a way that they are forbidden from distribution unless they meet new technological measures that would allow the film industry to control what you, the consumer, can and can't do with it. With television broadcasts moving over to a digital standard, this would enable the film industry to tag programs that they didn't want you to record. So if there's a show you want to tape, you won't be able to unless Hollywood gives it the okay.


It also stiffles free expression. Again, I refer you to Lawrence Lessig, but a lot has happened since then. One example is DJ Danger Mouse (a member of the rap duo Gnarles Barkely). After releasing 2 mashup albums, The Grey Album and The Double Black Album. Basically, these were recordings that mixed tracks from Jay-Z with The Beatles and Metallica. Although he had created something entirely new, which would not, in any way, affect the sales of the other bands involved in the production, he was forced to end distribution by EMI. Similar suits have been launched against the creator of an album entitled The Beachles, and a Beatles/Metallica parody band called Beatallica. A more recent example of this sort of thing is The Da Vinci Code. Shortly after the films release, the author was sued by the author of another book, The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail.

(2) "Throughout history, copyright has done nothing but corrupt the creators, and culture has suffered as a result."

Throughout history! Mygawd, I must have slept through all that turmoil.... So...how about giving me at least one specific example...?


(3) "Fair Use as we know it is gone. It was written to allow new creators to build upon whatever culture had already been established without fear of persecution."

Say what!?!? Could you please post the actual statement in the original Copyright act, or any other version of it for that matter, that allows specifically what you just stated? I have a different definition of Fair Use in mind, but I'm willing to learn...


(4) "Today, the copyright cartel has completely dismissed it [fair use] and other freedoms, and is using everything in their power to oppress and dominate the industry."

Now this scares the hell out of my AIDS-damaged ass! But...I need a little help again, because I'm reeeeeeaaallllllllly stupid. I googled "copyright cartel" and nothing comes up but a bunch of people who, for the most part, are either concerned with getting free music or preventing someone from getting it. Can you give me an address for this Copyright Cartel so I can ask them directly what I as a visual artist and writer have to do so I don't offend them? Maybe just a name of an officer if you can't find the address...

Oh...and I'm most curious on exactly how they were able to dismiss the Fair Use part of the copyright law. I hadn't heard about that happening... Guess I should watch more TV and read less...I have tried to debate this in a civil manner with you, but if you are not mature enough to handle it without being childish and sarcastic, I have nothing more to say. I am not here to debate the ethics of filesharing either. If you have some kind of irrational moral objection to it, then that's your problem. But there is no place for you here if you can't tolerate other people's opinions that conflict with your own. I made one statement that reflected my beliefs based on what I've gathered, and you told me to "kiss your ass".

Don't you have better things to do with your time than insult a complete stranger on the internet?

[Prometheus|ANJ]

How does stoping someone from copying inhibits creativity?

Human culture evolves from the past, sometimes it's just babysteps that bring us forward, small optimizations. But I can also see Copyright being useful for forcing people to be original and come up with completely new product lines. It has both good and bad facets I think. I'm not gonna name them all.


Copyright can also be very destructive, which is sad considering that its primary function is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", i.e. make people do stuff for the benefit of us all. The Carrot is a temporary goverment granted monopoly on making duplicates (and thus earning money, which currently is needed for rent, food and services). It's temporary, because the idea is that eventually the product or idea will be free for everyone, which clearly is a better situation than it being restricted just to people with paper money in their pockets. It is sad that the latter correlation has to be made, but maybe it's necessary atm. Anyways, where were I? Oh yes, the destructive part:

One example is not being able to save videos from youtube (okay, you can, but it's complicated). There was an awesome video of a girl playing Wii in superlow white cotton panties and now it's gone!!! I weep! Humanity weeps!

Okay a more serious example is BBC's Doctor Who. It's a well known brittish sci-fi series that has run since 1963, and it's a significant part of Brittish culture. Very few people had video recorders back in 1963 of course, so when BBC had to wipe their archives for copyright reasons, they destroyed the last copies. As a result, several seasons of Doctor Who had been permanently lost. Or so they thought. A few episodes and clips here and there actually survived, thanks to copyright infringement actually. Ironically, censorship also helped, so the only moving pictures surviving from some episodes are the violence and sex parts.


Decentralization of information is a good way to make sure culture isn't lost. Keep in mind that a CD will deteriorate, get scratched, and fileformats, hardware and other things change. Computers are very good at making exact copies, and as hardware, network and storage capacity grows, so does our chance to preserve culture for our children to build upon... Unless we screw it up with artifical restrictions such as DRM, lossy formats and centralization.

[roosketch]

You'd probably get into more trouble if she realised you'd just called her oldish!! :o

I see no wrong in what you want to do whatsoever!

[nickmarshallvfx]

To bring this kind of full circle and back towards where the thread started, how would an author know if you were illustrating their work? I have some novels that I would like to illustrate, but if the author saw the work, how could they even prove that you were using their novels? In a way, every illustration of an elf (and I see loads around) could be deemed as ripping Tolkien off right? Maybe I am way off, or have misunderstood what you intended Kotaro, but it seems very strange to me.

Nick

[Kotaro]

She would, because I intended to project it as "inspired by the short story xxoxox by UKL" .Or she would eventually find it. Besides, I know she has a problem with people using her characters and worlds for fan fiction. Her characters are important to her, and I think I know why she would feel that way.


how would an author know if you were illustrating their work?

She wouldn't unless I mention it, I guess. My work would hold more meaning for someone who's read the story.

[_Mario]

To bring this kind of full circle and back towards where the thread started, how would an author know if you were illustrating their work? I have some novels that I would like to illustrate, but if the author saw the work, how could they even prove that you were using their novels? In a way, every illustration of an elf (and I see loads around) could be deemed as ripping Tolkien off right? Maybe I am way off, or have misunderstood what you intended Kotaro, but it seems very strange to me.

NickThe elf idea as presented in Tolkien's work is just a permutation of ideas that you can find in even older myths, sagas, legends, stories, or whatever. This means that whatever elf you paint of draw you can probably reference it to some thing even older. So yes there is still (even after he doesn't live anymore to profit from it) a copyright on his work. But that's all there is: copyright on his work (as in: the exact sequence of words used in his work and the IP that was created as a side effect of this writing (characters, places,...)). The basic elf or orc are part of the public domain.

On the author and knowing thing: It doesn't really matter. If you create your illustrations and write that they are "based on x" then you can only get real problems when you try to sell (for example prints) it by using the other persons IP. So if it's personal work that you use in your portfolio to show your skills then the worst that can/should happen is a "cease and desist" letter because the author (or whoever owns the original IP) doesn't want your work to be associated with her/his work. Most normal people would see it this as "word of mouth" advertisement and not write you a C&D letter (and it's better for your image if you don't harass people who are not really damaging you).

Of course if you base some "disturbing" fan-art on someone's work they probably could be pissed off at you and send you a C&D letter.


If you want to see where copyright can get wrong, messed up or just funny try these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittersweet_Symphony (read under Song credits)
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/04/smithsonian_becomes_.html
http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/
http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/ (scroll a bit down and read about their recent problems with licensing)
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/10/dumbest_dmca_threat_.html

These are just a few example. If you want regular updates just look at boingboing.net and/or slashdot.org sometimes. There is much more, and considerably more important stuff, to copyright than just "He stole my picture!". Look a bit further than just your little place in the world and you will see that everything is not just black and white.

Read a bit here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law) for more information what the idea behind these laws was. And then just search on Google or Yahoo (or whatever search engine you like to use) and you should see that copyright (and the whole rest of IP laws) have been abused by many companies (and the DMCA and similar laws have increased the rate of abuse without giving any real protection or support for the cases where it's really needed). Try search terms like "copyright abuse" "DMCA abuse" and you should find enough to read.

The whole set of IP laws is more or less a big mess of confusing thingies.