question about copyright etc

[Zoltan_hellhound]

Yesterday i was surfing a action site on the net and i saw som statyes of my favorite movie crazy "letherface" and it was pretty nice, the work on the sculp was very detaild and nicely done. but it wasent a licensd pice. i mean the person sellin made it as a hobby sculpt.

it felt wrong some how and i dident buy it, but i would like to know is this person doing something eligal? ive sen other examples, home made pantings of fore example planet terror..

dont you need the promission of the owners to the movie etc

edit

Ive just gone thru the forums here and ive seen a lot o persons doing like busts and stuff of comic book guys and movie stuff actors etc, and putting em upp fore sale,now im just confused, seems like its ok to do sculps and paintings and stuff of copirighted material and selling them, but how is that possible? couldent the get sued?

[Elwell]

While technically infringement, companies generally turn a blind eye to one-of-a-kind pieces like sculptures or paintings. If one were to try to sell casts or prints, however, that would be asking for trouble.

[Robert.B]

While im no savant when it some to typing I have to say you might want to use spell check here and there before posting.

[Zoltan_hellhound]

While im no savant when it some to typing I have to say you might want to use spell check here and there before posting.

ok will do

[Zoltan_hellhound]

While technically infringement, companies generally turn a blind eye to one-of-a-kind pieces like sculptures or paintings. If one were to try to sell casts or prints, however, that would be asking for trouble.

Thats risky business, i mean its not a guarantee that they will turn the blind eye,what does the law say?

[maddmaestro]

Look the garage kit industry is something that the owners of liscensed properties are well aware of. usually there is no lawsuits or problems because of two things. one there is no money in it. first of all these statues that you see are made for the love of the intellectual property. its not like some huge company churning out thousands of copies to make a profit.the cost of a lawsuit vs. the amount of money generated by the small amount of sales is miniscule. not to mention the fact that while the intellectual property is owned by the company the actual art work is owned by the person that created it...so where do you draw the line. also the people making these kits i'm sure aren't turning a huge profit...for the most part i bet what they make just serves to fuel their next creation. I for one wouldn't feel bad about supporting them or guilty in the least. compared to the millions that the big guys make off this stuff, the money garage kit artists make is like a drop in the bucket.

That's just my two cents...for what it's worth.

Maddmaestro:afroboy:

[Zoltan_hellhound]

I agree whit you one hundred percent, i was mostly interested in the juridical aspect, and what the law said about it,but still its risky business, i mean if they wanted they could bring legal action upon the artist,

[sloopster]

as i understand it technicaly you can reproduce 10 duplicates and its classed as fan art! over that, it in theory becomes a going concern. Even though genraly its more a pain in the butt producing the models than the fun of sculpting it. I knew of people who got around the limit of ten buy sculpting,for example " spawn" they would then cast up his sholder spikes seperatly and have several differant versions of the same sculpt with differant spike configurations.
with regards to legals if your only say doing a run of ten to cover the costs of production and what not no one is going to say bo but i you get silly then yes they may come looking for you.......... but then chances are even if they can find you its going to cost them so much money to actualy sue you they wouldnt do it any way.

[dubble]

your spelling is criminal, thats for sure

[reneeisorym]

I thought I would add to this discussion that Disney sued a baker for selling cakes on which she drew Disney characters on them. She wasn't "some huge company churning out thousands of copies to make a profit" either.

[Elwell]

Disney is notoriously brutal about protecting their trademarks.