Gone are the days when a man’s word was a good as a binding contract, and the days of people playing fair. Today, everything must be dealt with in dense legal contracts, with witnesses and hundreds of “sign here” lines. Possibly the only unspoken rule that remains to this day is the concept of money, where people “just know” what the bills they exchange for goods represent; the days of verbal agreement are things of the past. Ironically, all of these issues are driven by money, and understanding who owns what and who is allowed to makes a profit. An artist used to take solace in knowing that under a copyright law he was protected in selling his creations for a profit; popyright is understood as protecting the rights of someone (or someones) who own a specific object or creation. In fact, the United States Copyright Office’s website explicitly states that their mission statement is“To promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system.” Unfortunately, all this seems to do is act as positive advertising; yes, the Copyright Office wants to promote creativity, but the business practices, and awful people of the new age, have ran that into the ground, to fill the hole with money instead. This is not what copyright is, nor what it was, and to protect the creators of this new time, an updated definition is necessary.
The actual definition of copyright, as according to Mirriam-Webster’s most up-to-date edition, is “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).” This is merely a bare-bones description, however. Copyright laws are defined not by what they are, but who decides what they are; there will be different laws and regulations per each contract. For instance, both Marvel and DC Comics publishers own different characters named Captain Marvel. DC is still legally permitted to advertise their character and use his name inside their books, but, as his name is the name of their rival company, on the covers or merchandise he must be dubbed “Shazam!” instead; they still own him, usage is just restricted. This is wear the issues with copyright laws arise; the laws and contracts are beneficially vague. Beneficial, note, to the owner of the rights.
This does beg for clarification. A recent upsetting copyright battle has been launched by Marvel Comics, on the grounds of them begin supreme owners of all characters they publish. This has always been the case, but there was always another unspoken agreement between Marvel and its artists that they would be permitted to draw these characters for commission and personal profit. Due to some bad blood spilled in several court cases over the rights of Ghost Rider with creator Gary Friedrich, Marvel’s position has changed. Creators and artists do not have the ability to earn a personal profit from Marvel characters, it appears; these are not just ex-artists or the artist of The Invincible Iron Man drawing Spider-man, Marvel will sue the Iron Man artist for selling an Iron Man commission. Someone who draws this character literally for a living cannot due so by other means, without the risk of impending lawsuit.
Yes, the artists do not own the rights. All created characters to be published by Marvel are legally sold over to Marvel, they make sure of that at the meeting. This is not the case to attack; it is universally understood that the publisher now owns the rights, such as artist Rob Liefeld mentions in his description of signing his creations over to Marvel, and it is now understood that Marvel can use that character in whatever manner they see fit. But this creates a rift between the publisher and the creators, as a lack of respect grows. Something worth noting is the ability of artistic license and interpretation. No artist draws the same; Ed McGuinness will not be drawing the Hulk forever, and a new artist will take his place. He will draw in his own way, and thus make that book run “his own.” Should he sued for changing the look of a character from the status quo? Not as long as he makes Marvel money, surely. The issue is personal gain.
From there we can step back and observe art in the realm of copyright. Artists alwayshave personal liberties allotted to respect each’s own personal methods. This is true for the entire art and design world; Brand logos like Pepsi have gone through drastic changes, never by the same designer, and the differences represent liberties taken. The same can be applied to the Marvel suit. Within the realm of artistic license, artists are allowed personal interpretation. So, why not make a statement that these commissions are merely portraits? Portrait works for artists is a norm, and part of the profession (then again, so is drawing Marvel characters, in this case), and thus could skirt some of the attack. In fact, Marvel used to wholly welcome such work; Jack Kirby, oft-called “The King” and the best comic artist of all time, got his wonderful status from his works being enjoyed in a larger medium, without Marvel adding text and advertising to the piece.
Even still, these commissions are not even a part of a Marvel artist’s contract; as far as we are aware, at least. In fact, whether they are contractual or not does not matter: If they were, Marvel could not take any action as they would be paying the artist for this purpose, and if they are not contractual and in no way cause Marvel any grief, the case itself should not be occurring. These are entirely free-lance pieces made for someone’s love of a character. Yes, a slight profit made without legal use seems to be slightly more than bending the rules, but caricature and parody artists have the ability to draw literally anything without lawsuit risk. A comic artists doing the same thing at a show is no different, and it should be more accepted as they actually get payed to draw that character any other time.
Vague details kill all when copyright comes into play, and creators are usually the victims. It is quite difficult to see how the Copyright Office can boast that they promote creativity in instances like this, when the one thing that is being robbed from an artist is his ability to be creative. Copyright secures the rights of a creation in the grasp of a company to produce how they see fit and make a profit, not for the purpose of creativity.
“Worth A Thousand Words: The Images Of Copyright.” Harvard Law Review 125.3 (2012): 684-759. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.
“No More Unauthorized Artwork.” Murphy, Sean Gordon. DeviantArt. http://seangordonmurphy.deviantart.com/journal/No-More-Unauthorized-Artwork-285030622 14 Feb. 2012
“Complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, December 2011.” U.S. Copyright Office(2011) Title 17. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Dec 2011