Daily query

[effervescible]

One reason some people feel justified in making icons from comic books (and I'm not saying they aren't) is because they're using scans from a piece of art that they have purchased and now own.

Does that apply to fanart scans? Credit is an understandable request, since everyone knows who made Bleach and Spider-Man but not everyone knows who drew X Fanart, but if I buy a print, do I need to get permission too, like I've seen many people insist re: fanart icons? Is the answer different if we're talking about doujinshi?

This isn't actually me looking for advice, it's just a thought that popped into my head when I glanced at a print El Boss bought at a con and pinned on the wall and thought "that'd make an awesome icon." I'm curious where you guys think fair use and non-professional art intersect.

For the record, I did get mission to make this icon out of someone else's fanart, but it wasn't a print anyway so it's not quite what I'm talking about.

Comments

[greyvorfeed.livejournal.com]

Fair use is fair use. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's a transformative work (i.e. you're not just plagiarizing it), you're in the clear.

I would personally give the artist credit in the comment box for the icon on LJ. Asking permission is certainly a nice thing to do, and I would probably give it a shot, but it's not necessary unless the artist specifically says it is. And for a print (unlike something posted on LJ or Deviantart), that seems pretty unlikely.

IMHO, this is all part of making art. Once it's out there, it becomes a part of other people, and you can't dictate what they do with it. That goes double for fanart, fanfic, and other fannish stuff -- wait, so you drew a picture of somebody else's character, and now you don't want someone else to make an icon out of your picture, even with credit given? That seems a bit much.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

Definitely there's a difference between doing things out of etiquette vs. obligation. In the fannish sphere, I think etiquette does carry more weight. Though it's not always directed at the artist—if I credit, sometimes it's meant for friends or readers so they can find the cool shit too, not just because I want to give the artist a happy. Though I suppose one could easily lead to the other.

[greyvorfeed.livejournal.com]

In the fannish sphere, I think etiquette does carry more weight. Though it's not always directed at the artist—if I credit, sometimes it's meant for friends or readers so they can find the cool shit too, not just because I want to give the artist a happy. Though I suppose one could easily lead to the other.

Yes, definitely. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I think any given fandom is more or less a gigantic piece of collaborative storytelling, one in which the distinction between creators and the audience is deliberately low. All the good stuff (fic, art, recs, reviews, picspams, vidding, review posts, squee, etc) makes the story stronger, and the bad stuff (wank, drama, trolling, non-participation, etc) makes it weaker. There's a reason why they call it "feedback" -- in a healthy and active fandom, the relationship between writers/readers and artists/viewers is circular and mutually-reinforcing. It's emphatically not a top-down, one-way relationship.

I understand the impulse behind it, but whether you're an artist or not, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot when you try to keep the good stuff to yourself. That piece of fanart is not all about you, even if you're the one who made it: fandom is all about sharing mutual joy, so if someone likes your stuff enough to make an icon out of it, guess what? They win! You win! Everybody wins!

[ruxi.livejournal.com]

I think the basic rule is that if it's credited, all is well.

Some fan artists specifically ask not to have icons made from their work, and that's to be respected. Otherwise, yes, credit in the comment box, smile.

I admit that I was very surprised to see icons and a youtube slide show featuring some of my YYH fan art, but I'd never explicitly requested that the material be left on its own either. At the end of the day, it's still people appreciating your work enough to want to preserve it / flaunt it.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but the situation I was talking about is more specific than that—what rights do you have vs. the artist when you actually pay for a piece? What if it's not a commissioned piece, but just another print of something that has a digital equivalent on the net? It changes the situation a little from just making (or not making) icons from some art you find and like online. Some artists do request not to have icons made of their work, but what if you paid for that art? I'm just curious what people think—I dunno if there's one right answer.

Though I will say I have NO qualms about making fanart icons if it's a piece I commissioned and own the only version of. That's my art in a way even buying one of many prints isn't.

[ruxi.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. I'd say that if you bought it, you're entitled to doing whatever you want with it, short of taking credit for its making or redistributing it - commission or not. I think I can see where it might get tricky - if you buy a magazine right now, you're entitled to scanning the front cover, or some pictures, but you're not supposed to be posting the full content of the issue. Then there's copyright involved, because you're cheating the producer out of potential customers, who get their fill by just reading what you put up online. Unfortunately, with (fan) artists, the one image is their whole product, so I guess they have some basis for claiming that you're damaging their enterprise by putting up their work. Although I don't think anyone can really say a 100 x 100 crop of their image is representative of the full quality of the image.

By the same token, though, art is best enjoyed, well, in person. I don't mean to bash fans of prints, but there's a difference between the original piece of art and a printed version. So I don't think artists can say they're getting cheated by online displays of their work, since it's not their work at its best quality. People aren't getting the same deal they'd be getting if they paid for the thing.

What about when the fan art was created digitally... hmmm. I wanna say that things made on comp regularly end up published online anyway? And once it's online, I kind of think people'd have a difficult case proving that the republication of their product damaged their work, because that'd involve their proving it somehow took away from the number of people who visited the site where the pic was originally posted and blablabla.

idk, my media law & ethics class was at 8 a.m. ._.


eta: AS FOR YOUR SPECIFIC CASE AND NOT MY TL;DR sob, I wanna say you probably shouldn't icon, if the artist asks you not to? But that's just a courtesy. As a customer who acquired these prints, you should have the right to icon them. What are these prints of btw?

[jaina.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, so sorry I made you think. ;) No really, this sort of discussion is exactly what I was aiming for. Yay?

I have a lot of prints, since I lurve me some good fanart, but probably the ones that best fit this example are that one of Renji sprawled naked across the bed and one by the same artist that features an open-shirted Byakuya looking pretty yet still manly, which is sorta rare. I saw them many times before I came across the artist selling prints at...I think it was Anime Boston.

[ruxi.livejournal.com]

Sob, I SEE YOU JUDGING ME.

Pfffffffft, what are you saying, Byakuya is the manliest character in Bleach, he's right there duking it out with Yumi and Colhorn for the testosterone award.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

XD Byakuya is manly; I mean, he looks like Rukia yes, but she would have to butch up a fuckton to pass as him. He's just pretty, too. Too many artists mistake his silky flowing locks for UTTER GIRLINESS. I'm looking at you, ByaRen fans.

[ruxi.livejournal.com]

I never understood why he looks like Rukia, when he's not related to her by blood. But yeaaaaaaaah, he has a quiet dignity and icy bite that should not translate as BLUSHING UKE OMG UNDONE FRILLY KIMONO in pictures. Ever. For the sake of my continued sanity. ._.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

Easy answer: KT didn't want readers to guess that Rukia wasn't really related to Byakuya, as he was pretty intent on doling out bits of her past one by one.

It's sort of fun to psychoanalyze Byakuya's desire to marry someone who looked just like him, though.

Man, I think my favorite badass Byakuya moments are when he finally got pissed off enough to yell at Ichigo during their final fight and when he was all "NO, FUCK YOU for touching my precious babby sister" against Pumpkincar.

[ruxi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can see KT's reasons for doing it, but... it doesn't make much narrative sense... unless, as you've said, he really has some very interesting marry-the-sweeter-docile-version-of-me complexes.

Oh man, Byakuya didn't do too much for me, but he had his badass moments, from throwing his scarf down on Renji as if he were a dog, to cutting his own nerves in an unrepentant snap.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

KT's made enough twisty bits of continuity work that I'll forgive him this instance of cutting corners. Plus psychologically analyzing Byakuya is fun, if only because he'd be so annoyed if he knew.

Man, Byakuya is one of the few characters I can think of who can make such a diss (the scarf thing) ALSO be a gesture of respect. That's tough.

[sarcasticval.livejournal.com]

In the graphic design world, if you buy a stock photo you pretty much get to do whatever you want with it (except, you know, claim you took it). I think the same idea applies here. If you pay money for something you're in the clear. Crediting the artist is a nice thing to do, but by no means required. (Although as a fan if I see art I like in an icon I often go to a user's profile page to see if there is some sort of info on the artist so I can see more of their work.)

[jaina.livejournal.com]

I think one of the reasons I'm so curious what people think is that I have at least two prints of some pieces that are in wide circulation online. So if the artist prefers people not make icons from their DeviantArt postings or something, is it different for me to make icons of the prints I bought, given that you can't tell from the icons that they have a different source? Food for thought, though in the end I lean towards "they're icons, lighten up." Especially if I do have credit links.

[chaosblue.livejournal.com]

eeeeeeehn. I'll weigh in, since this is kind of what I do and all. ^^;;

I'm pretty particular about redisplaying my stuff, but only in the sense that I worry about someone taking my work and claiming it as theirs. With my commissioned crap, it's agreed that it can't be uploaded to dA/y!g/etc (those sites are for artists to display their work, so it would be tantamount to claiming that you're the artist of *my* work) and that I retain the right to display it, but other than that... whatever. I *ask* that I be credited if it's put up anywhere else, but it's not something I outright demand. 's just *nice*, is all, cuz being credited means other people can find me and perhaps like my stuff and want to give me money as well.

tl;dr: Selling my work means I sold a chunk of rights to it, and among those is fair use, and iconing qualifies.