I had no idea this was so prevalent! This is pretty shameful - someone need to get a payday (and NOT the freelancer who put the artwork together)

Eck’s got a handful of videos just in the past couple of months regarding “official” swipes of fan art.

My favorite (relatively speaking) is one that he briefly mentions in this one: an artist for Marvel swiped a fleet shot that MelMinuatures put together with his custom Armada minis...and even left the peg extensions on some of the ships.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

I had no idea this was so prevalent! This is pretty shameful - someone need to get a payday (and NOT the freelancer who put the artwork together)

I dont think FFG is necessarily responsible. I think they commision art and the artist is the one responsible. And I am not sure how to handle it. I dont think it is reasonable or possible for the company to have to vet every piece of art. And I think that is the problem

Oh the blame totally rests on the artist who nicked the back cover, not FFG or Disney - although at the end of the day, this puts both companies in hot water if the artist decides to make a stink. It's ultimately Disney's neck on the line, legally.

I don't fault FFG for missing this - hell, this is beyond vetting every piece of art. This is having to vet every element IN that piece of art. Really, the only thing they can do is go back to that freelancer and go "Your services will no longer be required for any of our projects moving forward." and then maybe warn other companies.

Then again, the fan artist doesn't have permission to use Disney's IP in the first place.

Apparently, the back cover artist has removed his artstation page following Eck and the fan artist (fractalsponge) posting about it.

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Then again, the fan artist doesn't have permission to use Disney's IP in the first place.

The fan artist is doing it as a hobby without compensation. (I believe this particular fan artist has actually been hired by LFL or licensees on occasion, as well.) The “professional” artist is taking someone else’s work, passing it off as his own, and being paid for it.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

The fan artist is doing it as a hobby without compensation. (I believe this particular fan artist has actually been hired by LFL or licensees on occasion, as well.) The “professional” artist is taking someone else’s work, passing it off as his own, and being paid for it.

If the fan artist has been hired on the strength of his fan work, he's profited from it.

It just rubs me the wrong way to complain about art theft when you're aping and using other people's art without permission, too. Vehicle designs, logos, creature designs, etc. don't just spring up from nothing.

19 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Then again, the fan artist doesn't have permission to use Disney's IP in the first place.

Yes, yes they do.

At the very least, the artist should be credited, in my opinion. Especially if it's a freelancer taking their work and basically passing it off as their own.

The legality is muddy, but the ethics aren't, in my opinion.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

Yes, yes they do.

To elaborate on this, I believe it falls under fair use.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

Yes, yes they do.

How so? Did they get permission from Disney?

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

To elaborate on this, I believe it falls under fair use.

Why would it? It's not parody, it's not educational. Under what standard is it fair use?

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

How so? Did they get permission from Disney?

They don't need permission from Disney, the law grands them that permission.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

They don't need permission from Disney, the law grands them that permission.

Which law?

I am not doing this.

Bwahaha.

21 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

If the fan artist has been hired on the strength of his fan work, he's profited from it.

Not from this particular work.

This specific work was taken by another artist, who passed it off as their own, and was paid for doing so.

7 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Why would it? It's not parody, it's not educational. Under what standard is it fair use?

I believe it is a matter of the work being considered "transformative" and not being for-profit (unless officially licensed by the IP owner).

I'm no lawyer, however, so this could very well be in error.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I believe it is a matter of the work being considered "transformative" and not being for-profit (unless officially licensed by the IP owner).

I'm no lawyer, however, so this could very well be in error.

https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse

I don't see how it could be. It doesn't use Disney's art in new and unexpected ways. It's literally aping how the originals are used - vehicle designs are replicated, logos that are on vehicles in the movies are put on vehicles in the fan artist's art, etc. There's no transformation.

Lucas has always been ok with fans making fan art and has even had awards for these artists. As long as they dont try and sell it

12 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Lucas has always been ok with fans making fan art and has even had awards for these artists. As long as they dont try and sell it

In anticipation of the obvious response to this...not just Lucas, but Lucasfilm.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Then again, the fan artist doesn't have permission to use Disney's IP in the first place.

Actually, they kind of do. Mind you, I've not seen the original work the back cover was stolen from, so I'm going off assumptions here - but the original stolen art would fall under the category of fair use, if it was sufficiently transformative.

3 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Actually, they kind of do. Mind you, I've not seen the original work the back cover was stolen from, so I'm going off assumptions here - but the original stolen art would fall under the category of fair use, if it was sufficiently transformative.

Read my later post. I don't see how it would. There's nothing transformative about the fan's art.

Since I'm suppose to be something else, no time to get into it, but here's a way more articulate article that might help what I'm getting at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190902075104/http://blog.tcrobinsonlaw.com/should-it-be-considered-fair-use-for-artists-to-take-a-photographers-work-and-transform-it-for-profit/

TL;DNR summation: completely redrawing an vehicle in an all different context would probably fall into fair use.

1 minute ago, Desslok said:

Since I'm suppose to be something else, no time to get into it, but here's a way more articulate article that might help what I'm getting at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190902075104/http://blog.tcrobinsonlaw.com/should-it-be-considered-fair-use-for-artists-to-take-a-photographers-work-and-transform-it-for-profit/

The fan artist isn't doing what the artist in your article is doing, though.

"Prince expressly stated that he was not commenting on Cariou’s photos, rather he had “transformed” them into something of higher artistic value and that this was fair use."

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

If the fan artist has been hired on the strength of his fan work, he's profited from it.

It doesn't work that way. Otherwise you'd have to "contact-trace" every idea anybody has ever had to find and pay off the "true source". Heck, by your logic, Lucas would owe Campbell for the Hero's Journey, and Campbell would owe all peoples everywhere for profiting off of a genetic/social trait common to all homo sapiens.

If you profit from specific works of art that feature content that is owned by Disney, then you need a license. If you get a job because you can draw Ahsoka really well, you don't owe anybody anything.