[/quote]

^^^ And delete this guys account too, I hear he believes in ANCIENT ALIENS!

Oh yeah! And Kozik said Mr. Bemon hates ...

oh never mind

You know, this latest drama flare-up only happened because of the full moon. Let's blame the moon. Or Arizona or something.

Ok, who painted that finger!

Thanks, that's what I was curious about. Just for myself and my own work. Nothing to do with Nag or any art related to Nag.

Obama was posed by his staff and stylist,and a photograph was taken by the AP.

The AP sued a popular artist for basing a piece on their photograph. He denied it then actually tried to create evidence showing he didn't base his piece on the AP photograph.

His lawyers had to withdraw from the case and his problems have gotten much worse.

COOP created an original rendering (with permission), he arguably has a copyright to his drawing in some US jurisdictions.

Its a complicated field, jurisdictions vary. Dybbukim's suggestion might be safest for the woodcut guy.

Its mostly an issue of something being too similar, but there are lots of grey areas and laws vary from place to place.
Its generally best to just not copy because it can create liability and expense for the person doing the derivative piece.

"Arguably"??? Sheesh.

I said I personally think its your intellectual property.

I'm not the finder of fact. I'm not qualified to give advice on California law. So yeah "arguably".

The issues are largely Federal but COOP is based in California so a California Attorney would be less apt to need to qualify things like that.

this thread is unreadable. It is making me like the figure less and less.

If it need moderation let me know because I don't think I will read it anymore.

How will you learn about international copyrights?

To me US copyright law is fascinating in that it seems designed to chill free speech and artistic expression so as to protect corporate logos and political figures.

I forgot what bored I was on. Tim feel free to PM or email me with any questions, I might be able to give you broad answers to some things.

Nag Nag Nag = Helen of Troy of the Kaiju world.

I think he is more like the Gloria Allred of kaiju.





I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children

Ok, sorry to keep this copyright issue alive but it's interesting to me because I create characters and work with licensed properties. In my experience, even if a work is derivative, it doesn't necessarily mean its your intellectual property. So "arguably" isn't way off. For example, I write and illustrate Batman and Superman books for Penguin and DC comics but ALL the art is copyrighted and owned by DC because those characters and ancillary characters are DC's intellectual properties, not mine. Even though I drew/designed Batman in my own style, I'd have to license/pay DC to use my own artwork on...let's say a t-shirt.

Sneak peak of the next NagX3 header

That is a work-for-hire situation - you are paid to produce a product for a corporation - this is completely different, a collaboration between two individuals, an artist and a toy designer/sculptor/artist.

In every situation where I am contracted to create art for commercial purposes, I keep my own copyrights and license the image for use, unless the client is willing to pay extra for a full buyout of rights. I've turned down illo jobs from DC and Marvel because they were unwilling to work in this way.

Do you really not see the difference between those two situations??

I realize that for most people this is a very abstract discussion, but for 20 years or so, I've been making a living by creating artwork, and dealing with almost constant theft of my images - sometimes innocent, mostly not so much - so you'll pardon me if I take that stuff rather personally. One one level is something like this situation, which is more a misunderstanding compounded by boorish internet behavior, but at the opposite end are situations where major corporations lift a piece of art and claim it as their own, requiring someone like me to hire a lawyer to fight with them. Copyright protects and benefits the little guys, too.

If artists and creative people have no protection of their work, and no way to profit from it, then they will all have to get real jobs, and soon there won't be any pretty pictures or cool music for you to enjoy.

Of course I see the difference, I make my living from creating art as well. I'm merely trying to point out the difference between copyright and intellectual properties in which the difference seems to get blurred at times. Of course your art is your copyright but the Nag figure and the use of it's image is his intellectual property. I think you even stated a ways back in the thread, you wouldn't make prints of your illustration for sale without nags consent. That was my point. I'm in no way disputing copyright or the benefits of it's protection, but it can be very complicated and terms tend to get misused. We're on the same page.

^^^ Yup. Page 55.

So... does anyone else prefer the regular version to the 2 faced? I think I do.

The 2-face is part of what finally turned me off to the sculpt after being initially intrigued. I can see the appeal, but the two face is far too grotesque for me.

I prefer two face, but like both versions..

I think the fact that it's so grotesque is what has me lured. Definitely would be the conversation piece in my collection. I can imagine all the "Jesus, man!" and "What in the hell" 's I would receive by people who see this sitting in my detolf.

remember that time there was a picture of a boglin in a glory hole?

that ruled

I already get this reaction!

JST?

PST?

EST?

MTV?

NBC?

BET?