GB who owns the artwork? (1 Viewer)

[p5woody]

Who owns the artwork for individual request has been discussed, but not sure the situation where artwork was created for and paid for by GB participants.

Here is the situation. I created artwork for MSK plagues and the cost was for artwork creation was shared among all participants. I was contacted by a forum member requesting permission for use of the artwork with a few modifications to make it personal. Should this artwork be allowed to be used? Does it matter if they were a GB member or a non-GB member? If it is allowed who gives permission?

Just wondering what people think about this.

 

[Jambine]

I'm not a lawyer (but I am the offspring wild dogs). My guess is that nobody will object. It seems that ownership would have to be specifically spelled out at the beginning

 

[justsomedude]

I don't think anyone would object, but maybe run it by the GB manager and get a sign-off just to be safe?

I'm sure they'd appreciate the check in, and then would probably tell you, "I don't care - do with it as you please."

FWIW: As Jambine stated I think you still retain all ownership/usage rights in this type of scenario.

 

[WedgeRock]

IMO, the person/people that commissioned the work own it, i.e. everyone who paid for the artwork as part of the group buy.

Permission should be sought from every owner. That is unlikely, so make reasonable efforts to get approval from everyone and proceed cautiously.

Maybe next time, make it clear that YOU own the artwork and will give any group buy participant permission to use it without further charge but that you may permit use by non-group buy members for a charge.

 

[mummel]

Ummm MSK plaque group buy using the US dollar cash denoms?? Tell me more! Any chance it's the $5?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm inclined to think that the permission belongs to the individual that fronted the group buy. Here's my reasoning...

The GB is like a company. Lots of investors make it go, but there is one person that fronted the purchase. That one person had final say in everything, from final approval of the art to receiving the chips/plaques/boxes/decks/anything else we've formed GBs for. That one person was the CEO of the company.

The CEO of any company does not need to check with every investor before making any sort of buisness decision. However, the investors - if they feel the CEO is cutting them out, can come back and seek damages.

So what we have to look at is what is the GB shareholder's investment worth? Certainly, they paid for the original artwork, divided up among the participants, probably on a per-unit cost. For example...

We're paying $300 for art on 3000 chips (tiny GB example to make math easy for me). That's 10¢ per chip invested into the art. Now if someone came along and decided to produce 300,000 chips with art - art that someone else paid for - then they should be entitled to a refund on their 10¢ per chip.

In short, the CEO/GB leader gives the permission, but they could expect to start PayPaling some monies. Of course, the amount of money would be so small, I suspect each investor would say meh, but that is the CEO's risk. If I were the GB leader, I'd simply say "no".

 

[Tommy]

GB participants are buying the chip/plaque at the total cost of producing it. (not ownership of the different components to make it) IMO the artwork belongs to the graphic designer unless an agreement was reach in advanced for ownership and future rights to use.

 

[Psypher1000]

The creator of the art assets always retains ownership of them unless that ownership is sold away. That rarely happens. If the art is going to be used on additional chips/merch, the artist should always be contacted.

That said, PZ brings up a good point regarding license. The artist may have created the art assets, but they were created for a specific purpose in which exclusive license was probably assumed, if not stated directly. The party that originally commissioned the art should *also* be contacted. If there was a fee paid for the art then I would have to assume that the commissioning party would at least want some part of that fee paid back to them by the newcomer.

In short, I'd probably reach out to the GB leader first, get permission there, then hit up the artist, and get permission there.

 

[bergs]

I'm inclined to think that the permission belongs to the individual that fronted the group buy. Here's my reasoning...

The GB is like a company. Lots of investors make it go, but there is one person that fronted the purchase. That one person had final say in everything, from final approval of the art to receiving the chips/plaques/boxes/decks/anything else we've formed GBs for. That one person was the CEO of the company.

The CEO of any company does not need to check with every investor before making any sort of buisness decision. However, the investors - if they feel the CEO is cutting them out, can come back and seek damages.

So what we have to look at is what is the GB shareholder's investment worth? Certainly, they paid for the original artwork, divided up among the participants, probably on a per-unit cost. For example...

We're paying $300 for art on 3000 chips (tiny GB example to make math easy for me). That's 10¢ per chip invested into the art. Now if someone came along and decided to produce 300,000 chips with art - art that someone else paid for - then they should be entitled to a refund on their 10¢ per chip.

In short, the CEO/GB leader gives the permission, but they could expect to start PayPaling some monies. Of course, the amount of money would be so small, I suspect each investor would say meh, but that is the CEO's risk. If I were the GB leader, I'd simply say "no".

This is the least possible practical solution.

It belongs to the designer unless something else was arranged. When some friends of mine wanted to use the Truman's House art to create custom pint glasses for me, my signoff wasn't required but J5's was.

Choosing the trustworthy designer is important as well to ensure that your custom art stays secure and isn't reused in a manner you wouldn't appreciate.

 

[upNdown]

Legal issues aside, it doesn't feel right to me. Is the buyer trying to get a design cheaply, since the bulk of the work is already done? Or does the buyer think that since we're all friends here that he'll be allowed to ignore customs, if not laws?
And I'm not trying to paint anybody in a bad light, I'm just trying to talk it out, because like I said, it doesn't feel quite right to me.
I'd suggest the buyer have original plaques designed.

 

[WedgeRock]

If I commission an artist to paint a portrait of me, the artist doesn't own the portrait.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If I commission an artist to paint a portrait of me, the artist doesn't own the portrait.

...or your likeness.

 

[justsomedude]

If I commission an artist to paint a portrait of me, the artist doesn't own the portrait.

Interesting anecdote, because, in that scenario, the artist still owns the full rights to your portrait.

Taking your example a couple of steps further, say you end up becoming famous, and people want to buy copies of said portrait. You would have no legal right to issue or sell any copies of that portrait. That type of reproduction would need to be authorized, and likely managed by, the original artist. You would have no say in the matter - unless you made some agreement with the artist that he could not use your likeness in commercial or other resale endeavors, and that type of contract/arrangement rarely occurs for personal portrait work. Similarly, you probably wouldn't have signed a model release under those circumstances either. But, if such a situation did actually occur, I'm sure the artist would reach out to you to come to an agreement that you'd both find mutually beneficial.

 

[Psypher1000]

the artist doesn't own the portrait.

Correct, because in those cases you bought the original, physical portrait - BUT - you might not be allowed to make prints of that portrait and sell them w/o paying royalties to the artist because...

the artist still owns the full rights to your portrait.

We see this all the time with paintings used for cards in games like Magic: The Gathering. Howard Lyon will sell his original painting for around $5k or so, but he still retains the rights to license that art to others and/or sell prints of that art himself. This is why what Bergs said was important...

Choosing the trustworthy designer is important

...and why it's probably similarly important to put in writing that you retain exclusive license to the work so that the artist doesn't allow others to use a design that you comissioned/art-directed.

 

[Jeff]

This part of the law seems odd when you are creating custom currency. Perhaps the best thing is to always negotiate to own the design when you're having someone design your currency. Also to receive written assurance from the producer (CPC, etc.) that they won't create any without your specific consent. I seem to remember some of the Black Cat Club chips showing up for sale.

 

[slisk250]

This is an ironic situation as I have the same thing going. Years ago there was a GB of chips. I bought a set from the GB person and negotiated a deal to allow me rights to produce plaques for my set but not run another GB. The artist was notified and we are all set to go soon. I think it is between the previous GB organizer, the artist, and new customer.

 

[links_slayer]

This part of the law seems odd when you are creating custom currency. Perhaps the best thing is to always negotiate to own the design when you're having someone design your currency. Also to receive written assurance from the producer (CPC, etc.) that they won't create any without your specific consent. I seem to remember some of the Black Cat Club chips showing up for sale.

Yeah, several customs have shown up for sale over the years. IIRC, many of those sales were the result of that dickbag Donald Ott unloading extras.

 

[BGinGA]

I think it's pretty clear (and has been established elsewhere) that in most cases, the actual artwork belongs to the artist who produced it, and the client has purchased the rights to use the artwork.for the intended purpose(s). Dependent upon the specifics, future usage of the artwork typically requires the permission of the artist, and in many cases, also the client. Ultimate control is in the artist's hands, although the client may seek compensation for damages caused by actions of the artist. It all boils down to the original agreement between artist and client. It is pretty rare for the artist to turn over 100% ownership of all rights to the client, unless the artist compensation was very large. Most times the client retains only usage rights, although those are usually exclusive.


Several issues involved worth discussing here......

Future usage of the exact artwork previously produced -- the original 'buyer' (or buyers) may expect that their purchase bought exclusivity. To have additional identical items produced would/could lower the market value of the originals. Should that loss of value be compensated, unless it was clear from the beginning that such a risk was being voluntarily taken?

Altered usage of the artwork previously produced -- this falls into a couple of different categories. If identical produced items with artwork changes (ie, presidential plaques with Zombie's face), then the originals maintain exclusivity, but original owners may feel that their 'unique' design has been cheapened by the new version. Others may feel that the changed design is superior, and the originals have lost value in the process. Should the perceived loss of value be compensated, in either case?

This would also include changes such as taking the basic (but unique) design elements of artwork and personalizing them -- turning PCF tournament chips into AL'S tournament chips, for example, or altering the Atlantic City Boardwalk design to read Jersey City Butthead.

Another type of altered usage involves using near-identical artwork, but on a different item. Matching bounty chips, seating chips, plaques, playing cards, table felts, etc. for a designed chip set come to mind as possible variations on the theme. It would appear at first glance that these may not induce similar value loss concerns, but that's not necessarily the case.


One thing for sure, it usually sparks a heated debate. Grabbing some popcorn, be back later.

 

[bergs]

I am absolutely ordering a set of Jersey Shore Butthead customs.

 

[ssanel54]

Ummm MSK plaque group buy using the US dollar cash denoms?? Tell me more! Any chance it's the $5?

I really hope this thread isn't debating artwork ownership that replicates US currency, or that there would be any objection to re-use it in a customized form.

 

[kk405]

GB participants are buying the chip/plaque at the total cost of producing it. (not ownership of the different components to make it) IMO the artwork belongs to the graphic designer unless an agreement was reach in advanced for ownership and future rights to use.

+1

 

[bergs]

I really hope this thread isn't debating artwork ownership that replicates US currency, or that there would be any objection to re-use it in a customized form.

Bad news, Sanel. I own the dollar sign now. If you want to use that, you gotta come through me bro.

 

[bergs]

Bad news, Sanel. I own the dollar sign now. If you want to use that, you gotta come through me bro.

Fuck! I thought I had the British Pound sign too but I screwed up and acquired the rights to the ampersand. If someone needs this (makes hand motion), call me.

 

[ssanel54]

Bad news, Sanel. I own the dollar sign now. If you want to use that, you gotta come through me bro.

Yeah, I thought I owned the Pound # sign until Twitter started calling it hashtag.

 

[BGinGA]

I really hope this thread isn't debating artwork ownership that replicates US currency, or that there would be any objection to re-use it in a customized form.

Although I understand your disdain -- similarly applying to artwork that replicates any existing artwork, such as most tribute chips -- there is still substantial and significant effort put forth into such projects by the artists. Concept and execution are not always tied together.

 

[ovo]

An interesting point to make, and I've talked with a copyright (I think it was a copyright lawyer), lawyer about artwork and creating new work. Anytime you create a design and use aspects from someone else's design, you are ripping them off. I've seen a lot of designs for artwork come through this site and chiptalk, and they incorporate designs from someone else's design, but the new designer says it's their design, and if someone uses it, they need their permission, when they really should be saying, you need to get the permission from the original artist, (which that designer never did).

 

[ssanel54]

Although I understand your disdain -- similarly applying to artwork that replicates any existing artwork, such as most tribute chips -- there is still substantial and significant effort put forth into such projects by the artists. Concept and execution are not always tied together.

Not certain what you are saying here. Are you saying that the group buy participants who contracted $100 plaques, should now own all currency related concepts? I fully appreciate the artists time and effort, and if he can make additional money re-using 95% of an existing dollar bill design, then more power to him.

 

[BGinGA]

Not certain what you are saying here. Are you saying that the group buy participants who contracted $100 plaques, should now own all currency related concepts?

Not all currency-related concepts, no.... that would be pretty silly.

But if the client (group buy or not is irrelevant) has exclusive usage rights for that specific design created by the artist (and not just any currency-related design), the artist should respect those rights and at least ask the client for permission to modify it for others.

I'd expect the same for any unique design..... and although inspired by US currency, that plaque design is indeed unique.

 

[ssanel54]

Not all currency-related concepts, no.... that would be pretty silly.

But if the client (group buy or not is irrelevant) has exclusive usage rights for that specific design created by the artist (and not just any currency-related design), the artist should respect those rights and at least ask the client for permission to modify it for others.

I'd expect the same for any unique design..... and although inspired by US currency, that plaque design is indeed unique.

Sure, But I would say that if you took that design and put my face on it instead of George Washington, but kept everything else exactly the same, then it would be another Unique design.

and if anyone else wants to do a $100 plaque with my face on it, I'm cool with that!

 

[BGinGA]

I would say that if you took that design and put my face on it instead of George Washington, but kept everything else exactly the same, then it would be another Unique design.

That's probably where we differ. In my opinion, simply altering one design element does not create a new and unique design. Creating a new and unique design typically entails a lot more work than just that.