I just came across a comic on DD with scans of original comic artwork from a syndicated comic book and the account user only made alteration on the dialogues. The question is, is this considered legal even though the account user did state that he does not hold the rights to the comic?

I am pretty sure it is legal as long as the artist isn't making monkey from it.

BffSatan
I am pretty sure it is legal as long as the artist isn't making monkey from it.

Ah... really? Isn't it possible to infringe copyright even if you don't make any money from doing so?

It could perhaps depend on the amount of changes made to the original and whether or not its satirical in nature... but personally I'm more than a little dubious (possibly appalled) at an artist who uploads someone else's work with minimal alterations, regardless of whether its syndicated.



That said, I don't know what the DD stance on this is.

I believe various companies have different stances on the subject. I'd have to have a word with a friend of mine who works in Copyright to get the stance in say the US and the UK, for example.

But if you look at it like this:

Author A, writes a book using Harry Potter as a basis, changes names and dialogue...still gets sued by company protecting their IP even though author A isn't making money from project.

Stealing art is stealing art no matter how you look at it. Making money or not, it's a question of morality.

I think everyone will have slightly different personal opinions on it, but it's up to the copyright holder to protect their interests. It's probable that they don't even know about the comic, and if they do, they then have to decide whether they'd care. It depends on their company profile and possibly what the content of the material is.

A comic like Garfield is rabidly protected and most people who make comics which are edits of the original strips are sent cease and desist letters. Other comics perhaps not so much, and perhaps not if it's clearly a fan comic, small time, and leaves the original property in a good light.


Someone brought up DD's position on comics like this. We're not going to defend the copyright of other companies, which takes time and resources we don't have, and would be like giving it away free to people who may not even care. Aside from that, it's the copyright owner's responsibility to protect their intellectual property. They may appreciate a notice to their legal department that someone is doing such, but they're much better equipped to manage that sort of thing than we are. DD's position, from ripped-off DA artwork to corporate fan comics, is that we won't do anything until we hear from the copyright holder expressly telling us to remove the comic.

I think it also depends on if you are trying to pass the other persons work off as something new and original or if you are doing an obvious parody.
If someone was taking published characters for the purpose of doing a piss take on their adventures, then I would say that is okay (as long as they stated that it was such and said where the pictures were originally from etc).
I think a bit of healthy parody is a good thing.

If the syndicate or the cartoonist objects to the comic art they can probably cut it down legally. Cease and desist letters usually work, but sometimes the offender can argue that their strip is a parody. This would make it legal, although the process is an expensive one that most of us wouldn't be able to afford.

A lot of cartoonists or syndicates let it slide though. If something like what you're describing catches on it can increase the popularity of the original strip.

Garfield is a good example of this. There's a parody strip out there called "Garfield Minus Garfield". In it, the writer merely takes old Garfield strips and removes the title character in order to make Jon appear schizophrenic.

Jim Davis, Garfield's creator, probably had the money and legal power to eradicate this strip. However, he ultimately gave "Garfield Minus Garfield" his blessing and even allowed a print edition of the series to come out. Naturally, he collected a nice cut of the very good sales of the "Garfield Minus Garfield" book. Jim Davis is nothing if not a shrewd businessman.

So yeah, the legal process can swing one way or another. A lot of it, however, depends on whether or not the copyright holders care (Or even bother to notice).

Jim Davis has become shrewd at business, but stopped being funny at comics a long time ago.
Perhapshe only has the power to be either one at any given time, but never both?

harkovast
Jim Davis has become shrewd at business, but stopped being funny at comics a long time ago.
Perhapshe only has the power to be either one at any given time, but never both?

The thing is Hark, he probably hasn't created a single aspect of a Garfield strip in over a decade. He just sits at home while someone else does all of the work for him and just lets those big fat paychecks roll in.

Thanks for the clarification, guys. I guess it's up to the copyright holder to protect their own works although it's considered illegal under the law of copyrights.