View Full Version : Engine #5
Bill Catherall
10-01-2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Laffite
As long as you sell your paintings as art, you should be okay regardless, because you would be fall under the "fair use" terms. smd4 has a wonderful painting of one of the train titled "One of Walt's" (maybe he'll show that off at the convention? :D) and he can still signed his name on it because the art he painted is his creation, the subject just happens to be of Disney's.
So let me get this straight. If I create art of art then I can sell it and it's legal? I can paint a picture of a painting and sell it without obtaining the copyright (even though I'm making a "copy")? I can take a picture of a picture and it's now mine?
My painting of one of the Disney trains is not a "copy" of the train. You can't ride it, and the bell doesn't ring. You can hang it on the wall, though.
Of course, copying a painting is better termed "forgery," and is illegal. But, I have "copied" a Monet for a friend of mine. It certainly comes no where near the original in terms of technique, and skill, but it's a good representation. My mon has a "copy" of a Thomas Kincaide I painted hanging above her fireplace. Maybe if I sold them on the open market, I'd get in trouble, but I did it for friends/ relatives. If Monet's relatives or Kincaide want to search me out, I guess that's their right.
Art students in France frequently go to the Louvre to practice their techniques by "copying" the work of the Masters.
You can "copy" an original work, but you must make substantial changes for it to be considered an original piece.
Bill Catherall
10-01-2002, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by smd4
You can "copy" an original work, but you must make substantial changes for it to be considered an original piece.
So what's the difference between what Laffite is doing and me getting my hands on a copyrighted or patented device, reverse engineering it, and selling the engineering schematics. I have no problem with him actually creating the drawings, but I question the legality of selling them.
Laffite
10-01-2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Bill Catherall
So let me get this straight. If I create art of art then I can sell it and it's legal?
Yes. Because when you said that you're going to create ART, it means that you would be making changes to suit your artistry, and your result will probably be different if you really created art.
If your "art" looks like the original, then it can be argue that your copied instead of making an artistic rendering. So, like smd4 already said, you have to make artistic/ original changes.
Well, we've never had the "device" in our possesion to copy. If I was able to swipe the E.P. Ripley for a few days without anyone noticing, and make drawings from her directly, I guess there'd be a problem. But we're just making the drawings using photogrpahs as guides.
How is a drafting profile of an object any different from a sketch I make of the same object when I'm at the park? They're both drawings, right? They both require artistic talent to create, right? just because Laffite's drawings are done in profile and *look* like blueprints, maybe that's just his style and medium.
Laffite
10-01-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Bill Catherall
So what's the difference between what Laffite is doing and me getting my hands on a copyrighted or patented device, reverse engineering it, and selling the engineering schematics. I have no problem with him actually creating the drawings, but I question the legality of selling them.
Because I'm not taking the trains apart and putting them back together and selling it, then claiming that the trains themselves are my creation. I gave credit where it is due. The title of the drawing is "Disneyland Railroad Steam Locomotive". My drawings are no different than your painting of the trains.
smd4 and I have talked about this over a day, and we came to the conclusion that we copied nothing. There are no original blueprints for me to copy and sell in the first place. If people mistaken my drawings for Disney's blueprints, then that's their problem (and a compliment as well :D)
maybe smd4 would like to add? (opps, he already did. I was late :))
EDIT:
maybe that's just his style and medium.
Sure is. I started drawing profiles when I was 5 on papers. I have a TON of battleship drawings.
Bill Catherall
10-01-2002, 10:33 AM
If you're making "artistic/original changes" doesn't that contradict what you are trying to do? That is, make accurate drawings of the real thing.
If you do make enough significant "artistic/original changes" and sell it as a drawing of "Disneyland's Lilly Bell" or "Disneyland's Haunted Mansion" then isn't that fraud, since what you drew is actually different?
Also, what about the legality of attaching the name to the drawing? Aren't the names protected too? I can't go sell a painting of my house and say it's the Empire State Building.
Here is a terrible scan of my painting. (http://www.phil-sears.com/Folder%202/One_of_Walts.jpg)
I have consulted a copyright attorney from a large intellectul property firm on this (who also has done much work for Disney).
I was told that without doubt, I can market my work.
This painting is based on an existing black & white photo of Walt standing on the handcar on the track in front of the engine. I removed him, and colored the painting using my best guesses. It is now my work.
It's hard to see from the scan, but it's VERY detailed. Now, if I decided to remove the color, and change the position of the painting so that it was a flat profile, and took out all the scenery, it would look sort of like Laffite's drawing. And I could still sell it.
I can't go sell a painting of my house and say it's the Empire State Building.
Why not?
Laffite
10-01-2002, 10:44 AM
Also, what about the legality of attaching the name to the drawing? Aren't the names protected too? I can't go sell a painting of my house and say it's the Empire State Building.
Because it's not, and people will recognize it so and they will have a problem with it.
If you do make enough significant "artistic/original changes" and sell it as a drawing of "Disneyland's Lilly Bell" or "Disneyland's Haunted Mansion" then isn't that fraud, since what you drew is actually different?
How is that fraud. It's only fraud if you draw and sell them by telling people that these are "original from Disney". HM isn't copyright so that's not a concern. See my previous post on 1st page. Just because there are mistakes doesn't mean it's a fraud, it just means the drawings aren't very good, and thus I'm trying to minimize the mistakes.
smd4 gave me several drawings he got from Disney(?) to go by as reference. Those drawings themselves have glaring mistakes.
If you're making "artistic/original changes" doesn't that contradict what you are trying to do? That is, make accurate drawings of the real thing.
See here, you've misunderstood my words. I was replying the case that you want to make art out of art. Your art has to be different from the first art. I'm not copying art, in fact I'm not copying anything. I'm putting some beautiful creations of Disney down on paper as an original art.
Whew. I don't think I make any sense, but I try :(
If you're making "artistic/original changes" doesn't that contradict what you are trying to do? That is, make accurate drawings of the real thing.
On the train drawings, we're not making any changes to anything, since we don't have the orginal blueprints to go from. I have really no idea what the HM blueprints or the Train blueprints look like. I wish I had them. But we are allowed to do the next best thing: Create artistic renderings of them, and be able to sell those works.
Bill Catherall
10-01-2002, 10:56 AM
All the laws regarding copyright and fair use are based on one simple concept: it is unfair, and should be illegal, to make money from someone else's work. So whenever someone is using another's work to create their own, and profiting from it, it raises some red flags. As long as you're keeping your sales low key you may never have any legal problems come up. But I'm pretty sure that if Disney's legal department gets wind of this, if you're making enough money to make them want to go after you, you won't have a loophole to stand on.
It's questionable whether or not it's legal to sell photographs taken of Disney property. See this thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9886) for details.
I don't think there is a question at all. I'm not sure how many people read this link (http://www.nylawline.com/articlephotog1.htm) that I posted on that other thread, but the law is pretty clear that photos, even taken of other's work (the Vodka Bottle, for example) is the photographer's own work. The photographer can't make a copy of the actual bottle (since it's copyrighted), but the photograph is his.
Laffite
10-01-2002, 11:15 AM
I think it's great that people like us are arguing.
All the laws regarding copyright and fair use are based on one simple concept: it is unfair, and should be illegal, to make money from someone else's work. So whenever someone is using another's work to create their own, and profiting from it, it raises some red flags.
Bill,
I'd be interested to hear your opinions of Warhol's paintings of Campbell's Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe.
Bill Catherall
10-01-2002, 11:53 AM
Laffite, I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. :)
Campbell's could easily have slapped him with a heavy lawsuit. On the other hand, Campbell's probably just decided to let it go since it's pretty much free advertising. But if they did sue I don't see how he could have gotten away untouched. Marilyn Monroe is a public figure and isn't someone's "work."
Laffite
10-01-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Bill Catherall
Marilyn Monroe is a public figure and isn't someone's "work."
You sure? So no credit is given to her parents? lol :)
The Warhol of MM (not Mickey Mouse!) was painted from a photograph, presumably owned by a photographer. And, I believe, celebrities do have a certain amount of say on how their images are used.
The reason he wasn't sued by Campbell's is because he didn't make a 3-D copy of the can and then try to sell his own soup in it; he made an artistic interpretation of the can. Fair use.
Hey, I created this subject to talk about Disney's engine no. 5, not artwork (not to sound rude). I put this here to find out what everyone knew.
Brian
Laffite
10-02-2002, 07:56 PM
Hey, I created this subject to talk about Disney's engine no. 5, not artwork (not to sound rude).
<snip!>
too late.
Geeze, what more do you want to know?
Bill Catherall
10-03-2002, 08:31 AM
Well, DMC. All these derails (no pun intended ;) ) have kept your thread bumped up to the top though. :p :D
This is an update on the current state of DRR No. 5, Ward Kimball .
As it now stands, Disneyland will NOT be getting a fifth locomotive. No. 5, the former Maud L. , has had all her components shrink wrapped and cataloged, and the parts have been sent to off-site storage indefinitely. The remaing frame, cab and boiler have been moved to the back of the roundhouse facility.
Having sunk in excess of 1 million dollars to restore the old Baldwin, it was eventually determined by management that it was unneccesary to have a fifth engine. BTW, folks, 1 million dollars is an ungodly amount of money to spend on a steam locomotive restoration. Two new locomotives built from the ground up could possibly have been built for that amount.
Many of the parts had been painted, a new boiler purchased, and the new hardwood cab bore the locomotive's new name. The color of the cab and domes was a bright orange/red.
It will be at least 2 years before work ever resumes on the new locomotive, and it is unlikely that she will ever polish the rails at Disneyland.
First, because there won't be a Ward Kimball locomotive running the tracks at Disneyland. It would have been a fitting tribute to the man who got Walt interested in trains to begin with.
Second, because the Disneyland Brain Trust™ dumped one million dollars into rehabbing the locomotive before deciding it wasn't a good idea. (I would have caught on after the second $100,000, myself, but I'm kinda frugal.) Imagine how much good could have been done inside the park with that million bucks: Sand down and repaint the railing around the Submarine Lagoon. Repaint the woodwork at the Matterhorn Chalet. Rebuild Fort Wilderness. Rehab the Tom Sawyer Island bridges.
Instead, it's just wasted, because they stopped rehabbing the locomotive and have nothing to show for it.
Pity.
--T
ldsguy
12-02-2002, 06:57 PM
My painting of one of the Disney trains is not a "copy" of the train. You can't ride it, and the bell doesn't ring. You can hang it on the wall, though.
Any pictures taken, or artwork derived from items at Disneyland, can not be sold with out the permission of disney and the persone that took the picture or made the painting, as Disney as well as the person that took the picture or made the painting owns the copyright.
I have consulted a copyright attorney from a large intellectul property firm on this (who also has done much work for Disney).
I was told that without doubt, I can market my work.
This painting is based on an existing black & white photo of Walt standing on the handcar on the track in front of the engine. I removed him, and colored the painting using my best guesses. It is now my work.
It's hard to see from the scan, but it's VERY detailed. Now, if I decided to remove the color, and change the position of the painting so that it was a flat profile, and took out all the scenery, it would look sort of like Laffite's drawing. And I could still sell it.
I would definitely get a second opinion if I were you, and look at it this way, do you have the money to fight Disney if you have to?