Hello all. I've been browsing Ebay recently and have noticed that sellers are beginning to put scans of CAS book covers onto T Shirts and other merchandise. I was wondering what everyone thought about this, and if anyone knew what the position was from a legal stand point?

Is it illegal to, say, take a picture from the internet, put it onto merchandise (such as a T shirt, fridge magnet or lunchbox) and then re-sell it? Who owns copywrite in this case?

The main reason that I ask is that I own a beautiful piece of CAS art, a picture of which I've submitted to this website, and although I understand that I don't own copywrite on the image, I'd be HORRIFIED to see it disrespected and made into someone else's cash-cow.

I've contacted Boyd (the editor of this site), numerous times over the last two months to find out his feelings on the matter, but he is not replying to me on this issue. Boyd, if you're out there, feel free to wade in!

So, what are people's opinions on the matter?

There is no quick answer to this question. Much depends on which image and from which website it was downloaded. Then there is the matter of who owns the copyright, the artist (original work) or the publisher (work for hire). If the product with the image is a money maker, probably everybody is ready to settle out of court and if it hasn't made money, it would cost more to sue than one could get - but it might be worth it to protect the copyright claim.

JBP, who has run afoul of the copyright system

Thanks JBP.

It's as I assumed, and ultimately depends on the circumstance.

Ok, here's a "what if" for you. A picture drawn by CAS is downloaded from this website ("Comus" for example, as found in the "By Clark A. Smith" gallery) and is stuck on a lunchbox, Tshirt or fridge magnet (shudder!), and is offered for auction on Ebay. Has copyright been infringed?

Aside from being tacky and in my opinion disrespectful to CAS and his vision (I believe the context in which the art or picture is presented is almost as important as the piece itself), does any estate have a right to issue a cease and desist or pursue through the courts.

I appreciate that the economics and geography of the situation would make litigation very unlikely, but does anyone know how it stands as a point of law?

Cheers, Gary W.

Ownership of the physical object has no relation to copyright. Unless there is some agreement when bought, an owner can dispose of what they buy, so the selling on eBay isn't the issue. Is there a CAS estate or literary executor who actually holds the copyright? I don't know. If considered in the public domain or if a search finds no copyright holder (say the company which first published the art work), it can go on the lunch box if one is willing to risk that a copyright holder can come out of the woodwork. One should cite the source, but this often isn't done, sometimes an artist isn't even noted on some things sold. We first have to find if there is still a valid copyright on a work of art then see if permission was given to use it on the lunch box. While the law is important, there are also considerations of scholarship and courtesy. Sources should be cited and, even if there is no legal obligation to do so, ask if an image may be used.

As an aside, museums usually do not allow people to photograph art works. Most of these works of art may, in fact, be in the public domain and have no copyright attached. What the museums do is have the art work photographed and the copyright is on the photograph as a new work of art.

JBP

I saw those a while back and pondered a Zothique shirt, but I am sure they are illegal. Does the artist receive compensation for each shirt? Does the artist even know his work is being duplicated?

Sometimes the seller also sells shirts with the images from Games Workshop (Warhammer) products and they are certainly illegal as GW strictly controls all of their intellectual property and images, to a ridiculous level.

It looks like another case of someone riding someone else's shirttails for profit.

Clark's stepson, Mr. Dorman is, to my knowledge, the executor of the estate, but all matters are highly tenuous - and, while I consider the matter of respect and courtesy of the greatest importance, there is a side matter - namely, someone who had a (shudder) refrigerator magnet of a CAS work is likely to have become a fan -- and I can tell you absolutely, that Clark would have loved it - the more readers (in his time that meant "buyers" of which there were too few) the better. It would have delighted Clark's sardonic side totally to have wallowed financially in the "systems" capacity to generate money through silliness (pet rocks etc)- truly unexpected,outre, bizarre for such a thing to happen - unlikely. The world of wealth and marketing were completely outside his experience - he lived to do what he did, well - I well recall his panic at losing the little zippered purse with the few dollars (a fortune to him) from the purchase of his correspondence with Stirling which I had delivered by hand to the New York Library. We spent the day in my Model A retracing our steps in Auburn to no avail.

I suspect that any Klarkashtonic "pet rocks" might eventually levitate themselves back to the pit wherein they originated....

Scott