Reminds me of Capcom using IGN's box art of Okami.

What if the artist put a watermark on his/her drawing, would they still have had the balls to do that?

I once worked for a plaster furniture manufacturer and we took a cherubs with grapes, cast bronze, sort of end-table base, with actual artists signature and copyright symbol cast in, and duped it for production. The furniture company owner had the in-house sculptor fill in the name and copyright symbol, put better grapes and leaves over the existing ones, and give the cherubs bigger togas to literally cover up their boy parts. I got the item after all this was done and then had to make a mold from it. I only saw the signature and symbol when I pulled the finished mold from the piece and it pulled out the clay which had covered these parts. The owner didn't care when I mentioned potential law suit as this was the type of guy who didn't even have hot water in the factory...

I left about two months later for a real job. (This was the only job where I once got drunk at lunch time with the other guys since the environment was so bad.)

For legal advice, you might want to check out Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. It's a great organization that helps artists get free or low-cost legal aid. They're just the people to contact about a situation like this.

VLA

Best of luck to you!

Good luck getting something done about this, HT really just seems to not care at all.

This still does not make up for the fact that HT bought the entire Perez Hilton line earlier this year.

a "Trade" mark is a symbol or mark (Logo, etc...) that represents your company. The Nike Swoosh is one of the most famous of these.

Copyright protects your art.

When I say "something should be done about it," what I mean is I should alert them and ask them kindly to discontinue the product, which is what I'm trying to do.

I phrased it that way because I'm constantly alerted of "art theft" that isn't art theft -- people simply reposting my work (with my name still on it) somewhere else, with no profits made. The people who contact me about such cases are usually outraged, but I do nothing about it because I don't see it as art theft. But this one is a REAL case of art theft, which is why I say "something should be done."

With that said, so far I've had no luck in getting a reply from them.

-nina

Regardless, Hot Topic should burn for plagiarizing!

This is bigger than that was, though.

I think it's for keeping her big knife safe while she is not carrying it in her mouth.

@mzs: way to be a grammar nazi. No one really gives a shit tho. I'd still say it's ironic, and that grammar nazi's are douches.

The purpose of the bill is to allow access to work whose owners are unknown or cannot be found. However, the bill is so loosely worded that it leaves immense loopholes that are ripe for exploitation.

If you'd like to read more details, visit www.artistsfoundation.org or www.illustratorspartnership.org

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->: Derivative work!

@BumpinUgglas: in my mind it is one thing to steal art and sell it for your profit, but it is another thing to stock an item and then find out it is possibly stolen.

Now if HT was a class act they would pull them off the shelves until the ownership of the artwork is determined.

at first glance, it's the same. at second glance though, still the exact same thing. that's blatant plagarism!

I think you are the confused one here. It is ironic that they pirated a pirate.

Hmmm, I know more about music copyrights than other products. I use to produce underground hip-hop, and I wasn't trying to protect it from major companies as much as my local competitors. There were quite a few underground producers for being as small of a city as I'm in. It was one kat that was at another producers house listening to some beats he had made, next thing you know, tha kat's new shit sounded just like his buddys. It's more about protecting your style so the next guy doesn't come out soundin just like you.

@3drage: Very!

Tattoo art should not be different then any other commissioned work (if purchased like that). Only difference is who owns the copyright.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->:

ANY tangible medium of expression. That includes skin.

Just because something is on display (ie, on your skin permanently) does not change the analysis. A work of art is on display in a home or gallery.

Taking a photo of a work of art is not infringement. Selling or displaying that photo might be.

The fact that it's a tattoo changes nothing.

@BumpinUgglas: You can't leave us hanging like that -- what happened?

@BumpinUgglas: In the USA, copyright exists as soon as the item is "created" (my paraphrasing) (edit: oh, no, it's the actual word used; I guess I _was_ paying attention). No filing, no registering, no nothing.

[www.copyright.gov]
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

and from
[www.copyright.gov]

- Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
- Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
- If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
- If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
- Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on "Intellectual Property Rights."

@incognit000: The Lego pirate flag is a skull with crossed bones, not swords (at least the original line).

The skull with crossed swords is the flag of the pirate Jack Rackham.

I've been the victim of this as well - the person who lifted some of my photographs from the web didn't sell them for profit, but also insisted (until I had my attorney send him a very strongly worded letter) that since I:

-Put my work on the web
-Didn't register with the copyright office
-Didn't have a "publisher"
-Didn't suffer real financial loss

that his use of my work without license or compensation to promote his own product was OK. Of course, none of these reasons for stealing my intellectual property (work I created with my own money and time) would hold up in any court of law.

Of course, the guy who stole and displayed my work to promote his product was also someone who insisted that downloading music from Napster (this was 2001, before they were shut down) was OK, since the record companies hadn't done anything about it.

As a reminder, there is no requirement to do anything to be granted copyright. You don't even have to claim it. Under U.S. law, copyright is granted to the creator of the work upon creation. Filing your work with the U.S. copyright office (there is a small fee for each filing) makes it easier to sue and claim your $10k/per instance damages. Having an attorney in the family helps, too.

More Info: [inventors.about.com]

IANAL, but just because I simply create something, does that mean it's automatically 'mine' (in a legal sense)? Doesn't there have to be some sort of proactive, I'm-filing-this-as-a-copyrighted-work thing that has to happen before anyone's work enjoys the protection of IP law?

I'm on the side of the artist here, but just asking a valid question. There may be nothing she can do about it. Can't click on the links, blocked here at work for me.

When I objected, his reply was "Yeah, well it works for the design we want and (giggle) she's not going to sue __large company___, right?" At break time I left and took the photocopy with me. I kept his enraged/panic 'you'd better bring that back!!' voice mail for over a year. It still makes me smile.

This stuff happens /constantly/. There's just so many people in so many companies who feel that work posted on the internet is either public domain (it isn't) or that the people who make it could never stand up to their fancy new-york lawyers. I browse a number of art sites, and almost every damn month one of them howls when they see their artwork being sold by megacorporations.

Many have sued, but I have yet to hear of any of them winning.

Also: the skull-and-cross-swords on the lower right is lifted from the Lego Pirates flag. I grew up with Lego Pirates and there's a huge Lego Pirates ship in my parent's basement right now. I would never not notice it.

@Monster Rain:

is it a copyright issue or trademark issue?

Or at least that's the way that it's supposed to work (IMHO)...

Hot Topic is selling the temp tattoo or are they the company producing the temp tattoo??

Not defending HT but if they are only selling the product then the issue is with the producer of the temp tattoo, right?

I really hope the feeling she gets when she sues their pants off, claims all profits from the sales of HER work, and ends up better off offsets that first bad feeling ;)

Sue their pants off Nina!

Quick! Someone contact the RIAA! They'll get on it!

How horrible for the artist. Not only to have her art ripped off and sold for a profit - but by Hot Topic of all places.

(The art is pretty cool, IMO.)

I walked in to a Hot Topic last week and realized why I don't have any clothes from there.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->:

Well if there's no map and no water, exactly what kind of pirate could it be.

@solareclipse2:

You don't get sarcasm, do you?

I like the way they removed the signature and date before using it. Thats classy

I think that even without the map, there's a strong enough likeness that even a crappy lawyer could get an injunction against them selling the image.