Do copyright laws still apply to face art? Ya'know like painting spongebob on someones face?
Jesse

i wouldn't think so since it isn't going to be on the kids face forever but i am a juggler and balloon twister so i really don't know

yes, it does

call it something else... like a "sponge guy!" It most likely won't look exactly right anyway, so call it inspired but not exact. that's the kind of thing people were doing with their balloon sculptures.

Gray area, but if you're doing it for profit or just copying a scene without changes it would be a copyright violation.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_art)

United States
The legal status of fan made art in America may be tricky due to the vagaries of the United States Copyright Act. Generally, the right to reproduce and display pieces of artwork is controlled by the original author or artist under 17 U.S.C Section 107. However, fan art using settings and characters from a previously created work could be considered a derivative work, which would place control of the copyright with the owner of that original work. Display and distribution of fan art that would be considered a derivative work would be unlawful. However, American copyright law allows for the production, display and distribution of derivative works if they fall under a fair use exemption. Generally small excerpts from larger works that have no financial impact on the original and that are done for non commercial purposes could be considered a fair use (depending on a number of circumstances). American courts also typically grant broad protection to parody and some fan art may fall into this category. This is a legal gray area, which is not related, and legality can often not be determined until after litigation has concluded.

JELLO's got it right...

To put all that legal-schmegal talk into an example:

It is a copyright infringement to do anything that shows outright copying. If I painted a Marilyn Monroe in vivid colors and a Campbell's Soup Can in Warhol's exact painting PopArt style, and tried to sell the painting or t-shirts silkscreened with this artwork, I'd be infringing on his art and can be sued. HOWEVER, If I painted a realistic or impressionistic blonde in vivid colors sitting at a table eating a bowl of Tomato Soup in a room that's wallpapered with soup can labels with a kitchen trash can overflowing with soup cans, it is REFERRED to Andy Warhol's work but not necessarily copyright infringement. If I added a PAINTING of Warhol's soup cans and Marilyn on the soup can wallpaper in the painting, then I'd be getting into copyright infringement again.

Another example:
If I painted a mural of any Disney character on my child's bedroom wall, I am painting it for personal use and it is not a copyright violation (Although I still think it is) BUT! if I painted this same mural on a client's wall and I charged for it, then I'd be violating copyright laws.

Applied to facepainting:

I am capable of painting a full face of Spiderman, but I offer "Spider Guy" that is a web section at one eye and on the opposite cheek with a black spider in the web design. It is done in red and silver. It IMPLIES Spiderman but it is NOT Spiderman. It is MY ORIGINAL design. Now I "own" the copyright of this design. It is a "spin-off" of Spiderman without it being the real Spiderman design.

Does this help you?

There is an infinite number of ORIGINAL designs you can come up with, and I highly suggest that you stick with your own interpretations. If you INSIST that you want to do copyrighted designs, you must get permission and then pay a ROYALTY to the owner every time you sell that design.

safer to do tigers and puppy dogs, eh?

you can never be to careful, I'll repeat a story a twister told about one of his friends that does airbrush painting.

a guy came up and asked for Garfield [sp?] He told him he couldn't do it, it was a copywrited character. the guy insisted he had a cat at home that looked just like Garfield and he wanted his a picture of his cat, so the guy agreed to paint a cat with the same coloring, when he was done the guy wanted Garfield name on the shirt, the painter initally refused stating that would violate copywrite, the person requesting the painting insisted it was his cats name so the painter painted the name Garfield ont the shirt, as soon as he was done, an elder lady with the guy handed the painter papers, he was going to get into trouble for violating copywrite laws, luckily he vidoe tapes his work and had proof, .... you just never know. I've heard that Barney's people are particularly tough if they catch doing anything with his likeness.

safer to do tigers and puppy dogs, eh?


Not exactly...

If you are using a duplicated design of someone else's puppy or tiger, then you are still in violation. This is no different than infringing on a writer, clothing designer, artist or musician's creative work. Technically, if you are facepainting a design from an instructional book or DVD, then you are in violation of the creators' rights UNLESS the authors give specific permission in writing to their readers that anyone can use their designs for personal use and for profit.

Not exactly...

If you are using a duplicated design of someone else's puppy or tiger, then you are still in violation. This is no different than infringing on a writer, clothing designer, artist or musician's creative work. Technically, if you are facepainting a design from an instructional book or DVD, then you are in violation of the creators' rights UNLESS the authors give specific permission in writing to their readers that anyone can use their designs for personal use and for profit.

If you're looking for some sample designs that are Public Domain or otherwise licensed for use by everybody, check out Open Clip Art Library Drawing Together (http://openclipart.org/)

The beautiful thing about the internet is that there is a huge movement of creating open products. Open Clipart lists the license for each piece, all are open for most purposes (some not commercial) and many are public-domain.

For example, here is a cute puppy character that was put in public-domain by the author, so you could re-create it.
Open Clip Art Library Puppy Cartoon (http://openclipart.org/media/files/Gerald_G/6254)

It is odd you used Garfield as an example. The olny time I have heard of a problem was YEARS ago. A clown was face painting and a child asked for Garfield and the clown said he could not do that anymore, the Garfield people told him not to. But he would paint anything else.

Maybe they are tougher? This was almost 20 years ago.

I think this came about after the two more recent movies, "A tale of two cities" or something like that. Don't know how old those are but to me they're more recent movies.

I dont know the people I have seen in my area face painting ask do you want Spoungebob, Barney, Mickey Mouse, Tweety, Taz, Strawberry Shortcake. I do agree that they do have a copyright on the cartoon but as far as drawing it unless your the creator it will not be exact everyone is different I had never thought about it though

I think it's more a case of, are they going to find out? I know that's not the best way to go about it with regard to copyright issues, but I think that's where most people get away with it.... the authorities never find out or do anything about it and so they keep going.

I have a feeling I'll be avoiding most of that stuff anyway because I'm not fond of "bad versions" of known characters.... that being said, I had a pretty good Blue painted on my cheek a few years ago.

The funny thing is Disney got sued for Tarzan when they called it Disneys Tarzan aand Edgar Rice Boughes family sued them
Also in a court case a judge rule Disney owns Mickey Mouse but they dont own a mouse so if you make it and call it a mouse but not mickey your safe but I would still make it a little different

I guess there is enough cartoons out there that you shouldn't need to copy, but kids see there favorite cartoon and want it on there face. It is like the purple panther that I have seen on t shirts. The art is exaclty like the pink panther, but it can't be pink panther if it's purple:-)

This came from the BalloonHQ website in their FAQ section.

"After two weeks of work, a huge phone bill and gobbs of paper, the verdict is in:
You cannot get permission to do Disney characters because it goes against strict Disney policies and basically any ideas will be returned and used at their discretion without any royalties to YOU. Basically if you call any of their characters by name or sell anything that you call a Tigger, etc. you are violating their copyrights because you do not have permission to do so. However if you make a balloon and call it a bouncy tiger etc. and it is a RENDITION, then they have no recourse.
Warner Brothers is similar but not as stringent. If you are approved by WB you can buy a license for a few hundred thousand dollars.
Garfield is the only lenient company I know of.
The nice thing about both disney and WB is that they consider balloon twisters small fish not worth frying. I was told by Disney "you won't have a problem as long as you don't go around calling your figures Mickey Mouse or Pluto, and you don't try to use them as a promotion. The minute you use our characters and their copyrighted names, we'll be upset." Even if it s charity you need to ask permission (which you won't get.)
You can also use any character that may have had no copyrights for a certain period.

The "Fair Use Act" that was passed recently. Basically it is a clarification of what is sufficient for a person not to get sued for copyright infringment.
1) Do you do this for profit?
2) Are you using the same materials to produce this element.
3) How much of the copywritten element is actually represented in part or in full.
4) Has it effected sales of the copyright holder's products.

It is simple - don't call them a copy written name.
Don't dress in costumes, use puppets or anything else they have produced in any way for profit including stamps of these characters for face painting books etc... out of any materials they have already made them out of and you will be safe.
The minute you try to sell a Looney Tunes party package etc. you are in for trouble.
Twist for tips and make a mouse, tiger, duck, running bird or whatever and enjoy the fun. If someone calls it a copywritten name tell them "no, this is my mouse not ------." "

Whew! That was a lot of typing.

That's cute. I like it.

bgrdnz: "The law is pretty clear. If you didn't make it - it doesn't belong to you."

EXACTLY! Well said. :applause: Concise and to the point and it totally encompasses EVERYTHING there is to know about copyright infringement. This statement refers to all creative works.

Yea, I heard about the balloon copyright problem. I guess that's why a lot of books and dvds always call them the "cartoon dog or cat" or whatever.

The facepainting copyrights were brought up in a facepainting class I attended. Apparently if you choose different colors and call it something else, it's okay.

It's kind of dumb, because you'd think this would almost be like free advertising, but they don't see it that way.

Punkin