Graphic Artist Copies Wayne Reynolds art for Rush Limbaugh newsletter

[CAFRedblade]

Did Rush Limbaugh's Newsletter Steal An Image From Dungeons & Dragons?

So it appears that the graphic artist for Rush Limbaugh's newsletter has traced over the original Reynolds art.

So, which one looks better. Discounting the copy/paste of Rush onto the human body..

I realize this edges into politics, so please keep it clean. Although I'm Canadian, and have my own political issues up North here...

So a big oops, someones getting fired / not rehired for future work I'm thinking..

Oh, and never done a poll, so here we go, Like the original, vs. Like the Traced version..

 

[Stormonu]

I don't know, looks different enough to me that it should be able to survive first contact with WotC lawyers.

 

[Hand of Evil]

stolen and I voted wrong thought question was original art or was it traced

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

US Copyright law §107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

My guess is they'll aim for "news reporting"...but I don't think they'll get there.

 

[Dannager]

My guess is they'll aim for "news reporting"...but I don't think they'll get there.

Actually, I see it falling under "criticism and comment", much in the same way that periodicals like Mad magazine often feature cover illustrations based heavily on pop culture artwork and icons, including art and likenesses ostensibly protected by copyright under normal circumstances.

 

[Shemeska]

Actually, I see it falling under "criticism and comment", much in the same way that periodicals like Mad magazine often feature cover illustrations based heavily on pop culture artwork and icons, including art and likenesses ostensibly protected by copyright under normal circumstances.

It's a douche of a move by the guy who looks to have traced and/or altered the work, but I'd agree with you that he's probably protected by the fact that it used for political parody use.

 

[jaerdaph]

That dragon must have a hoard of Oxycontin or something...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I see it falling under "criticism and comment"...

For that to be the case, the IP in question has to directly be addressed by the criticism and commentary. IOW, they would have to be criticizing and commenting upon the IP- in this case, the original art of Wayne Reynolds.

Instead, they're not doing that, they're criticizing something political and completely unrelated to the underlying IP.

Satire and homage can be legit as well. But in those cases, it's not an absolute protection, especially if the IP holder in question objects on the grounds that it damages the value of the mimicked IP.

Usually, only the big guns raise this fight. Disney, for instance. But Jack Daniels is in one right now with some guy over his book cover*...and with Hasbro's ownership of WotC, this could be entertaining.







* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jack-daniels-book-cover_n_1696453.html

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

SalDoyley
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't understand what is the poll question...

But anyway, IMHO (but I'm definitely not an expert in IP laws) this picture should not be illegal. It's a remake of somebody else's art, but normally what is copyrighted is the original art itself (so it would have definitely be illegal to use the original without permission) or the subjects or "characters", so that for example you cannot publish a picture with recognizable OotS characters even tho you draw them in a completely different way/style than the original OotS strip, but I don't really think that WotC has (or can) copyright every single monster's concept when 99% of them are actually already derived works from old literature and paintings. AFAIK they have copyrighted the Beholder, the Slaadi and the Illithids, so maybe if you draw a beholder and put it on a magazine that might not be possible without permission.

OTOH you never know where the lawyers can lead you... if they have some free time and want more money, they can convince WotC to sue Rush Lindbergh for this, but seriously they shouldn't bother.