Flattered or Angry

[strangely]

I don't know if this exactly the right place to post this.

This was a custom minifigure design I made last year. http://strangelyscott.deviantart.com/art/The-Amazing-Lego-Spider-Man-314229526

Today I found this:

As you can see it utilizes the torso and arms of my design, with some slight cropping around the edge of the arms.

Now I always use a creative commons license and I do allow alterations of my work, specifically when it's in relation to a character whose copyright I do not own. Usually I'm flattered when someone uses my work, but this time I actually feel a bit angry. I didn't realize it at first, but it finally hit me that it makes me angry because they took the torso of my design slapped on a new head and legs and try to pass it off as a "Fish Design." I don't mind people using my work, but it does bother me that this person is trying to pass it off as their own.

So I was wondering if anyone else had any similar experiences with this? Even though my creative commons license allows re-mixes should I be a bit angry if a person doesn't give credit or tries to lead people to believe that they made it themselves? Part of me is flattered, but the more I look at that person's logo slapped on that picture the more I feel angry about it. I'm somewhat reconsidering what type of license to use on my work in the future.

[TWP]

I agree that he has used your torso, and it is not so nice of him not giving you credit.

I don't know what that creative commons license contains, could you explain that to me?

I think there is not much you can do, I see you already posted a comment, but it may be wise to contact the person too, to make sure he has read it.

[strangely]

Here's the simplified explanation for the creative commons license I used: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

[1974]

First rule of the internet : Post anything online and you're likely to get abused

Does not matter if you got copyright, trademark or even if you're so nice to use cc

Yes, it's your design. You could send the offender an email, but really don't loose any sleep over it. It's just not worth it

Post your original design on all the importent fora/blogs and we will know who's the maker and who's the faker

Nice minifig anyway

[SoupOrFishOil]

I've been in a few situations similar to this, one of them with the same guy too by the looks of it; unless someone is copying his "work" too. I left a comment on the photos similar, to your reply, and he deleted the image. Not much later I found a slightly changed one in his photostream, which he did remove when I pointed it out. Anyway, I'm sure he'll comply now that he has been caught.

And cool minifig.

[L@go]

Anyway, I'm sure he'll comply now that he has been caught.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I recently posted on Flickr a picture I took at LEGO World in Utrecht, Holland, of one of the new Chima minifigures, Rogon the Rhino. This soon found its way around the internet, mainly via blogs that credited my Flickr as the source for the picture and, if they were being as polite as they should be, even provided a link to that picture in my photostream.

Of course, there are a few rotten apples here and there, one of which turned out to be a French website called HothBricks. They simply took my picture, cropped it a little bit to make it look slightly different, and posted it in their own photostream on Flickr, without asking me - and then linked to their own picture from the article on the blog. Now, somebody asked where they got the picture from, and they subsequently offered a link, but the point is: They didn't ask me first. And they still stole the picture.

I posted a comment on their version of the picture, saying I thought their behaviour was rude and impolite, and that I would report it as a breach of Flickr policy. That comment was removed within a day, and they blocked me from making further comments.

So I filed a complaint and "their" image got deleted. If they had asked me if they could use the picture, I would have said yes, of course you can, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide a link to my photostream. They didn't ask, and behaved like spoilt little brats when told that that wasn't the way to do it, so they have to make do without the picture.

Anyway: As long as you have the original design on your DeviantArt photostream: If "FishDesign" doesn't acknowledge your claim, report him to Flickr. They'll act on it.

[Lego Otaku]

Posted a public nag on his picture pointing out how the blue hexagon pattern looked exactly the same and told him to give credit. If people sees the nag and rant, some people may stop visiting his photostream.

[Faefrost]

It's one thing if he used your paterns to cobble together his own "custom" and is just showing it off on Flickr. It's rude to do. But damage is minimal. Just keep an eye out to make sure these aren't showing up anywhere on E-Bay. That's where it gets bad. Someone using your designs to sell them as their own.

[L@go]

...and he's changed the image (and deleted the comments). So it worked :)

[strangely]

Thank you everyone. Thanks for all the great suggestions and information. I definitely feel better about the situation and I have a much better idea of what to do in the future.

He actually used it in another picture too: http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

I posted a message there saying that he can use it only if he follows the rules that are highlighted in my license.

Edit: Success he changed it really quickly. Also he disabled comments for both. I hope he learned a lesson, though I have my doubts.

...and he's changed the image (and deleted the comments). So it worked :)

I'm glad. However I find it curious that he decided to change it completely rather than just give me the credit for the torso. Like my creative commons license says he can use it so long as he attributes and shares a like. Oh well, that was his decision I guess. Maybe he just didn't want to admit he didn't make it or something like that. Either way I'm okay with how it turned out.

Edited November 13, 2013 by strangely

[Meatman]

It could be worse, he could be reselling it on Ebay.

[Robianco]

I'll caveat my below post (which I'll keep in as it's kind of relevant... while also being irrelevant now) that there seems to be a change in the design of the second 'Fish' Spidey that the link redirect to... As such below is in relation to that.

I'm assuming his original was a straight rip off of yours so I'll keep my post below and redirect you to the last line about sometimes just holding your head up and being proud of your work!

---------------------

As a designer myself I'm all too familiar with plagiarism. It happened when I was an University and it's happened in my career.

What I would say in this case is that there is enough differences in the detail of the torso designs that could constitute coincidence.

As the spiderman torso is a specific design in itself there are certain decisions made in the design process converting it to a Lego torso that can cause such similarities.

Christo has a custom Spidey torso that draws in from the shoulders to a narrower band at the abdominal area... as does the SDCC figure. The curve on the upper torso area is the opposite between your design and the fish design.

The textured pattern on yours is similar to the SDCC... the Spider logo on his is closer to the Christo version than yours. Yours, Fish and SDCC all base the design on a red torso with blue printing.

Yours, Fish and Christo have gold eyes... Your legs are almost identical to the SDCC figure... how the web design on the read torso area works is different on yours and fish while the Fish version is closer to the SDCC.

Each of them has similar aspects and each has different.

Without seeing either of your designs and maybe based on subliminal knowledge of other Spidey designs I might have created one that was somewhere between the two with no attempt to copy them at all.

As much as it's frustrating seeing a design that's similar I would just be proud of the work you'd put in and know that yours is your own work... whoever else has Spidey designs has to live with their own satisfaction at their work whether it be original or copied.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Robianco

[BrickG]

There's inspiration. Likely flat out using yours as a reference. It doesn't appear to be traced and there's a fair amount different though and the lines don't match up perfectly (just some of them almost) so it doesn't appear to be traced.

If this wasn't an owned character it would be more of a big deal. But it's Spiderman :P. There's also no loss as far as I know on either side. Like once I entered a contest with unique art and it turned out someone else traced some official photographs which wasn't allowed and they were in a close 2nd. Luckily I still won.

Idunno, I'm a professional artist. I can't say I haven't been inspired by something and made something similar. This is probably MORE similar than I'd ever do though :P.

[Lego Otaku]

I've seen the original, and it was identical right down to the exact position of the hexagon patterns. It was pretty much a straight copy with edited background and no credit for the source artwork. It was changed the next day with hexagon pattern and some details removed so it didn't look like straight ripoff.

[Vindicare]

There's inspiration. Likely flat out using yours as a reference. It doesn't appear to be traced and there's a fair amount different though and the lines don't match up perfectly (just some of them almost) so it doesn't appear to be traced.

If this wasn't an owned character it would be more of a big deal. But it's Spiderman :P. There's also no loss as far as I know on either side. Like once I entered a contest with unique art and it turned out someone else traced some official photographs which wasn't allowed and they were in a close 2nd. Luckily I still won.

Idunno, I'm a professional artist. I can't say I haven't been inspired by something and made something similar. This is probably MORE similar than I'd ever do though :P.

Without seeing the original Spidey that Fish did, I have to agree here.

It IS Spider-Man. Every person that has their 'own' interpretation of him is still copying. I just searched for Amazing Spider-Man, I saw a yellow lenses, small hex patterned one. So...I don't see how it's plagerism, when it's a copy of a copy...of a copy. I think it's just overreacting to seeing something similar to yours. I remember a large uproar much like this overall 10228 Haunted House...

[strangely]

Okay, to the recent posters he changed the image because of my complaint.

Here's his: Here's mine:

As you can see he clearly used the torso. When I upload to deviantart I use a creative commons license for my work. When I create a piece of work that uses an existing copyrighted character I use a share alike license, like I did for this particular design. This enables people to use my designs freely so long as they attribute and then share their art in like manner. So another words if people are going to use my picture or some part of it I would appreciate it if they would give a mention and that they likewise freely share the work they base off of it. This guy took my design, cropped the torso and slapped it onto his design then put his logo on it saying it was a "FishDesign" and even better he has his own license stating that "all rights reserved." He couldn't even follow the share alike clause. My problem is that he followed neither requests and is trying to pass it off as his own when really it was my own hard work that went into that torso design.

In fact when I posted on his pictures I told him he could use it so long as he followed the rules in the license. Instead he deleted the comments and quickly threw together another design. He didn't have to at all had he just given credit where credit is do and shared alike, but apparently he didn't want to admit he got the torso from someone else. I have no problem with people using my design, but I do have a problem with them claiming they made it themselves when in fact it was my work that went into making it.

Also to the recent posters it was stated numerous times that the FishDesign picture had been taken down and changed. So what you see on his flickr is not the original picture. I would be okay if it looked similar, but in this case he just used my picture. Even the errors on mine are present in his such as lines that reach outside the decal and the blue hexagons I forgot to color in. Also mine was submitted in July of 2012. He used it. Didn't give credit. And worst of all lied to his followers by misleading them into thinking he created it himself. I'm perfectly entitled to dislike his actions. And I'm not overreacting on this, my only action was to tell him that he could use it if he followed the rules. Overreacting usually involves over the top behavior, not calm debate on what action I should take next, which was the purpose of this topic.

Edited November 16, 2013 by strangely

[Bamos]

You may be opening yourself up to a lawsuit from Marvel entertainment and the Disney Company by trying to issue a license to a copyrighted charecter. An unlicensed piece of art is fan art and comes under fair use but the moment you try licencing the fan art you are stealing from Marvel and Disney.

Also all lego fan art must come with a disclaimer that LEGO does not endorse or is affiliated in any way with the video or artwork. and with the Citizen brick meth lab problem LEGO may start enforcing their trademarks and copyrights more rigerously. Crowkillers has had a couple of instructions removed from EBay forn some reason by the LEGO Company.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Bamos

[Final Exit]

Did either of you invent Spiderman then?

[BrickG]

Yeah you don't have a license for this anyways. It's Spiderman and Lego. I assume you don't own either of those ;p.

While it's a messed up move to clearly steal your image and barely alter it, that's about all it is. There's no real legal basis here. The only party that could take legal action is Marvel or Lego. Fan Art isn't really protected unless it is a parody or something (which this isn't). It's just a vague area of the law that most companies don't bother messing with, hence how some people are able to sell fan art.

There's really nothing you can do. I think all the people who make art online get stuff stolen. Even when it's fully yours (properties and all) there's often nothing you can do which is why large companies often steal other peoples work.

[AmperZand]

Did either of you invent Spiderman then?

Copyright/design rights subsist on top of existing intellectual property. The owners or Marvel comics and TLG could stop you from commercialising the design but in the unlikely event that they did allow it, you would still have rights in the supplemental creative expression.

[Faefrost]

You may be opening yourself up to a lawsuit from Marvel entertainment and the Disney Company by trying to issue a license to a copyrighted charecter. An unlicensed piece of art is fan art and comes under fair use but the moment you try licencing the fan art you are stealing from Marvel and Disney.

Also all lego fan art must come with a disclaimer that LEGO does not endorse or is affiliated in any way with the video or artwork. and with the Citizen brick meth lab problem LEGO may start enforcing their trademarks and copyrights more rigerously. Crowkillers has had a couple of instructions removed from EBay forn some reason by the LEGO Company.

He's fine. He isn't selling anything for commercial purposes. Even if it is a licensed subject he still has certain creator rights for his interpretations of the character or design. He can reasonably request that someone credit him if using portion of his fan art in their project for public display.