It’s come to my attention that Warners ordered the removal of original “Superman” illustrations from an ebay charity auction.
As the creator and copyright holder of “Fallen Angel” (with Dave Lopez) and “Sachs & Violens” (with George Perez), I hereby give artists permission to create and donate to the charity of the artist’s choice (including on-site for charity auctions) original art containing original characters from “Fallen Angel” and “Sachs & Violens.” The only requirement is that the artwork have, on the front or back, the following notice–
“NOTICE: THIS ORIGINAL WORK OF ART IS OF ORIGINAL CHARACTERS FROM THE COMIC BOOK SERIES “FALLEN ANGEL” COPYRIGHT PETER DAVID AND DAVID LOPEZ and/or “SACHS & VIOLENS” COPYRIGHT PETER DAVID AND GEORGE PEREZ. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE IMAGES OF THIS ORIGINAL WORK OF ART MAY NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED FOR ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT FOR DISPLAY AS PART OF THE AUCTION.”
Feel free to circulate this notice to any and all who might be interested.
PAD
• 
seems pretty simple that DC could have done the same and thus avoided the negative publicity
Thank you.
Corporate paranoia is a pita.
Yeah, I read about this the other day and just shook my head. There are a lot of con artists out there on the web these days, but you try and go the extra mile for charity auctions that are working towards a good cause.
A classy move, good sir. I’m glad you did it.
TWL
Um, my understanding of such issues is that it’s much less copyright that’s a problem, but trademarks, which are very different in the legal sense. For example, a trademark holder must do something about unauthorized use of said trademark or risk losing it (thus those letters from Xerox, Google, Kleenex, etc. when one writes of making a generic copy using the word Xerox, a web search using a different search engine using the word Googling, etc.).
While I’d want to check with a lawyer (surely the CBLDF folk owe Peter enough to justify a quick 2 minute consult), my take is that this would be a lot more significant if you referenced trademarks rather than copyrights.
Posted by djinnius
Corporate paranoia is a pita.
Corporate paranoia is a piece of flat bread?
Way to go Peter.
Somehow, this flap puts me in mind of the “Catwoman” incident at a con that you once wrote about in “But I Digress…”
Class act, PAD.
While I realize that DC has every right to protect its interests, going after a charity auction seems a very counter productive way to go about it. Couldn’t they have simply officially sanctioned the event, which would A-protect their rights and B- gained them some nice publicity.
These companies pay big money to people who are supposed to make them look good but even an average Joe like myself can see nice easy ways to get that done and do some good at the same time. If I were one of the suits at Marvel I’d be darn sure that gene Colon wasn’t hurting for money in his time of need (especially when he was one of the guys responsible for the character making multimillions at the box office. I would hope that i’d do it because it was the right thing to do but I’ll settle for them doing it because it’s the smart thing to do.
I had my attorney vet the phrasing of what I posted above before I posted it.
The above is not intended as a commentary on Warners’ actions.
PAD
Marvel is already stepping up on Colan.
DC has allowed Superman to be used for various charitable uses. However, it’s reasonable for them to want to be able to vet the use before it gets used. There are fraudulent charities out there (and there have been fraudulent charity drives in the comics community), and there are also charities that one doesn’t particularly want to support or lend their name to. Faced with a limited time to respond (as the auctions were already under way), Warners had the auctions pulled. Then, having taken time to evaluate the situation, they allowed one auction to go forward. They were able to give some, without making it appear as if folks in the future would be wiser to ask forgiveness than permission.
What I don’t understand is how at say, a comic convention for instance, just about every artist, whether in the industry or trying to break it, has portfolios and prints of primarily Marvel and DC characters, and they’re allowed to sell them.
It does sound good, but just out of curoisty, what if someone does a chairty for NAMBLA or some other group that you strongly disagree with. So many good ideas have been shot down by an unlikely devil’s advicate.
mr david, you sir, are a class act.
for the record, i understand warners (or anyone) locking down who is allowed to do this. peter david is an amazingly generous person but even he wouldn’t agree that FALLEN ANGEL doesn’t have the marquee value of SUPERMAN.
it’s one thing for some artists to make a few bucks off a decent superman painting for charity but i wonder if PAD would feel the same way if it were for a pat buchanan or john mccain fundraiser (keep in mind i don’t know PAD and i am only using two republican examples because in the short time i have been reading his blog i assume he is of the opposing party – no judgment levied). or the other commentor who used NAMBLA as an example it just as easy could be the nra, the aryan nation or pro-choice/pro-lifers or the committee to burn harry potter books because magic is evil.
and if someone like alex ross decides to paint that picture it goes from something in the corner of a newspaper to being the cover of next months wizard that ALEX ROSS PAINTS PETER DAVID’S FALLEN ANGEL FOR ARYAN NATION FUNDRAISER.
then heads start popping off and people start spinning out of control.
oh yeah, i don’t know alex ross and in no way am i linking him to militant race supremicists. i am sure he’s a great guy.
I don’t see how any reading of the words “charity auction” could remotely include political campaigns, Nazis or NAMBLA.
PAD
Wouldn’t helping the Clinton campaign at this point be considered charity?
Wouldn’t helping the Clinton campaign at this point be considered charity?
Wouldn’t helping the Clinton campaign at this point be considered charity?
Wouldn’t helping the Clinton campaign at this point be considered charity?
peter david is an amazingly generous person but even he wouldn’t agree that FALLEN ANGEL doesn’t have the marquee value of SUPERMAN.
Actually, I think that makes it a more generous offer. There are a few thousand opportunities for a fan to buy Superman merchandise but a FALLEN ANGEL fan has a lot fewer choices. Mr Lopez and PAD are potentially hurting their financial opportunities to a far far greater degree than DC might be.
Tim, the minute I finished reading the blog entry, I thought the exact same thing you posted.
Peter, what exactly were the details of this. Was the removed artwork the artwork that was being auctioned? Given that it’s part of advertising something that is owned by the person donating/auctioning it off, is this not covered by Fair Use? Or were images of Superman other than the ones being auctioned being used?
I’ve had the honor of meeting Peter David (Pittsburgh Comicon 2000), and even then he was a class act.
complete professionalism, I wish more industry names were as courteous, and respectful of the fans who worship their work.
Pete, this is just more reason why you’re still one of my favorites (I’m forever a fan of Young Justice).
Cheers!
The artwork being auctioned itself was not authorized. It’s hard to protect the creation of original Superman product, promoted with the Superman trademark, with a “fair use” claim.
The situation would’ve been different if it was original art of pages used in the comics; that’s authorized art.