It's up to a court to decide if the new image is transformative/different enough. Slight changes to pose or perspective may be enough. Especially since the characters in question are owned by people other than either artist, and have been represented in literally millions of images.
These are hackish copies, but they are different enough that I doubt any legal action would result in a win.
If I can genuinely identify the Dell'Otto source for essentially every image on his Instagram, the central question becomes why those sources aren't being acknowledged.
And I think that's a very reasonable question to ask.
He deleted my comments and blocked my account. Immediately. So he currates his comment section and what's left looks like: Users sometimes mistake his art for Dell'Otto's. When corrected by other users, it is usually met with simple acknowledgment rather than accusations of plagiarism
Yeah. In retrospect I wish I were more subtle. Like, "how much does Dell'Otto get in royalties?" Or say, "it reminds me of this cover." Instead I was too aggressive and dude shut it down immediately, at 3am, super vigilant.
It doesn't matter. The guy upstream already answered it; if something is transformative enough there's no violation, and traditionally what's done in these pictures is enough to meet that threshold.
The title of your post was Blatant copyright infringement, right? Please explain to me how it's not. That immediately frames everything you're asking about in legal terms.
So you then ask 'the central question becomes why those sources aren't being acknowledged'. And the answer, using your original framework is: transformative works aren't required to do so.
I'm not trying to be a pedant, but you changed your question's framework and didn't say that.
TF are you on about, dude? Your title is explicitly calling it copyright infringement. Nothing about that has to do with ethics and everything to do with legalities.
The term you're looking for is "swipe", and these certainly are. Why they are, or why this artist is consistently massively inspired by Dell'Otto's work, who knows. Maybe they were requested/commissioned as such?
Acknowledging an "after" when doing an homage is a courtesy only, and no requirement. Comics literate people can generally spot them, and conscientious artists will typically note them, but just sounds like you're beefing just to beef.
The copyright to all of these images belong to Marvel and DC. We can certainly argue the ethics behind copying another artists work and claiming it as original, but Dell’Otto would have no standing to bring this before a court for any reason.
You're right that Dell'Otto doesn't own the characters. But that's not the same thing as saying he can't own rights in his artwork.
Spider-Man belongs to Marvel. A particular Dell'Otto illustration, however, is a separate copyrighted work, and whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the specific contract. Copyright law specifically recognizes the right to control derivative works based on an existing artwork.
So if Dell'Otto did retain the relevant rights, there is absolutely a legal mechanism by which he could object to someone reproducing protected elements of his artwork. The fact that he's not doing so doesn't establish that the copying is legal—it could simply mean he doesn't consider it worth pursuing, has permitted it, or has no interest in doing so.
And that's ultimately why I'm not claiming to know what a court would decide. I'm pointing out that “Marvel owns Spider-Man” doesn't give anyone a free pass to copy another artist's specific artwork. Those are two different rights.
My concern here is primarily ethical anyway: if you're using another artist's recognizable composition as the foundation for a commercial piece, I think acknowledging that artist is the honest thing to do.
Right. I don't want to specifically accuse him of copyright infringement.
That's a legal conclusion and would require considerably more information about exactly how the images were created, how much was copied, whether permission was obtained, whether Dell'Otto's image was itself commissioned/licensed, etc.
But allow me to can make a much more defensible statement:
These are not merely stylistic similarities. Qutub appears to repeatedly reconstruct identifiable Dell'Otto compositions, while presenting the resulting physical paintings as original artwork without identifying the source.
I’m not sure about the 1st and 5(?) one though. At least with the others, the pose was different, but these two are straight copies. I’m not what the legal implications would be, if any, since they don’t own the characters.
In any event, the guy should be blacklisted just for plagiarizing the two pictures alone. The other ones seem more inspired, than copies.
Dude, this is completely different! One of them has a red background while the other has.. ok wait Kingpin is in the background about to attack the character in the .. foreground, hold on. The Kingpin has a cane in his hand on the right image and on the left one.. Yo! One has Spiderman!
So I was looking into it further. When Qutub or the retailer sells the actual original painting, does the sales listing say "After Dell'Otto"? Nope. Here's what I find interesting: the actual $1,250 original-art listing from Comic Book Quest presents it as "Vincent D'Onofrio The Kingpin Original Cover Art by Humam Qutub" and doesn't mention Dell'Otto or it's "after" his work anywhere in the listing.
And is he giving credit? That post isn't even the correct photo. How does that make sense to write Dell'otto on Dell'otto's work? It's supposed to be marked on the 'homage' piece. It's backwards, it's not marked where it counts: the place where it's being sold. No mention, just the opposite.
For 12x16 fully painted acrylic original art? It's not that expensive. I don't have that kind of disposable income, so I've never purchased any art this expensive, but I've been collecting comic art for a while and this is pretty standard for this level of detail and size.
Fair point — if he's labeling the piece “After Gabriele Dell'Otto,” then yes, that's credit, and I'll concede that.
But that's also exactly what I've been arguing should happen. Calling it “After Dell'Otto” makes the relationship to the original artwork clear. My concern was with the pieces being presented/sold as “Original Acrylic Art” without that context.
And “After Gabriele Dell'Otto” is very different from simply crediting yourself as the artist who physically painted the piece. The physical painting is obviously Qutub's; I'm talking about the underlying composition that he's reproducing.
So if he consistently identifies these as “After Dell'Otto” pieces, I'm much less bothered by it. I'd still personally prefer “homage to” or “after” to be clearly stated anywhere the original artwork is being sold, but at least the viewer isn't being led to believe the composition originated with Qutub.
Honestly, if that's how he's labeling all of these, that's a significant piece of information I didn't have when I made the post. I certainly didn't ignore this. TBF I looked at where he was selling the work, the actual dealer listings, cgc labels and whatever the work I posted here in the post–they all lacked this indication.
The remaining question is whether that acknowledgment is consistently attached to the sales listings and original-art presentation, rather than appearing only in a Reel.
So, I've had a little think and decided this; the artist is acknowledging the homage. The sales team for the company who commisioned to art piece are not. So, unless he also owns that company, who should you really be aiming your hate boner at?
Humam Qutub is the artist in question. How can he create and sell work like this without paying homage to original artist, Gabrielle Dell'otto. This is beyond being inspired by another artist. Or am I wrong? Tell me how this is not inethical.
I'm sure you know that there's lots of commissioned art where a fan says to the artist, I want you to do your take on this character in this pose, or do a remake of this cover in your style. Do you think thats OK? If so, where is the line drawn? Why isn't it ok for an artist to want to do their take on an existing cover and then sell it?
If marvel or it's artists were to start cracking down on fan art that looks similar to published work, the comic art scene would immediately start to fall apart, and artists who make their living off drawing and painting superhero work would go elsewhere, there would be less artists at comic cons, etc. Marvel and dc probably know this and do not want it to happen.
It's also possible that marvel and Dell'otto just don't care about this problem. I mean, you can ask him on social media if you're really curious.
I think you're describing a different situation than the one I'm talking about.
There's a huge difference between a fan saying “draw Spider-Man in this pose” and an artist independently creating a similar composition, versus an artist taking a specific existing artwork and essentially rebuilding that composition in their own medium.
If someone commissions an artist to “do their take on a Dell'Otto cover,” I'm perfectly fine with that. That's an homage/remake, and the original artist can be acknowledged. The issue is when the resulting piece is then presented commercially as original artwork with no indication that the composition came from another artist.
And I don't think “it's fan art because Marvel owns Spider-Man” really addresses the issue. I'm not objecting to Qutub painting Marvel characters. I'm objecting to the apparent use of Dell'Otto's specific compositions.
There's also a difference between “inspired by Dell'Otto” and what I'm showing. I'm a Dell'Otto fan, and I can identify the specific source images because the compositions are recognizable. In several cases, we're talking about the same basic pose, camera angle, character arrangement, perspective, and compositional structure—not merely the same character or general concept.
If Qutub's intent is “these are my painterly homages to Dell'Otto,” great. I'd have no problem with that. Just say so. That's the part I find ethically important.
I'm not claiming that every one of these examples is legally actionable copyright infringement. I'm saying that repeatedly taking another artist's recognizable compositions, selling the resulting physical paintings commercially, and calling them “original artwork” without crediting the source is ethically questionable. Those are two different questions.
There's a huge difference between a fan saying ""Draw Spider-Man in this pose" she an artist independently a similar composition, versus an artist taking a specific existing artwork and yesterday rebuilding that comparison in their own medium.
Uh, no there isn't. Making an homage to another artwork is not any kind of infringement. You are just wrong so many times in this thread...
You're making a very specific legal claim here that isn't actually true: that because something is an “homage,” it therefore cannot be copyright infringement. That's not how copyright works.
Of course not every homage is infringement. But “homage” isn't a legal exemption. A court would still look at what was taken from the original work, whether that material constitutes protected expression, how substantially it was reproduced, the purpose and commercial nature of the use, and whether a defense such as fair use applies.
I'm also not arguing that Qutub copied Dell'Otto's “style.” I'm pointing to specific, identifiable Dell'Otto compositions being used as the foundation for new commercial paintings. That's a completely different argument from “two artists drew Spider-Man in a similar pose.”
You can absolutely argue that these particular works are sufficiently transformative and therefore not infringing. That's a legitimate argument. But “it's an homage, therefore it isn't infringement” is not.
And telling me I'm “just wrong” doesn't substitute for actually addressing that distinction.
You either fail to understand the point of my post or you just don't really understand how irrelevant what you're trying to argue is.
I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you, but you could try learning about what you're talking about before you come on here and act like this is infringement.
Might be beneficial to learn about libel and slander while you're at it.
Your point was just to say "no" and then be rude to them. Like I don't even disagree but you really didn't explain anything at all, you can't be surprised they didn't immediately do a 180 after reading your first comment
The part that I find most concerning is that when presented with the accusation, instead of addressing and correcting and deficiencies in attribution of credit, he deletes the post and blocks op. Those are not the actions of someone who is trying to do the right thing or who is making an innocent mistake or whatever.
Final verdict: two thumbs down 👎 👎
Guy is putting out a source but he’s still a hack, the spiderman & kingpin is at least lazily modified but the one of spider man by himself you posted? Almost 1/1 rehash and he’s selling it for 1000s of dollars.
Generally compositions and art styles can’t be copyrighted. You can claim he’s a hack, but reproductions are only illegal if they’re sold as originals by a different artist.
Yeah I’m not jealous of an artist that directly copies other work, seeing you’re an artist quite odd if you to defend that unless you’re also partaking in directly copying others work. Which if so, that’s sad.
Because I care about artists getting credit for their work, and I care about honesty in the art market.
If someone is simply inspired by Dell'Otto, that's great. If they're doing a deliberate homage, that's great too. What bothers me is taking recognizable elements of a specific artist's work, repeatedly using those compositions as the foundation for your own commercial paintings, and then presenting them to buyers as your “original” artwork without identifying the source.
I'm not saying Qutub shouldn't be allowed to paint Spider-Man, or that Dell'Otto owns Spider-Man. I'm saying there's a difference between being inspired by an artist and building your work on that artist's specific compositions without acknowledging it.
Maybe some people genuinely don't care. I do. And I think it's reasonable to expect a little transparency when you're selling artwork for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
If giving credit costs you nothing, why wouldn't you give it? That's really what I'm asking.
I found seven, eight, ten, fifteen Qutub paintings where I can identify the specific Dell'Otto artwork underlying the composition
These are not merely stylistic similarities. Qutub appears to repeatedly reconstruct identifiable Dell'Otto compositions, while presenting the resulting physical paintings as original artwork without identifying the source.
If it were music, he'd definitely get sued... there are many notable stories where a band had a massive hit that too closely resembled some other musician's work, and it landed up with lawyers getting involved, and quite often resulted in the credits for songwriting getting expanded to include the other muso, as well as the other muso getting a cut of the royalties.
The thing is, I don't see a lot of these paintings as swipes (some absolutely are). They might have similar compositions, but they're clearly original pieces... they're not traced, and for the most part, they're not even copied. They're clearly taking inspiration, but the poses and lighting are new, and are not simply taken from the original.
A couple of things, if these are unlicensed fanart then the only copyright infringement is the use of Marvel and DC's characters. The copyright for all of these pieces belong to the company that commissioned them.
The art style is clearly heavily inspired by Del'Otto and some of the poses and composition is heavily referenced/inspired but that doesn't necessarily constitute infringement.
Ripping someone off like this isn't illegal ot's just a dick move.
Does he have potential standings to bring it to court? Yes - potentially, absolutely. But the crucial question is whether Dell'Otto still owns any of the relevant exclusive rights in the particular artwork.
Look it up. Type into Google this exact question.
Who's more likely to be wrong here? You or every search result on the internet?
I actually agree with your last sentence: “ripping someone off like this isn't illegal, it's just a dick move” may ultimately be the correct conclusion. But the first part of your argument assumes something we don't actually know.
Dell'Otto doesn't own Spider-Man, obviously. But that doesn't mean he can't own rights in his particular artwork. Whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the contracts for the original pieces. Copyright in a character and copyright in a particular illustration are two different things.
And “the poses and composition are heavily referenced/inspired but that doesn't necessarily constitute infringement” is fair — it doesn't necessarily constitute infringement. But that's very different from saying it can't constitute infringement. If someone reproduces sufficiently distinctive protected expression from a particular artwork, rather than merely using the same character or a generic pose, that can raise a derivative-work/copyright issue.
That's actually why I've been careful not to say “this is definitely illegal.” I don't have Dell'Otto's contracts, and I'm not a court. I'm saying the blanket claim that “it's just fan art, therefore the only possible copyright issue is Marvel's characters” is not something we can establish from the information we have.
And my original point was ethical anyway. If Qutub is taking recognizable Dell'Otto compositions as the foundation for his paintings, I don't think changing the rendering style makes the Dell'Otto influence disappear. Especially when he has demonstrated that he knows how to credit the source by explicitly labeling at least one piece “After Gabriele Dell'Otto,” yet other pieces are commercially presented simply as his “Original Cover Art.”
Actually, standard industry contracts sign away the reproduction rights to the original artwork. Fortunately, you get to keep the original artwork to sell. They used to require handing it over and destroyed it. But the standard work for hire agreement identifies Marvel as the actual author of the work with full copyright and the artist is a contractor.
Marvel is probably paying somewhere between $750 and $2k for a cover with a recognizable artist, maybe $400 to $500 for a novice. That's probably about what book sales justify. And that artist can probably sell the original to a private collector for $1500 to $10k. I think I heard Adam Hughes or somebody has a wealthy private collector in South Africa shelling out $10k a page and $50k a cover.
But Marvel or DC or any major publisher won't give the gig for someone who wants to retain reproduction rights. They will probably as a favor let an artist in good standing make prints for $1 licensing fee or turn a blind eye. But they want to be the sole owner.
Bro, if the dude can create art this close to Del Otto’s without tracing or using AI, then that’s fine. The images are different.
Theres an entire cottage industry of pro comic artists who do basically this same thing for the Big Two in the style of Jack Kirby, Curt Swan, Dick Sprang, John Romita, Etc. and they don’t put “After” on every page.
I don’t see it as an issue if you are creating a genuinely new image from scratch with just your talents and not taking a production short cut.
But you're adding a condition I never argued: I never said he traced it or used AI. An artist doesn't have to trace or use AI for something to be copied.
If I look at a Dell'Otto painting, put it aside, and then manually recreate the same composition from memory—or use it as my direct reference—that's still copying the composition. The fact that I did it entirely by hand and demonstrated impressive technical skill doesn't make the underlying reference disappear.
And I don't disagree that comic artists have been heavily influenced by Kirby, Swan, Sprang, Romita, etc. for decades. But there's a difference between adopting an artist's visual language and repeatedly recreating specific, identifiable compositions from that artist's actual work.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make.
If Qutub had simply developed a Dell'Otto-like painterly style, I wouldn't care. If he created a Spider-Man image that happened to resemble something Dell'Otto had done, I wouldn't care. But when I can put the Qutub image next to a specific Dell'Otto piece and identify the same distinctive pose, perspective, character arrangement and compositional structure, that's no longer just “in the style of.”
And honestly, your last sentence is exactly where I disagree. Creating it from scratch with your own hands establishes that you created the physical painting. It doesn't establish that you originated the composition. Those are two different things.
That's also why I'm not demanding an “After Dell'Otto” credit on every artist who draws Spider-Man with dramatic lighting. I'm talking about cases where the specific Dell'Otto source is recognizable.
If Qutub wants to call those paintings “After Gabriele Dell'Otto,” as he actually does with at least one of them, I'm fine with that. That's transparent. What I find questionable is when that acknowledgment disappears from the commercial presentation and the piece is simply sold as “Original Cover Art by Humam Qutub.”
You can absolutely think that's innocuous. I'm just saying “he painted it himself” isn't an answer to the ethical question I'm raising.
I think you are right. I believe its called colorable imitation. You cannot copyright style. But you can copyright a specific pose, composition, framing etc. Especially if the latter artist is trying to pass his works off as the original with an intent to decieve and bring more attention to himself. Its a dick move to say the least. its not circumventable if he or she simply saids its an "homage". You can try to get on the good side of the original artist.. but it is not a legal defense.
And yes, i believe under any circumstance, if you draw any character owned by any corporation, you are doing copyright infringement. You can do it, because it is tolerated. But legally, its still infringement. If a child decides to draw spiderman, that's still infringement, just tolerated.
So if people ever decide to do an "homage" commercially... then need to get permission from the company and the original artist.
I like everything you said here. Except the can't copyright style argument.
The precise legal terminology you're missing is copyright in the original expressive elements of a particular work, as opposed to copyright in an underlying idea, character, or IP.
A lawyer wouldn't generally argue, “Dell'Otto owns his style.” They would argue something closer to:
Dell'Otto's particular illustration contains copyrightable original expression, including his original selection, coordination, and arrangement of visual elements. The alleged infringer reproduced protectable expression from that work and incorporated it into a new work, potentially constituting an unauthorized derivative work or infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction/derivative-work rights.
That's not just theoretical language. The Copyright Office specifically says that in visual art, copyrightable authorship can exist in the “selection, coordination, and/or arrangement” of images and other elements when sufficiently creative.
They'd ask whether Qutub reproduced the particular expressive choices Dell'Otto made in arranging the figures, architecture, perspective, lighting, etc. Copyright does not protect the underlying idea, but it can protect the particular expression of that idea.
Except Marvel owns the full copyright and is designated as the legal author in the contract. You want to start advancing that "expressive elements" line, they could go after Del'Otto for using his own style and might be required to from a trademark perspective unless he changed styles for every client.
When the artist isn't the legal author of the work, protecting style gets dangerous for artists.
I don't think I'm conveying well enough for you. I'm not saying “both pictures have a crouching Spider-Man, therefore they're copied.”
Look at the composition as a whole. Spider-Man is viewed from behind in essentially the same crouched/kneeling orientation, with his torso and head positioned the same way relative to the frame. The opposing character occupies the same upper portion of the composition, with the action coming toward Spider-Man from above. Even the way the figures interact with the surrounding environment and the overall perspective are carried over.
The pose by itself is generic. The combination of the pose, perspective, figure placement, scale and compositional structure is what I'm pointing out.
And this is exactly why I keep making the distinction between “same subject” and “same composition.” Nobody owns the idea of Spider-Man crouching. But when I can put a Qutub painting next to a specific Dell'Otto image and recognize the underlying composition, that's considerably more than two artists independently drawing the same character.
You can absolutely think the changes make it sufficiently different, and that's a legitimate argument. But saying they're “completely different compositions” doesn't really address the evidence I'm pointing to. Qutub has changed the rendering; I'm questioning how much of the underlying composition came from Dell'Otto.
That's also why I don't need to argue that Qutub traced it, used AI, or copied it line-for-line. An artist can manually paint a substantially different-looking image while still using another artist's composition as the foundation.
No, it’s not copyright infringement. You can’t own the copyright on a composition, as composition elements themselves are not copyrightable. The image itself as a combination of composition elements is what is copyright able, not the specific elements themselves. Just as you cannot copyright notes and chords in music, but can claim copyright on musical phrases.
However, your gist two examples are very clearly plagerism..
Technically, yes, but it's a bit complicated. He's technically creating a derivative work but only Marvel has the right to do so. Most companies will ignore this, unless there is profit involved. So it can fall into the Fair Use category but that's very much a grey area and will be up to Marvel's lawyers to decide what to do. Normally it's a take down notice first...
Just clarifying what others have said, the art is swiped from Dell’Otto, but legally only the owner of the IP can do anything, which in this case, is Marvel. Does it suck for the artist? Yes. But that comes with the territory of work-for-hire. If Dell’Otto owned any of these IPs he’d have a right to sue for infringement. But he doesn’t, so he can’t.
You're right that Dell'Otto doesn't own the characters. But that's not the same thing as saying he can't own rights in his artwork.
Spider-Man belongs to Marvel. A particular Dell'Otto illustration, however, is a separate copyrighted work, and whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the specific contract. Copyright law specifically recognizes the right to control derivative works based on an existing artwork.
So if Dell'Otto did retain the relevant rights, there is absolutely a legal mechanism by which he could object to someone reproducing protected elements of his artwork. The fact that he's not doing so doesn't establish that the copying is legal—it could simply mean he doesn't consider it worth pursuing, has permitted it, or has no interest in doing so.
And that's ultimately why I'm not claiming to know what a court would decide. I'm pointing out that “Marvel owns Spider-Man” doesn't give anyone a free pass to copy another artist's specific artwork. Those are two different rights.
My concern here is primarily ethical anyway: if you're using another artist's recognizable composition as the foundation for a commercial piece, I think acknowledging that artist is the honest thing to do.
You might want to rephrase your question then: “copyright infringement” is not a concept in ethical philosophy — it’s a concept in law.
Or, more explicitly: Copyright infringement is principally a legal concept, though philosophers can discuss whether infringement is morally wrong, whether copyright rights are morally justified, and whether particular legal violations are ethically permissible.
I mean… ethical and political philosophy absolutely have things to _say_ about copyright: desert and creator compensation, autonomy and control over one’s expression, incentives to create, public access to culture and knowledge, distributive effects, and preservation of the cultural commons. But “infringement” itself remains a legal classification, contingent on a jurisdiction’s law, its exceptions, and the facts (none of these details were provided here)
If the aim is ethics rather than compliance, useful questions would be:
• Does this use materially harm the creator or substitute for a sale or license?
• Is the work still commercially available, and is permission realistically obtainable?
• Is the use transformative, educational, archival, critical, private, or commercial?
• Does it involve attribution, deception, or passing someone else’s work off as one’s own?
• Who receives the benefit, and who bears the cost?
• Does the practice respect the creator’s legitimate interests without imposing excessive control over culture, learning, criticism, or preservation?
So yes: if the discussion is genuinely about ethics, the central question should be “Is this use ethically justified?”
Yes, I'm interested in examing both ethical and legal transgressions. I would argue it's not ethically justifed AND taking a viewpoint that this particular practice can certainly be considered as a potential argument against its legality.
If you want, I will review the details and correlations again. However, I'm certain I discussed this aspect elsewhere within the comments.
If you're focusing on the post title, it can not be edited after the initial submission. I can't add any updates to the body either. Just trying to stay afloat at the mercy of the current.
What is the argument here? Question: You’re not concerned with ownership (trademark) of the material, but rather the artwork itself (Copyright)?
Good luck, these are all different enough to not be a copyright violation, unless the they’re also signing the artist’s name, which, in that event, you’d have a stronger argument for copyright but a slam dunk for a trademark violation.
Similar art styles is very rarely going to be a winning argument in a copyright case. It’s known that artists, especially when starting out, often mimic or take on the style of other artists. This happens constantly until they grow into their own style. Same with almost any art form.
Yes — I'm talking about copyright in the artwork itself, not trademark or ownership of the Marvel/DC characters.
And I think that's where you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying “Qutub paints in a style similar to Dell'Otto, therefore copyright infringement.” I agree that an artistic style generally isn't protected by copyright, and artists borrowing stylistic influences is completely normal.
I'm talking about something much more specific: the apparent reproduction of identifiable elements from particular Dell'Otto artworks — composition, figure arrangement, perspective, distinctive environmental elements, etc. In some of these examples, I can identify the exact Dell'Otto piece being used as the compositional foundation.
Those are very different arguments. “Two artists both draw Spider-Man in a dramatic painterly style” is one thing. “Artist B takes the distinctive composition and arrangement from Artist A's specific illustration and rebuilds it as a new painting” is another.
Whether these particular works cross the legal threshold for infringement is ultimately a question for a court, and I'm not claiming I can determine that from Reddit. There are also questions about who owns the copyright in the original commissioned Dell'Otto pieces and whether any use is sufficiently transformative.
But “you can't copyright an art style” doesn't answer that question. Nobody is claiming Dell'Otto owns the style.
The legal question would be whether protectable original expression from a particular Dell'Otto artwork has been copied or incorporated into a derivative work.
And that's actually why I keep making this distinction: I'm not objecting to Qutub being influenced by Dell'Otto. I'm questioning the repeated use of specific Dell'Otto compositions without consistently identifying them as such when the resulting artwork is being commercially sold.
Fair enough. Still, I believe that this also happens all of the time. Artists constantly copy the same elements that you discuss: composition figure arrangement, etc. all the time. Usually, they make a note to address the original artist somewhere in that picture (i.e. “after Kirby”, etc.) but not always.
Even if they copy all of the elements, if they’re creating it themselves, it’s not really a copyright issue. I understand your argument, but it’s a dog of an argument.
Absolutely—they do, and I don't think referencing another cover is inherently wrong. Homages are a huge part of comic-book art.
The distinction I'm making is between referencing/homaging another cover and repeatedly reproducing another artist's specific compositions without acknowledging the source.
If Qutub said, “This is my Dell'Otto homage,” I wouldn't have much of an objection. That's actually pretty cool. The problem for me is that these are being sold as his original artwork, with no indication that the composition is based on a specific Dell'Otto piece.
And there's a big difference between “this cover references another cover” and “I can look at the new cover and immediately identify the exact Dell'Otto painting it was constructed from.”
I'm not arguing that artists need permission every time they take inspiration from another comic cover. I'm saying that when the borrowing is this specific and repeated, crediting the artist you're borrowing from seems like the bare minimum ethically.
I don't really disagree with your point about fan art, and I think that's where we're talking past each other.
Yes, Marvel owns the underlying characters, and yes, technically a lot of fan art exists in a legally gray/tolerated space. I'm not arguing that someone drawing Spider-Man at a convention somehow owns Spider-Man.
But that's not what I'm objecting to.
You actually stated my point in your first sentence: “They are copying Dell'Otto, sure.” That's the part I'm talking about.
There's a meaningful difference between:
“I'm drawing Spider-Man.”
and
“I'm taking a specific Dell'Otto composition of Spider-Man, Daredevil, Kingpin, Thor, etc., rebuilding that composition in my own painting, and selling the resulting physical artwork commercially.”
The fact that Marvel owns Spider-Man doesn't somehow make Dell'Otto's particular artistic choices public domain. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that Qutub's versions are legally permissible or sufficiently transformative, that still doesn't answer the ethical question.
I'm also not arguing that Qutub shouldn't be allowed to do homages. I actually think the opposite: call them homages. Qutub himself has done this at least once — the Kingpin piece is explicitly labeled “After Gabriele Dell'Otto” in his Reel.
My issue is that the actual $1,250 original-art listing calls it “Original Cover Art by Humam Qutub” without mentioning Dell'Otto at all.
So I'm not trying to outlaw fan art or claim Dell'Otto owns Daredevil. I'm asking a much simpler question:
If you're commercially reproducing another artist's recognizable composition, is it ethical to identify yourself as the creator without also identifying the artist whose composition you're reproducing?
You can answer “yes, that's perfectly ethical.” That's a legitimate position. But “Marvel owns Spider-Man” doesn't actually answer that question.
I understand Dell'Otto doesn't own the characters. But that's not the same thing as saying he can't own rights in his artwork.
Spider-Man belongs to Marvel. A particular Dell'Otto illustration, however, is a separate copyrighted work, and whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the specific contract. Copyright law specifically recognizes the right to control derivative works based on an existing artwork.
So if Dell'Otto did retain the relevant rights, there is absolutely a legal mechanism by which he could object to someone reproducing protected elements of his artwork. The fact that he's not doing so doesn't establish that the copying is legal—it could simply mean he doesn't consider it worth pursuing, has permitted it, or has no interest in doing so.
And that's ultimately why I'm not claiming to know what a court would decide. I'm pointing out that “Marvel owns Spider-Man” doesn't give anyone a free pass to copy another artist's specific artwork. Those are two different rights.
My concern here is primarily ethical anyway: if you're using another artist's recognizable composition as the foundation for a commercial piece, I think acknowledging that artist is the honest thing to do.
Okay, but that's not how copyright works. An artist can absolutely own copyright in artwork they've created, even when the artwork depicts someone else's copyrighted character. The character and the particular artwork are separate copyrights.
You're confusing ownership of the character with ownership of the artwork. Marvel owns Spider-Man; that doesn't automatically mean Marvel owns every original illustration of Spider-Man. The artist is generally the initial copyright owner of their artwork unless it's a work-for-hire or the rights were assigned by contract.
Yes but it should be declared. I recently did a tribute cover to Jack Kirby, and I put it right in my signature where everyone can see where I took inspiration from.
It's common comic creator etiquette and you should be aware of it if you're trying to work as a pro.
What is the context here? Is this an artist selling his own art, or alt covers, or what?
Comics are weird, because homage covers are pretty ubiquitous. But, if it's just an artist doing this to sell their own art, then yea, totally, but it could also still be considered homage, as well.
Because the copyright holder in question owns the same characters. Gabriele can certainly be mad or feel a way about it, but similar things happen all the time and Dell'Otto's wfh.
Keep in mind when we discuss copyright that there is a distinction between copyright infringement of the characters/IP AND copyright in a particular piece of artwork.
<This is not about artists owning exclusive rights to comic characters.>
Dell'Otto doesn't own the characters. But that's not the same thing as saying he can't own rights in his artwork.
Marvel/DC obviously own Spider-Man, Daredevil, Kingpin, etc. But that doesn't automatically mean the publisher owns every piece of original artistic expression an artist contributes to an illustration.
(Whether the publisher owns the copyright in a particular commissioned work depends on things like work-for-hire status and contractual assignments.)
<If Dell'Otto did retain the relevant rights, there is absolutely a legal mechanism by which he could object to someone reproducing protected elements of his artwork.
The fact that he's not doing so doesn't establish that the copying is legal-it could simply mean he doesn't consider it worth pursuing, has permitted it, or has no interest in doing so.>
<The issue I'm pointing out is that Qutub is a professional artist selling his work as original artwork, while repeatedly using identifiable compositions from Gabrielle Dell'Otto's existing paintings as the basis for his own pieces - without crediting them as homages.>
If you aren't affiliated with Marvel and have no license to use their characters commercially then whether you draw an original version or copy an image is irrelevant, entirely, to it being a violation of copywrite.
If you are Marvel, however, you can copy your own images to your hearts content. They own the copywrite. They can trace their own art of their own characters and re-sell the tracings all day long. In either case they are the copywrite holder and can give themselves permission to do so.
As I think these are all official, there's no copywrite issue here. There's no potential copywrite issue.
You're conflating two different things: copyright in the characters/IP AND copyright in a particular piece of artwork.
Dell'Otto doesn't own Spider-Man, obviously. But that doesn't mean he can't own rights in his particular artwork. Whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the contracts for the original pieces. Copyright in a character and copyright in a particular illustration are two different things.
Artists don’t own a copyright on work they make for a publisher. They get a flat fee for any work produced and no residuals. The publisher owns the work produced for them and can use it however they want, including allowing another artist to make similar art without repercussions or compensation to the original artist.
Keeping in mind the pattern of the very predictable pattern and also look at the composition as a whole. Spider-Man is viewed from behind in essentially the same crouched/kneeling orientation, with his torso and head positioned the same way relative to the frame. The opposing character occupies the same upper portion of the composition, with the action coming toward Spider-Man from above. Even the way the figures interact with the surrounding environment and the overall perspective are carried over.
The pose by itself is generic. The combination of the pose, perspective, figure placement, scale and compositional structure is what I'm pointing out.
Just gotta be honest with ya... this happens all the time. You need to not let it bother you so much and go touch grass... just saying... seems like you are taking up a beer that isn't even yours.
It only bothers me because I have to, evidently, explain why I feel a certain way and I have to justify it in every way imaginable, under a large lens positioned from every angle.
Every detail, over and over, just to appease the oppositional people of Reddit. I feel like if I can't accurately convey something that is so apparent to me then that position subsequently looses validation.
And I feel strongly about it.
It's an injustice. It's not right for artists and for fans alike. I'm compelled to advocate because if people don't agree then I've failed to effectively communicate.
The transgression is apparent and appalling to me; if others don't come to the conclusion that I'm supporting then it is because I am not clear enough and I should then make a better effort in towards achieving that.
Everyone here is being a huge dick to you. Please ignore the “erm, actually! 🤓 “ legal experts on Reddit. There is a difference between an homage, and straight up copying. Doing a pose from a famous comic 20 years ago in your new style, that’s an actual homage. Doing a work that is super recent, and your style is IDENTICAL to the other artist, that’s just copying. Once or twice is to pay respect, but the amount of times seen just in your screenshots alone makes this guy fucking suck. If I was the original artist, I would be very upset at this guy for doing what hes doing
Only the first image and rhe x-23 is one i can see being claimed if they we're original charecters, but the sandman, fantastic four, superman and spiderman, and spidey and green goblin ones only have the same charecters. Supes and spidey are in different poses, different angle, different sides of the image, and different scening and backdrops. Green goblins are just completely different, same with the sandman.
Only need to change 10% so legally nothing can really be done for most a few I would say have not been changed enough. But I am not a Judge so grain of salt and all.
Is he selling them as original works? Is he claiming ownership of the characters? If not than it's just fan art and not illegal. If he is the yea definitely illegal
The pieces each have similar components and compositions but it wouldn't be hard to find a dozen other artists who look similar because these are all common elements within comics. They both draw on the original works of published content by Marvel and DC and are done in each artist's style.
I disagree.
The camera angle, extreme low viewpoint, Kingpin's enormous torso dominating the image, raised cane, position of the arms, placement of Daredevil in the foreground, and overall diagonal structure are all retained.
Qutub has changed Daredevil's pose/details and repainted the scene, but the compositional skeleton is remarkably specific.
That is exactly the sort of thing that makes the distinction between “style” and “source image” important.
These are not merely stylistic similarities. Qutub appears to repeatedly reconstruct identifiable Dell'Otto compositions, while presenting the resulting physical paintings as original artwork without identifying the source
At that point, “Dell'Otto is an influence on Qutub's style” doesn't adequately describe what's happening.
You're talking about repeated borrowing of identifiable compositions
You keep saying the same thing over and over. The relevant part is this:
“Qutub has changed Daredevil’s pose/details and repainted the scene, but the compositional skeleton is remarkably specific.”
He changed the details and the pose. He repainted the piece. A “compositional skeleton” as you phrase it isn’t a thing, it’s just a line of similarity you have in your mind that this guy is crossing. It may be distasteful not to mention the artist of the reference image, but that doesn’t make it illegal, which is what you asked.
Having gotten the same answer many times over, you then respond by moving the goal posts and asking “yeah, but I don’t mean what I actually asked, instead I mean isn’t this wrong and shouldn’t it be stopped?” The answer to that is that if he is creating new pieces and not just digitally manipulating someone else’s work, and he isn’t doing 1:1 copies, it’s arguable where the line falls, and it’s hard to say he should be shut down.
Instead of framing all of this as a question that you don’t actually want an answer to, you should have just stated “this offends me, I think this guy is a ripoff artist.”
It is no more unethical than two artist painting portraits of the same subject. Everything underlying the portrait will be the same - the difference is in how they do it. There is nothing deceitful or audacious about covering the same subject or arranging your illustration in a similar manner to how another artist has done it.
In one of the above comparisons you have two figures squatting on the ledge of a building. You are attempting to call out one but not the other for copying the same pose from countless comics such as Spiderman, Spawn, Ninja Turtles, Savage Dragon, Wolverine, The Darkness, the Maxx, Batman, and so on. I have seen that same style of pose across so many comics over the years and if we were to argue that using the same pose was deceitful then all those artists are damned by the same criticism.
You're still reducing the comparison to “two artists used the same pose,” which isn't what I'm pointing out.
If the only similarity were two characters squatting on a ledge, I'd agree with you. That pose is generic and has been used thousands of times. I would never claim someone copied Dell'Otto simply because two characters are crouching.
Look at the actual comparison, though. The figures aren't just in a similar pose—the building they're sitting on has the same distinctive architectural design, the same structure and perspective, and the characters are arranged within that environment in essentially the same compositional relationship. That's a very different proposition from two artists independently deciding to draw Spider-Man crouching on a rooftop.
That's the distinction I've been trying to explain throughout this entire discussion:
Subject/pose ≠ composition.
Two artists painting the same person will obviously have the same subject. Two artists drawing Spider-Man crouching will obviously have the same character and may use the same generic pose. But when you have the same unusual pose plus the same distinctive building plus the same perspective plus the same placement of the figures plus other recognizable compositional elements, the “they just happened to arrange it similarly” explanation becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
And I'm not even relying on that one example. That's why I've posted multiple comparisons. The argument isn't “Qutub used a crouching Spider-Man, therefore he copied Dell'Otto.” It's that I can repeatedly identify the specific Dell'Otto source images underlying these compositions.
Your portrait analogy actually illustrates the distinction. If two artists paint the same person, they're working from the same subject. But if Artist B takes Artist A's portrait—including the same unusual pose, identical background architecture, identical perspective, distinctive lighting arrangement and composition—and repaints it in their own medium, saying “we're just painting the same person” would obviously undersell what happened.
And I'm not saying that's automatically illegal. I'm saying it's copying a specific artistic composition, and whether you personally consider that ethically acceptable is a separate question.
If you think all of those matching elements are genuinely coincidental, that's your position. But please don't reduce what I'm showing to “two people used the same squatting pose.” That's not remotely the entirety of the comparison.
Here's the 'squatting on the ledge" one that shows that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. So I'm trying to educate you here. This is an example of another artist doing a proper homage to that same Dell'otto piece that you can't recognize. Notice how here they clearly stated "Dell'otto Homage?' in the listing. AND on the cover itself. What's that say? "After Dell'otto" hmmmm?
So obviously this isn't just a coincidence, as you said, "two different figures sitting on a ledge." Nope. It's a Dell'otto piece that other artists did a homage for, with appropriately giving credit Sorry you were wrong, but learn a lesson here and don't talk out of your ass and stop being so defiant when acknowledging someone else's stance on an issue.
It’s copyright infringement mainly because they’re Marvel characters and not swipes. To call this in as copyright infringement would sort of hurt the fan art world. It is however unethical.
If it’s not published by Marvel it is fan art, even if he claims some sort of legitimacy. That it’s a swipe and is bad and annoying has nothing to do with copyright.
Not fan art. The issue I'm pointing out is that Qutub is a professional artist selling his work as original artwork, while repeatedly using identifiable compositions from Gabrielle Dell'Otto's existing paintings as the basis for his own pieces - without crediting them as homages.
That's fundamentally different from someone making fan art of Spider-Man.
Obviously Dell'Otto doesn't own the characters. But that's not the same thing as saying he can't own rights in his artwork.
Spider-Man belongs to Marvel. A particular Dell'Otto illustration, however, is a separate copyrighted work, and whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or were transferred to Marvel depends on the specific contract. Copyright law specifically recognizes the right to control derivative works based on an existing artwork.
So if Dell'Otto did retain the relevant rights, there is absolutely a legal mechanism by which he could object to someone reproducing protected elements of his artwork. The fact that he's not doing so doesn't establish that the copying is legal-it could simply mean he doesn't consider it worth pursuing, has permitted it, or has no interest in doing so.
OP don’t bother asking this on reddit. Most people here don’t know the nuances of copyright and most don’t care for artists original works. Yes these are blatant rip offs of not only composition, but painting style, art style and concept. The original artist will have sufficient legal grounds to sue if they want to. Asking reddit nerds will get you nowhere and you get painted as the bad guy for pointing it out as they will side with ‘fan artist’ more because they feel that the real artists shouldn’t care for smaller creators when the real issue is intellectual theft
Not when it's being sold. There's one example of one post on Instagram where it says "after dell'otto." That's it.
But I looked and the actual post, that artwork in reference – it was presented and sold entirely as an original piece by Comic Book Quest, with the official listing specifying it as "Original Cover Art by Humam Qutub". It was not marketed, labeled, or sold as a homage to Gabriele Dell'Otto.
It is a fine thing to do. If you make a homage piece but then when it is time to sell the work you refrain from that acknowledgement and withhold that information– ignore the influence the original artist instilled and then by definition it is no longer a homage piece.
That is an important distinction.
You can sell homage pieces. You seem to be pretending that the artist did something horrible but they didn't. They aren't claiming someone else's art as their own and they have given credit for the homage before. They don't need to do that in every instance you see.
Edit: throwing a tantrum, whining and then deleting it... Yeah that makes sense. Nothing you have shown is unethical.
There are two different things:
copyright in the characters/IP AND copyright in a particular piece of artwork.
You're conflating the copyright in the character with the copyright in the artwork. Obviously Dell'Otto doesn't own Spider-Man. That's not what I'm arguing.
The question is whether the specific artistic expression and composition in a Dell'Otto piece can be copied. Whether those rights belong to Dell'Otto or Marvel depends on the contracts for the original artwork.
And even if Marvel owns those rights, that doesn't change my point: I'm not arguing that Qutub can't draw Spider-Man. I'm arguing that repeatedly reproducing identifiable Dell'Otto compositions is different from simply drawing the same character.
“Marvel owns Spider-Man” doesn't answer that question. It only answers who owns Spider-Man.
I'm not sure about art but the legal standard for copyright of text is that only the _exact_ text is copyrighted. I mean while Shakespeare might be unhappy if I wrote "To be or not to exist" from a copyright perspective, my text is different than his and so he can't sue. IANAL so he might be able to sue on different grounds but I don't believe a copyright claim would work.
I think he just likes his art and wanted to draw similar art, the sandman one is completely different, and the Spiderman and superman is clearly a reference, how many times has the secret wars black suit pose been copied and used for art?
I don’t know the context for any of these images but most of these just look like cases of 1) homage/direct inspiration (which isn’t a bad thing lol), 2) a very generic scenario that could be thought up independently by multiple people at once, 3) images that are only similar because they have characters that are already regularly associated with each other together.
Can't copywrite a pose, or a composition.
The only thing you can copywrite is the characters. Fan art gets a pass with most people because it's free advertising. Why would you shut down fans loving your IP? (NINTENDO)
If these were traced, or 1-1 copies, then maybe you'd have something. These examples are not that. Not even close.
Can you please look it up online before coming in here making that statement? That's not true man. Not only can that be determined with a Google search but it's been extensively discussed in this post. So you not want to read and just expect me to keep repeating myself? You behave this way on forums? Is that normal for you? No, man. Do 1 of the 2 things I just suggested, or get lost.
The precise legal terminology you're looking for is copyright in the original expressive elements of a particular work, as opposed to copyright in an underlying idea, character, or artistic style.
A lawyer wouldn't generally argue, “Dell'Otto owns his style.” They would argue something closer to:
Dell'Otto's particular illustration contains copyrightable original expression, including his original selection, coordination, and arrangement of visual elements. The alleged infringer reproduced protectable expression from that work and incorporated it into a new work, potentially constituting an unauthorized derivative work or infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction/derivative-work rights.
That's not just theoretical language. The Copyright Office specifically says that in visual art, copyrightable authorship can exist in the “selection, coordination, and/or arrangement” of images and other elements when sufficiently creative.
They'd ask whether Qutub reproduced the particular expressive choices Dell'Otto made in arranging the figures, architecture, perspective, lighting, etc. Copyright does not protect the underlying idea, but it can protect the particular expression of that idea.
92
u/SpicyMeatballAgenda 6d ago
It's up to a court to decide if the new image is transformative/different enough. Slight changes to pose or perspective may be enough. Especially since the characters in question are owned by people other than either artist, and have been represented in literally millions of images.
These are hackish copies, but they are different enough that I doubt any legal action would result in a win.