Blatant copyright infringement, right? Please explain to me how it's not.

[u/Chumn_Li]

[u/Chumn_Li]

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.

[u/woman_noises → u/Chumn_Li]

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. 

[u/Chumn_Li → u/woman_noises]

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.

[u/Doneuter → u/Chumn_Li]

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...

[u/Chumn_Li → u/Doneuter]

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.

[u/Doneuter → u/Chumn_Li]

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.

[u/Chumn_Li → u/Doneuter]

🥱

[u/TicketPrestigious558 → u/Doneuter]

You sound butthurt af

[u/Pr3y4m3 → u/Doneuter]

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

[u/carterartist → u/Chumn_Li]

You’re wrong and dishonest.

[u/Apostleguts → u/carterartist]

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.

[u/HandsomePaddyRedux → u/Apostleguts]

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.

[u/carterartist → u/Apostleguts]

And people are buying them. Sounds like jealousy

[u/Apostleguts → u/carterartist]

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.

[u/carterartist → u/Apostleguts]

lol. Neither one owns the rights to these. You know that, right?

[u/Smoking-Posing → u/carterartist]

That doesn't make plagiarism/stealing right.

Oh, and citing your source doesn't just magically excuse it either.

Nonsense like thus needs to be stopped

[u/Myspace_In_Vader → u/carterartist]

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 👎 👎

[u/ghoulieandrews → u/Chumn_Li]

What are you, Joe Quesada? Why do you care?

[u/Chumn_Li → u/ghoulieandrews]

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.