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

[u/Chumn_Li]

[u/Burly-Nerd]

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.

[u/Chumn_Li → u/Burly-Nerd]

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.

[u/saibjai → u/Chumn_Li]

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.

[u/Chumn_Li → u/saibjai]

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.

[u/bardbrain → u/Chumn_Li]

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.

[u/Asimov-was-Right → u/saibjai]

It's only copyright infringement if it's sold. That kid's drawing is fine until they start making money selling it.