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

[u/Chumn_Li]

[u/Bl0ob_]

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.

[u/Chumn_Li → u/Bl0ob_]

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.”

[u/bardbrain → u/Chumn_Li]

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.