Is MTG art, or some of it, fair use for things such as youtube videos or blogs? I had read in a forum prior that Wizards does release some full pictures of card art for people to use for free, legally.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
The artists generally may not like it when you use their artwork without permission.
a monetized youtube channel
"Monetized" as in you have to pay to view it? That's likely not going to fly.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer in real life. You won't get a definitive answer to legal questions in a forum. I know you said "straight forward topic", but copyright is a fairly complicated topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The artists generally may not like it when you use their artwork without permission.
a monetized youtube channel
"Monetized" as in you have to pay to view it? That's likely not going to fly.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer in real life. You won't get a definitive answer to legal questions in a forum. I know you said "straight forward topic", but copyright is a fairly complicated topic.
By monetized I do not mean pay to view. Monetization on youtube is when google plays ads on your video and you get money based on how many people see those ads.
I came to these forums first because surely I cannot be the only one who is in this type of situation, haha. I honestly can't imagine the artists themselves being upset. They generally make their money off of initially making the art for WotC and then proceeding to sell prints of the artwork.
Again, the reason I ask is because I recall somewhere on these forums someone mentioned that it was legal to use any artwork WotC puts online in full art, but I wanted to oonfirm.
I honestly can't imagine the artists themselves being upset.
You haven't signed up here MTGS yet when the wrath of god came raining down from the artists themselves (6, 7 years ago?). The threads have long since been deleted (actually deleted, not just closed), but, no, you'd be wrong in thinking that the artists wouldn't mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I assume that the artists sign over all rights to WotC.
That being said, I often wonder about liberal use of MTG art by private sites like Channel Firebal, SCG, or about 100 other sites that use tons of MTG art. Do they ask permission?
Is MTG art, or some of it, fair use for things such as youtube videos or blogs? I had read in a forum prior that Wizards does release some full pictures of card art for people to use for free, legally.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
Depends on who you ask around here, there's some wannabe copyright lawyers here who would burn you at the stake for even breathing about using artwork or reproducing cards/card art. Good luck man!
Remember sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness, than to beg for permission.promotion of illegal activity is against forum rules - tomsloger
I assume that the artists sign over all rights to WotC.
Based on the fact that some of them sell the art on their own, I'd bet they don't all sign over all rights. http://shop.tnielsen.com/ for example.
They do, actually, but most (if not all) of the artists have the stipulation that they are still allowed to sell prints of that art. A while back the artists usually kept all the rights, but WotC started buying the copyright for the art. With the old system it was harder for Wizards to reuse art for reprints and such, not to mention it created a lot of drama within the community a couple of times as well as some legal issues.
Wizards probably wouldn't give a damn if you started just posting that kind of stuff on a relatively small blog or something, especially if it was a positive thing, but for anything more than that (especially anything where you would potentially make money) the safer bet would be asking a lawyer or contacting a Wizards rep.
In general, the card images, including the art, are owned by Hasbro, and using them for profit is acceptable under some circumstances. For example, your LGS can use a picture of a Tarmogoyf on its website to sell Tarmogoyf cards. Correspondingly, entities covering MTG tournaments, like ChannelFireball and SCG, are able to show cards and card art during the event.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
In general, the card images, including the art, are owned by Hasbro, and using them for profit is acceptable under some circumstances. For example, your LGS can use a picture of a Tarmogoyf on its website to sell Tarmogoyf cards. Correspondingly, entities covering MTG tournaments, like ChannelFireball and SCG, are able to show cards and card art during the event.
Do they explicitly have to get agreement from Hasbro (in writing), or is there some kind of generally-accepted practice that it's OK? For example, lots of news/strategy sites also use the art for their articles. Do they explicitly ask permission, I wonder?
Do they explicitly have to get agreement from Hasbro (in writing), or is there some kind of generally-accepted practice that it's OK? For example, lots of news/strategy sites also use the art for their articles. Do they explicitly ask permission, I wonder?
"Fair use" is a legal doctrine that applies to copyrighted works. In general, any copyrighted material may be "fair use", provided that it meets certain criteria. (Please see the wiki for more information.)
In this case, Magic artwork is copyrighted by Hasbro. If you want to use any of their copyrighted work, you're probably going to need to acquire explicit written permission to do so.
In general, using a portion of a copyrighted work is more likely to be considered "fair use" if the product is nonmonetized, produced in small part (rather than whole), and doesn't impact the economics of the copyrighted work. Presenting a book report on a copyrighted work in a classroom will be considered fair use. Reproducing a copyrighted book with the intent to sell it for profit will not be considered fair use.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or any other sort of legal professional. This is my best understanding based on what actual legal professionals have written, but it may not be fully accurate. None of this applies outside of the United States.)
Fair use is not a strict legal standard, and it won't keep Hasbro from suing for copyright infringement if they so choose. Rather, it's a set of guidelines that a judge has to consider when determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. Quoting from the Stanford University Libraries guide:
The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Purpose and character: If you're transforming or adding value to the original work, a judge is more likely to consider your work fair use.
The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Card art is creative work (rather than factual) and published work (rather than unpublished). This should give you an idea of what precedents are and aren't relevant.
The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: If you're using the full art of the card, that's a big strike against being fair use. If you're using a small, incidental portion of the card art, your chances are a lot better.
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market: If your work deprives the copyright owner of income or potential income, you're gonna have a bad time. This generally refers to direct competition with existing products, but can also refer to diluting markets that the copyright owner might choose to enter in the future. Parody and criticism, although they might affect sales of the original, are generally not considered to violate this standard.
That's a broad overview of the complicated and vague legal theory involved. In practice, things are much simpler: If Hasbro doesn't like what you're doing and they tell you to stop, you should stop. Otherwise they will sue you, and their lawyers are far better than yours. If Hasbro likes what you're doing, or at least doesn't mind, you're safe. Historically that hinges on whether it seems like you're doing it for the community or for the money.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
The simplest way to answer this question is to ask TCC, or another monetized channel, directly.
Is MTG art, or some of it, fair use for things such as youtube videos or blogs? I had read in a forum prior that Wizards does release some full pictures of card art for people to use for free, legally.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
The artists generally may not like it when you use their artwork without permission.
"Monetized" as in you have to pay to view it? That's likely not going to fly.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer in real life. You won't get a definitive answer to legal questions in a forum. I know you said "straight forward topic", but copyright is a fairly complicated topic.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
By monetized I do not mean pay to view. Monetization on youtube is when google plays ads on your video and you get money based on how many people see those ads.
I came to these forums first because surely I cannot be the only one who is in this type of situation, haha. I honestly can't imagine the artists themselves being upset. They generally make their money off of initially making the art for WotC and then proceeding to sell prints of the artwork.
Again, the reason I ask is because I recall somewhere on these forums someone mentioned that it was legal to use any artwork WotC puts online in full art, but I wanted to oonfirm.
You haven't signed up here MTGS yet when the wrath of god came raining down from the artists themselves (6, 7 years ago?). The threads have long since been deleted (actually deleted, not just closed), but, no, you'd be wrong in thinking that the artists wouldn't mind.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
That being said, I often wonder about liberal use of MTG art by private sites like Channel Firebal, SCG, or about 100 other sites that use tons of MTG art. Do they ask permission?
Based on the fact that some of them sell the art on their own, I'd bet they don't all sign over all rights.
http://shop.tnielsen.com/ for example.
They do now, but they didn't in the early days
Depends on who you ask around here, there's some wannabe copyright lawyers here who would burn you at the stake for even breathing about using artwork or reproducing cards/card art. Good luck man!
Remember sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness, than to beg for permission.promotion of illegal activity is against forum rules - tomslogerMy current trade binder.
"People most likely to cry "troll" are those who can't fathom holding a position for reasons unrelated to how they want to be perceived"
They do, actually, but most (if not all) of the artists have the stipulation that they are still allowed to sell prints of that art. A while back the artists usually kept all the rights, but WotC started buying the copyright for the art. With the old system it was harder for Wizards to reuse art for reprints and such, not to mention it created a lot of drama within the community a couple of times as well as some legal issues.
Wizards probably wouldn't give a damn if you started just posting that kind of stuff on a relatively small blog or something, especially if it was a positive thing, but for anything more than that (especially anything where you would potentially make money) the safer bet would be asking a lawyer or contacting a Wizards rep.
If you sign over everything, you sign over everything. If you keep the right to sell prints, you didn't sign over everything.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Do they explicitly have to get agreement from Hasbro (in writing), or is there some kind of generally-accepted practice that it's OK? For example, lots of news/strategy sites also use the art for their articles. Do they explicitly ask permission, I wonder?
In this case, Magic artwork is copyrighted by Hasbro. If you want to use any of their copyrighted work, you're probably going to need to acquire explicit written permission to do so.
In general, using a portion of a copyrighted work is more likely to be considered "fair use" if the product is nonmonetized, produced in small part (rather than whole), and doesn't impact the economics of the copyrighted work. Presenting a book report on a copyrighted work in a classroom will be considered fair use. Reproducing a copyrighted book with the intent to sell it for profit will not be considered fair use.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Fair use is not a strict legal standard, and it won't keep Hasbro from suing for copyright infringement if they so choose. Rather, it's a set of guidelines that a judge has to consider when determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. Quoting from the Stanford University Libraries guide:
Purpose and character: If you're transforming or adding value to the original work, a judge is more likely to consider your work fair use.
The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Card art is creative work (rather than factual) and published work (rather than unpublished). This should give you an idea of what precedents are and aren't relevant.
The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: If you're using the full art of the card, that's a big strike against being fair use. If you're using a small, incidental portion of the card art, your chances are a lot better.
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market: If your work deprives the copyright owner of income or potential income, you're gonna have a bad time. This generally refers to direct competition with existing products, but can also refer to diluting markets that the copyright owner might choose to enter in the future. Parody and criticism, although they might affect sales of the original, are generally not considered to violate this standard.
That's a broad overview of the complicated and vague legal theory involved. In practice, things are much simpler: If Hasbro doesn't like what you're doing and they tell you to stop, you should stop. Otherwise they will sue you, and their lawyers are far better than yours. If Hasbro likes what you're doing, or at least doesn't mind, you're safe. Historically that hinges on whether it seems like you're doing it for the community or for the money.
The simplest way to answer this question is to ask TCC, or another monetized channel, directly.
This is horrible legal advice. Personally, I think it's horrible life advice in general, but it's definitely horrible legal advice.