judging by the majority of the work seen here, if they are illustrators they are obviously not doing very well for themselves at all
Not all of us can dedicate the 60-80 hours a week necessary to go full on into the field. That doesn't mean we aren't doing well for ourselves. It means that we have a slightly different path than you approve of. In my case, I chose to take time off my previous job to raise my family. I have 2-3 hours a day after the boys go to bed that I can work and a grand total of zero hours during the work week to conduct business. In the meantime I am keeping my skills from getting too rusty and am working on developing sketchbooks and journals, so that when the time comes, I will be able to get back to the painting I used to do. I play MtG 2-3 times a month now and it's nice when your hobbies mesh a little and it's nice when 1 pays for the other. Of the commissions and sales I have, %90 goes back to Wizards and %10 goes to Art Supplies. For someone with no reputation and no specific training in the field of illustration I do quite well for myself and at the end of the month I have exceeded my expectations every time.
I would rather you not insult the people here by saying that they can't hack it. Maybe they can't, but let the market decide that. One thing to consider too is that we are working on a 2.5"x2" area in a lot of cases and most of the illustrations that are originally used for cards are 10"x8" or larger. To make anything look good at this scale is impressive. There are a handful of people here that are amazing. A number that are good. And sure, quite a few that aren't. But people have to start somewhere and what better place than a supportive and kind place like these forums.
Edit: I just got thrown up on by a screaming 8 week old. Try being a professional anything when that happens.
I do wonder if intent has much to do with this. At what point do the cards become art?
If I bought some Baneslayer Angels, then I was able to sell them for more, do I legally need to give a share of the profit to Greg Staples? No. As with any other product, I bought them and sold them as cards, not artwork.
If I ripped up a Blacker Lotus, is it considered destruction of art and will I be in legal trouble with Christopher Rush? No, I ripped the card as a piece of product.
Consider the first situation, except the person I am selling to really likes Greg Staples and wants to collect cards with this artwork. Am I'm now obligated to give a share of my profits to Greg Staples? The key here is that I'm still selling the Angels as cards, and that he is still collecting cards that are functional in the game whether or not he actually plays with them.
Now consider this situation. When a card modifier sells a card with modifications, is it a modification of the artwork or of the card? Most modified cards are still legal for regular Magic play, and if they are modified to the point that they aren't, it's not much different than if it was ripped up. Despite the original artwork on the cards, the cards are still being sold as cards as they were in the previous three situations.
When I buy a modified card, I'm not buying modified artwork, I'm buying a card that has an original artwork painted on top that either extrapolates, which copies no copyrighted material, or satirizes, which is protected under fair use, the printed illustration. The card has always been a card, and so when I play an alterer the difference, I'm paying only for the work he or she has done. In other words, there is no legal problem with selling cards with additional artwork, since they're still being sold as cards.
I can't believe Mr. Beard is bothering with this. Really. This gives more exposure to him, who by the way was dropped as a Magic artist a while ago, iirc. What a waste of time, just ignore him.
While I know a lot of you think this, I don't believe it is at all productive to toss out spammy comments. It might be cathartic or therapeutic or whatever, but I think we are above the name calling and taunting.
Regardless of your opinions of Ed Beard Jr., he is a Silverback in this community. He has a career under his belt, a resume that puts most of ours' to shame, and the resources to swing hard. Do I think he has acted in a way detrimental to his image? Sure. Do I think he has come across as a sanctimonious ass? Sadly, yes. Would I like to sit down and have a beer with him if he ever comes to Portland and talk about intellectual property and art? Absolutely... in a heartbeat.
There are a lot of young artists here and very few older artists. I started teaching at the college level when I was 23 and have always been the youngest person in my department. My colleagues treated me like I was a student and that my opinions were rash and based on knee-jerk impulses. In turn, I treated them like fossils. The funny thing is that we were all right, but couldn't appreciate what the others had to offer.
I don't know if that is exactly what's going on here, but it's pretty clear that we have different ideas about ownership and propriety. We see this medium as a way to exhibit skills, tell stories (a.k.a - express ourselves), and interact with our community. Ed sees this as theft.
I know I don't have any standing here, but can I respectfully ask people to be respectful. Please?
who by the way was dropped as a Magic artist a while ago, iirc
Very true - AFAIK he last illustrated for Ravnica 4 years ago. Smells like sour grapes
I mean, I love some of his art - Mind's Eye is one of my favorite cards, and I have two autographed Peer Pressures - but there is just no basis for this outburst.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet but, WotC own's the rights to most of all the magic cards.(if not all, I'm not certain about the art from the older set)
The artists retain the rights to sell prints and use the art in portfolio's. Otherwise WoTC, and by extension Hasbro, own all rights to the art.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That's the remarkable thing about life. It's never so bad that it can't get worse
Calvin and Hobbes Cube Tutor
another interestin gpoint regarding artists not liking or condoning card alters would be that i have seen literally loads of alters that have then been signed by the original artist,
Are you sure about this? The cards could have been signed by the original artist before they were altered, for instance I altered an Arena a while ago, which was signed by Rob Alexander. Of course I left his signature on the card.
I also have a set of BoPs that were signed by Ed Beard, LOL. Their altered version would have made a nice addition to my Enchantress deck, but don't think I could enjoy altering/playing those little buddies any more.
judging by the majority of the work seen here, if they are illustrators they are obviously not doing very well for themselves at all
This forum, as any other mtg forum, pretty much mirrors the real life mtg scene. As such, most users of this forum are underage or young adults. Many do alter cards because it's fun and a beautiful thing to do and not because it is their profession. Some study art or do something related to art, but as far as I know there is no "real" illustrator in this forum. My profession has nothing to do with art all, altering cards is simply a beloved hobby of mine.
You know what's weird? Every artist I know takes Beard's side on this. Not just Magic artists (which is freelance work in almost every case), either. This discussion didn't mircaulously begin when someone posted a thread about it. People have talked for years whether or not you just got to the argument.
What it comes down to is people altering card art and passing the work off as their own. Not everyone can tell at a glance who the original artist was. Accepting money for something of this nature may not technically be illegal, but it's a pretty butthole thing to do andthen turn around and go nuts when an artist doesn't like it. Getting sanctimonius about the whole thing isn't worthwhile either.
Not that I would consider anybody who alters cards an artist, by any stretch. It's akin to the people who used to sit in the Louvre and copy masterpieces, or a child armed with a box of Crayola.
So I've been doing a bit of reading on this matter. (As a quick disclaimer, I have no legal background of any sort.) I started with the most obvious place, the U.S. Copyright Office's website, but it is incredibly difficult to find anything useful there. The most I can say that there appears to be nothing preventing the modification of a legally produced copy.
The most relevant document I have found is this, which discusses various court cases dealing with whether or not alterations of legitimately owned copies of works constitute infringing derivative works. The long and the short of it appears to be that prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, courts would fairly consistently rule that purchasing a work, making alterations to it, then re-selling the work would not constitute an infringement on the copyright holder's rights. However, post-1976 courts have given conflicting rulings on the subject, sometimes on the same sort of modification.
Keep in mind, though, that this particular document is from 2005.
In any event, the issue is not how the illustrator feels, or how we feel, or how Wizards feels, it is what the law says regarding the issue. And currently it seems that that is very difficult information to come by.
On a side note, I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice if people could refrain from personal attacks while discussing this topic. A lot of people, on all sides, have gotten offended and said unpleasant things, and really those sorts of comments only serve to upset people and distract them from the issue.
Went onto copyright.gov and checked some facts. I found a paragraph under section 106A part C for the exceptions to the rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a
Exceptions. ... (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
I believe, then, that extended artwork can constitute as "framing" the original art with paint. Extended artwork does not obscure the center art, but rather complements the art to become more presentable. This may sound like BS, but it can stand in the court of law if the judges believe the art on cards counts as artwork. Under this case, also, selling a "framed" card is not illegal.
Then, of course, if art is painted into the artwork, it can be considered satire, depending if it comments upon the original artwork, the nature of the game, or some other topic. I highly trust, based on how free parodies in the music community are accepted and profitable, that parodies on Magic cards should also be as accepted and profitable.
The final case of this, then, is the complete obscuration of the original art with the alterer's art. This isn't misrepresentation of the original artist, since no representation of the original art is left on the card (except for the artist's name at the bottom of the card, which legally he has the right to request it be removed without damage to the card). I believe in a way this case is the opposite of the first: the card is being used to frame and present the alterer's art.
Final words: Whether you like altered artwork or not, it seems that it is protected under the same conditions free speech is. This is part of America's freedom of opportunity, which should be protected.
I saw the bit you are quoting, but didn't think to apply it that way. I am not entirely sure that you can; it can definitely be argued, though.
Also, I think the cards are considered a reproduction, and 106A(c)(3) says that the stuff about mutilation and so forth do not apply to reproductions. I am not sure if the illustrators of Magic cards have any rights with respect to the cards themselves, since Wizards owns the copyrights to the images, I believe. They still have certain rights regarding the original works, but Wizards has the right to create "derivative works" (106(2)). Whether or not our alterations to the copies we own is infringing their right to create those works, I am not sure. In any case, I am almost certain that it is Wizards who would be getting wronged, legally speaking, not the illustrators.
I found a paragraph under section 106A part C for the exceptions to the rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity.
That section does not apply to Magic cards. It applies only to "works of visual art."
"Works of visual art" are defined in section 101 as:
(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
A work of visual art does not include —
(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;
(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
(B) any work made for hire; or
(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.
i dont think many of us who paint etc as well as alter consider ourselves artists on the basis of the cards we alter!
and i bet many if not all of people of the fine art persuasion would consider anything mr beards has ever doen to be anything more than an illustration! and by no means art
and i homestly canot remember any alterer on this thread ever claiming something they altered to be their original idea!
I can only speak for myself, but...
I consider myself an artist, but altering cards is a craft to me. Both, the mental and phyical processes are very different for me since this is just (essentially) bridging gaps. On the cards I design myself, it feels a little more like art, but it is still illustration.
For what it's worth, I have never signed anything either. Since I was a kid, I always had problems with authorship and appropriation. It is a strange issue and putting my name on something feels awkward and wrong. So, I never sign my alterations and would never assume someone would think that I created any of the original images.
Magic card illustrations qualify as work for hire, I would imagine.
Anyway, of course you can legally alter cards without asking everyone and their mother's permission. The question is whether or not it's ethical to do so, or to accept money for such an endeavor.
Everybody needs to relax, none of this matters. That's right, none of it.
First, I'd like anyone who actually genuinely cares what the legal implications of altered art are to read the following articles in their entirety twice. No more of this half understanding garble, these articles outline a lot of important info in a brief manner and thoroughly resolve this issue (at least so far as I'm concerned.) Copyright Basics Copyright Infringement for Artists
An excerpt of particular importance from "Copyright Basics" for those of you who won't read the articles:
In the case of works “made for hire”, where an artist has created the work while in his/her capacity of employee, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author and copyright holder.
And an excerpt of particular importance from "Copyright Infringement for Artists":
To begin with, a decent arts attorney costs $2,000-$3,000 per day. Unless you're losing that kind of money, or the person infringing on your copyright is making or stands to make that kind of money by marketing pirated images of your art, or you have a history of selling images of your art for thousands of dollars or more each, stop right here and go no further. Hiring an attorney makes no sense. In fact, the overwhelming majority of infringement cases involve far less money than is cost effective to fight legal battles over.
I highly recommend reading the full articles as I'm not going to quote anything else from them.
Mr. Beard created his works on commission for Wizards of the Coast, Inc., so they own every last right to them and his opinion is moot. The shame of being an illustrator is that whenever you sign your contract or endorse your paycheck, your rights to the work you created are gone. Simply put, his opinion doesn't matter - in fact, no illustrator's opinion matters. In the end it is up to WotC, and as can be seen here, they are already well aware that alters are being created and that there is clearly no intent on their part to stop it. For crying out loud the web-heads debated the issues of how to judge them in tournaments and then wrote, editted, approved, and published an online article about it featuring some of our forum's best artist's works.
Seriously, none of these outcries matter, and all you're doing in humoring this any further is dragging this out far beyond what is needed.
Enjoy the card altering, and please keep up the great work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." - Martin Heidegger
Neither of those articles specifically address what we are discussing, though. The second one in particular contains almost no actual legal information, merely advice to artists concerning cost versus benefit of prosecuting copyright infringement. The first one, as far as I can tell, just confirms the fact that Wizards holds the copyright.
Yes, it is in fact Wizards who, in the event of infringement, would be prosecuting. That doesn't mean that they will, even if card alters turn out to be illegal. However, the article everybody refers to never says anything about the SALE of altered cards. No, they probably don't care, but I would like to know whether or not profiting off of altering their product is technically legal.
Whatever comes of it is what I'm going with. You guys can decide what you want to do with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." - Martin Heidegger
Whatever comes of it is what I'm going with. You guys can decide what you want to do with it.
Thank you for starting a thread identical to this one on another site. I think you really accomplished something.
Edit: Of course, I realize that on the other site "lawyers" will answer your question. Also of course, they are lawyers who are apparently unaware of the legal risks they run by giving legal advice on a website, which does not inspire confidence.
Hmm, I really didn't think about how pointless that would be, lol. Worth a shot anyways.
In any case, I'm going to have to support that it's all found art and if the card was legally bought and painted on then there is really no reason you can't sell it. I mean, it's really no different than a painting or drawing over collage - some printed image/article is underneath and has been defaced without giving any credit to the printer/artist/company/etc., which is a perfectly legal and acceptible art form and actually is quite popular among some of my old professors.
Look, I'll butt out, I can tell unlike some when my opinion is not wanted. I just figured I'd throw it out there and that it might help. My bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." - Martin Heidegger
I thought her answer was interesting. Not particularly helpful, but she gave you the advice that I wish we could do: Get a consultation with a lawyer and ask them about it citing specific examples. Your question was way too vague for her to even try, but it had to be. I'd like a lawyer to chime in because I hate hearing artists debate law... Almost as much as I hate hearing lawyers debate art.
I'm also going to say something quickly and then leave you guys to your thing, as I don't actually have anything on the line here. I just find it interesting is all.
When taking legal advice on the internet - there is always quite some risk involved, mostly because you don't have any idea who that person on the other side of the wire is. Do they have actual legal training? Or are they essentially a child who thinks they can google search a little, and have the final answer on such a complicated matter? There's really no way to tell, so essentially, everyone has zero credibility.
But, I know who CBG is, and while I won't blow his identity, I will say that he may not be a lawyer, but he's someone who I would expect to know more (without looking stuff up) about how law applies to art than just about anyone else bantering back and forth in here (not that I know any specifics of anyone else's identity). The exception to that statement, is of course, the copy and pasted input from Ed Beard Jr., but Mr. Beard's legal input is hardly trustworthy in this situation, as he could be just emotional due to his direct involvement.
Instead of reacting so harshly to someone trying to provide you actual meaningful aid, and who is obviously a supporter of you, you should think it over a little - they just might be on to something.
If there is any legal recourse here, Beard would not have any; Wizards would. They clearly aren't interested in taking action...since they clearly don't mind them being used in sanctioned tournaments. Beard is just blowing smoke out of his butt....and clearly has not gotten real representation or has gotten poor representation.
Not all of us can dedicate the 60-80 hours a week necessary to go full on into the field. That doesn't mean we aren't doing well for ourselves. It means that we have a slightly different path than you approve of. In my case, I chose to take time off my previous job to raise my family. I have 2-3 hours a day after the boys go to bed that I can work and a grand total of zero hours during the work week to conduct business. In the meantime I am keeping my skills from getting too rusty and am working on developing sketchbooks and journals, so that when the time comes, I will be able to get back to the painting I used to do. I play MtG 2-3 times a month now and it's nice when your hobbies mesh a little and it's nice when 1 pays for the other. Of the commissions and sales I have, %90 goes back to Wizards and %10 goes to Art Supplies. For someone with no reputation and no specific training in the field of illustration I do quite well for myself and at the end of the month I have exceeded my expectations every time.
I would rather you not insult the people here by saying that they can't hack it. Maybe they can't, but let the market decide that. One thing to consider too is that we are working on a 2.5"x2" area in a lot of cases and most of the illustrations that are originally used for cards are 10"x8" or larger. To make anything look good at this scale is impressive. There are a handful of people here that are amazing. A number that are good. And sure, quite a few that aren't. But people have to start somewhere and what better place than a supportive and kind place like these forums.
Edit: I just got thrown up on by a screaming 8 week old. Try being a professional anything when that happens.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Ed?
While I know a lot of you think this, I don't believe it is at all productive to toss out spammy comments. It might be cathartic or therapeutic or whatever, but I think we are above the name calling and taunting.
Regardless of your opinions of Ed Beard Jr., he is a Silverback in this community. He has a career under his belt, a resume that puts most of ours' to shame, and the resources to swing hard. Do I think he has acted in a way detrimental to his image? Sure. Do I think he has come across as a sanctimonious ass? Sadly, yes. Would I like to sit down and have a beer with him if he ever comes to Portland and talk about intellectual property and art? Absolutely... in a heartbeat.
There are a lot of young artists here and very few older artists. I started teaching at the college level when I was 23 and have always been the youngest person in my department. My colleagues treated me like I was a student and that my opinions were rash and based on knee-jerk impulses. In turn, I treated them like fossils. The funny thing is that we were all right, but couldn't appreciate what the others had to offer.
I don't know if that is exactly what's going on here, but it's pretty clear that we have different ideas about ownership and propriety. We see this medium as a way to exhibit skills, tell stories (a.k.a - express ourselves), and interact with our community. Ed sees this as theft.
I know I don't have any standing here, but can I respectfully ask people to be respectful. Please?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I mean, I love some of his art - Mind's Eye is one of my favorite cards, and I have two autographed Peer Pressures - but there is just no basis for this outburst.
The artists retain the rights to sell prints and use the art in portfolio's. Otherwise WoTC, and by extension Hasbro, own all rights to the art.
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
Are you sure about this? The cards could have been signed by the original artist before they were altered, for instance I altered an Arena a while ago, which was signed by Rob Alexander. Of course I left his signature on the card.
I also have a set of BoPs that were signed by Ed Beard, LOL. Their altered version would have made a nice addition to my Enchantress deck, but don't think I could enjoy altering/playing those little buddies any more.
This forum, as any other mtg forum, pretty much mirrors the real life mtg scene. As such, most users of this forum are underage or young adults. Many do alter cards because it's fun and a beautiful thing to do and not because it is their profession. Some study art or do something related to art, but as far as I know there is no "real" illustrator in this forum. My profession has nothing to do with art all, altering cards is simply a beloved hobby of mine.
My gallery of altered cards
What it comes down to is people altering card art and passing the work off as their own. Not everyone can tell at a glance who the original artist was. Accepting money for something of this nature may not technically be illegal, but it's a pretty butthole thing to do andthen turn around and go nuts when an artist doesn't like it. Getting sanctimonius about the whole thing isn't worthwhile either.
Not that I would consider anybody who alters cards an artist, by any stretch. It's akin to the people who used to sit in the Louvre and copy masterpieces, or a child armed with a box of Crayola.
The most relevant document I have found is this, which discusses various court cases dealing with whether or not alterations of legitimately owned copies of works constitute infringing derivative works. The long and the short of it appears to be that prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, courts would fairly consistently rule that purchasing a work, making alterations to it, then re-selling the work would not constitute an infringement on the copyright holder's rights. However, post-1976 courts have given conflicting rulings on the subject, sometimes on the same sort of modification.
Keep in mind, though, that this particular document is from 2005.
In any event, the issue is not how the illustrator feels, or how we feel, or how Wizards feels, it is what the law says regarding the issue. And currently it seems that that is very difficult information to come by.
On a side note, I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice if people could refrain from personal attacks while discussing this topic. A lot of people, on all sides, have gotten offended and said unpleasant things, and really those sorts of comments only serve to upset people and distract them from the issue.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a
I believe, then, that extended artwork can constitute as "framing" the original art with paint. Extended artwork does not obscure the center art, but rather complements the art to become more presentable. This may sound like BS, but it can stand in the court of law if the judges believe the art on cards counts as artwork. Under this case, also, selling a "framed" card is not illegal.
Then, of course, if art is painted into the artwork, it can be considered satire, depending if it comments upon the original artwork, the nature of the game, or some other topic. I highly trust, based on how free parodies in the music community are accepted and profitable, that parodies on Magic cards should also be as accepted and profitable.
The final case of this, then, is the complete obscuration of the original art with the alterer's art. This isn't misrepresentation of the original artist, since no representation of the original art is left on the card (except for the artist's name at the bottom of the card, which legally he has the right to request it be removed without damage to the card). I believe in a way this case is the opposite of the first: the card is being used to frame and present the alterer's art.
Final words: Whether you like altered artwork or not, it seems that it is protected under the same conditions free speech is. This is part of America's freedom of opportunity, which should be protected.
Also, I think the cards are considered a reproduction, and 106A(c)(3) says that the stuff about mutilation and so forth do not apply to reproductions. I am not sure if the illustrators of Magic cards have any rights with respect to the cards themselves, since Wizards owns the copyrights to the images, I believe. They still have certain rights regarding the original works, but Wizards has the right to create "derivative works" (106(2)). Whether or not our alterations to the copies we own is infringing their right to create those works, I am not sure. In any case, I am almost certain that it is Wizards who would be getting wronged, legally speaking, not the illustrators.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
"Works of visual art" are defined in section 101 as:
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
A work of visual art does not include —
(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;
(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
(B) any work made for hire; or
(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.
Artist? Nah. Craftsman? Yes.
I agree.
Seriously, why ruin a rationale thought with that this?
I can only speak for myself, but...
I consider myself an artist, but altering cards is a craft to me. Both, the mental and phyical processes are very different for me since this is just (essentially) bridging gaps. On the cards I design myself, it feels a little more like art, but it is still illustration.
For what it's worth, I have never signed anything either. Since I was a kid, I always had problems with authorship and appropriation. It is a strange issue and putting my name on something feels awkward and wrong. So, I never sign my alterations and would never assume someone would think that I created any of the original images.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Anyway, of course you can legally alter cards without asking everyone and their mother's permission. The question is whether or not it's ethical to do so, or to accept money for such an endeavor.
First, I'd like anyone who actually genuinely cares what the legal implications of altered art are to read the following articles in their entirety twice. No more of this half understanding garble, these articles outline a lot of important info in a brief manner and thoroughly resolve this issue (at least so far as I'm concerned.)
Copyright Basics
Copyright Infringement for Artists
An excerpt of particular importance from "Copyright Basics" for those of you who won't read the articles:
And an excerpt of particular importance from "Copyright Infringement for Artists":
I highly recommend reading the full articles as I'm not going to quote anything else from them.
Mr. Beard created his works on commission for Wizards of the Coast, Inc., so they own every last right to them and his opinion is moot. The shame of being an illustrator is that whenever you sign your contract or endorse your paycheck, your rights to the work you created are gone. Simply put, his opinion doesn't matter - in fact, no illustrator's opinion matters. In the end it is up to WotC, and as can be seen here, they are already well aware that alters are being created and that there is clearly no intent on their part to stop it. For crying out loud the web-heads debated the issues of how to judge them in tournaments and then wrote, editted, approved, and published an online article about it featuring some of our forum's best artist's works.
Seriously, none of these outcries matter, and all you're doing in humoring this any further is dragging this out far beyond what is needed.
Enjoy the card altering, and please keep up the great work.
Yes, it is in fact Wizards who, in the event of infringement, would be prosecuting. That doesn't mean that they will, even if card alters turn out to be illegal. However, the article everybody refers to never says anything about the SALE of altered cards. No, they probably don't care, but I would like to know whether or not profiting off of altering their product is technically legal.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
Whatever comes of it is what I'm going with. You guys can decide what you want to do with it.
Edit: Of course, I realize that on the other site "lawyers" will answer your question. Also of course, they are lawyers who are apparently unaware of the legal risks they run by giving legal advice on a website, which does not inspire confidence.
In any case, I'm going to have to support that it's all found art and if the card was legally bought and painted on then there is really no reason you can't sell it. I mean, it's really no different than a painting or drawing over collage - some printed image/article is underneath and has been defaced without giving any credit to the printer/artist/company/etc., which is a perfectly legal and acceptible art form and actually is quite popular among some of my old professors.
Look, I'll butt out, I can tell unlike some when my opinion is not wanted. I just figured I'd throw it out there and that it might help. My bad.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
When taking legal advice on the internet - there is always quite some risk involved, mostly because you don't have any idea who that person on the other side of the wire is. Do they have actual legal training? Or are they essentially a child who thinks they can google search a little, and have the final answer on such a complicated matter? There's really no way to tell, so essentially, everyone has zero credibility.
But, I know who CBG is, and while I won't blow his identity, I will say that he may not be a lawyer, but he's someone who I would expect to know more (without looking stuff up) about how law applies to art than just about anyone else bantering back and forth in here (not that I know any specifics of anyone else's identity). The exception to that statement, is of course, the copy and pasted input from Ed Beard Jr., but Mr. Beard's legal input is hardly trustworthy in this situation, as he could be just emotional due to his direct involvement.
Instead of reacting so harshly to someone trying to provide you actual meaningful aid, and who is obviously a supporter of you, you should think it over a little - they just might be on to something.
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
Seems its getting interesting and at least there is a chance we will get some answers.
Also, it would be interesting to know how many fans of altered magic cards are going to share their thoughts on the subject with ed beard.
Thanks to mtgsalvation for putting this up for discussion and letting the whole forum know about it!
My gallery of altered cards