How does this artist get away with ripping off Disney?

[mousefun]

I was just browsing youtube and found something very interesting. It was a gallery of art by a Steve Sundram. Now I know in the past Disney has been too sensitive with thinking others were going against their copyright, but for God's sake, they have a complaint here. I was not sure at first. At the beginning of the video it shows what looks to be the Black Pearl. After 3:30, Steve talks with the painting in front of him. One part of the video shows the exact statue from the pearl. It later shows him change it SLIGHTLY. Anyway, I definately believe, even after the slight changes, Disney has a complaint. There are so many artists out there that try so hard to get the rights to paint Disney images. Many fail in their efforts. It is a disgrace to those people that someone just does what he pleases and goes against the rules AND the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqT0WgP2pS8

 

[fan of the TTA]

nothing is stopping him painting though, is it

 

[mousefun]

Nope, but I think some one should stop him from making reproductions!!!

 

[EUROPACL]

One part of the video shows the exact statue from the pearl. It later shows him change it SLIGHTLY. Anyway, I definately believe, even after the slight changes, Disney has a complaint. There are so many artists out there that try so hard to get the rights to paint Disney images. Many fail in their efforts. It is a disgrace to those people that someone just does what he pleases and goes against the rules AND the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqT0WgP2pS8

Clearly you've done the leg work on this and know that the two statues are the same. Prehaps a side by side picture from you would further the thread? Which leads me to antoher question is there any chance that Jerry Bruckheimer's design team took the statue from something in the public domain? BTW its Jerry bruckheimer who owns all of the images and characters from the POTC movies, Disney has to pay him to use them.

 

[mousefun]

The fact that Sundram says this is from a new series means it was done after the Pearl appeared in the movies. Like I mentioned, there are so many that try to get the rights to paint Disney images. They get it using the proper procedures.This guy NOOO way was given the rights to paint the pearl and market it. That is not the way Disney does things,,,,,, He has it posted on his wedsite. www.sundramstudios.com Even if you are authorized to paint a Disney image, you can not post it for sell on your own site........

 

[mousefun]

I did not notice at first, but he even has part of the soundtrack of POTC in the video.

 

[daisyforever]

WOW!!!!!

So this guy may be violating rights owned by Disney and Jerry.....

I hope he has a good lawyer and enjoys courtrooms........................

 

[EUROPACL]

The fact that Sundram says this is from a new series means it was done after the Pearl appeared in the movies. Like I mentioned, there are so many that try to get the rights to paint Disney images. They get it using the proper procedures.This guy NOOO way was given the rights to paint the pearl and market it. That is not the way Disney does things,,,,,, He has it posted on his wedsite. www.sundramstudios.com Even if you are authorized to paint a Disney image, you can not post it for sell on your own site........

Wow its almost like you read my post...but then didn't and started to type the same exact thing again without even thinking about or answering the questions asked.

For anybody else that cares these are the two images the OP is upset about. I'm betting that the design was not just plucked out of thin air by the desgin people and is based on other pics or ships in the public domain.

He thinks they are the same and therefor the guy is painting the black pearl (which btw two different ships from the first movie to the second/third).

I have no idea why anybody is worried about Disney and their "rights" to things but this guy is. Quick someone help out poor Disney and protect their rights.

 

[mousefun]

Sorry if I did not read your post thoroughly.

In regards to worrying about Disney rights, I was not... My thoughts are more with those that have to work soooo hard to get the rights from Disney. I had a friend. It took him many month to get the rights to paint a very simple image. When I see a person like Sundram just go against the rules, it kid of reminds me of a shoplifter versus peop0le that pay for their product.

 

[EUROPACL]

Sorry if I did not read your post thoroughly.

. When I see a person like Sundram just go against the rules, it kid of reminds me of a shoplifter versus peop0le that pay for their product.

You still seem to be missing the point of my post. Its pretty clear that you got something out for this person so we'll put that aside for now and no doubt is the real reason behind this post. There are many differences between the two images and I see no where he says Black Pearl on his site. Other than in your mind what what makes these paintings of the Black Pearl?

 

[mousefun]

I do not know this person or have anything personally against him. In regards to them being the same, look at the video, at one part it is the same statue and everything other part of the boat is the same.

 

[EUROPACL]

I do not know this person or have anything personally against him. In regards to them being the same, look at the video, at one part it is the same statue and everything other part of the boat is the same.

Where is that smiley where I beat my head against a wall. Why would I need to look at the video again when I've got the real Black Pearl statue and the one he painted (the one you're having a hissy over) already posted together side by side and they are not the same. I'll type it twice because you only seem to read part of the post. Why would I need to look at the video again when I've got the real Black Pearl statue and the one he painted (the one you're having a hissy over) already posted together side by side and they are not the same.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

1) I overlayed both pictures.
2) There is a good difference between the two.
3) I just don't see the argument that there is a copyright infringement.

NOTE: It might be possible that the experience of the OP's friend might be influencing the observation.

 

[johnvree]

Where is that smiley where I beat my head against a wall. Why would I need to look at the video again when I've got the real Black Pearl statue and the one he painted (the one you're having a hissy over) already posted together side by side and they are not the same. I'll type it twice because you only seem to read part of the post. Why would I need to look at the video again when I've got the real Black Pearl statue and the one he painted (the one you're having a hissy over) already posted together side by side and they are not the same.

EUROPACL, I see significant similarities in the two pictures. I am not a copyright lawyer so I have no idea if there is an infringement. But I do see similarities.

 

[EUROPACL]

EUROPACL, I see significant similarities in the two pictures. I am not a copyright lawyer so I have no idea if there is an infringement. But I do see similarities.

Wow really?

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

The only difference I see is the arm... One arm is up, the other arm hangs down.... Not sure if this is copyright infringement though... I mean, are there other statues out there that are similar? If so, then the argument can be made that Disney infringed on those rights.... Honestly, though, I think Disney has bigger fish to fry that this artist who "may have" copied a statue... I mean, it is not like he painted a scene from the movie, included Jack Sparrow, and called it his own....

 

[EUROPACL]

The only difference I see is the arm... One arm is up, the other arm hangs down.... Not sure if this is copyright infringement though... I mean, are there other statues out there that are similar? If so, then the argument can be made that Disney infringed on those rights.... Honestly, though, I think Disney has bigger fish to fry that this artist who "may have" copied a statue... I mean, it is not like he painted a scene from the movie, included Jack Sparrow, and called it his own....

To be fair the wings on the statue are different, the robe, the hair, no headband and the bird are different too. I have a feeling this is a popular statue of the time and is in the public domain already.

 

[fwm]

Copyright is not based on a work being new, but rather original. Thus, it can be irrelevant what is in the public domain.

Infringement is based on copying the work. An exact copy is not required. It is typically proven based on access and similarity.

 

[EUROPACL]

Copyright is not based on a work being new, but rather original. Thus, it can be irrelevant what is in the public domain.

.

...

Definition: A public domain work is a creative work that is not protected by copyright and
which may be freely used by everyone. The reasons that the work is not protected include:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired; (2) the author failed to satisfy statutory
formalities to perfect the copyright or (3) the work is a work of the U.S. Government.

 

[fwm]

Originality is based on independent creation, not novelty. One can independently create something similar to what is in the public domain and it is protected by copyright. Novelty, unlike with patents, plays no role in copyright protection.