How Does Copyright Apply To Your Kids' Monster Drawings?
from the it's-the-copyright-monster!-run! dept
Justin Levine has an interesting blog post up about a book I hadn't heard of, called The Monster Engine. The author, Dave Devries, took children's drawings of monsters, and turned them into paintings that use the identical line structure of the kid's drawings (he projects them on the wall and then draws over them). Apparently, Devries' work is quite popular, and people have talked about it on the internet for years:
Given the fact that:These are pretty serious questions -- because under copyright law today, this book is trouble, and that's unfortunate, because it looks like a lovely book. My guess would be that Devries actually had to get permission from the parents, but do parents have the right to sign away the copyright on a child's work? And do those children then have the right to terminate that agreement at a later date? Perhaps people think the likelihood of kids later terminating the agreement is quite low -- and maybe they're right. But what would happen if a kid no longer wanted to be associated with that artwork?Do you believe that Devries should be forced to get formal copyright releases from each and every one of the kids in question? Do you think he has done so? If so, should they be able to repudiate their copyright agreement when they turn 18 since many jurisdictions allow minors to repudiate contracts signed before they reach 18? If so, should they be able to take Devries's work out of circulation?
- There is no doubt that the children's original doodles are protected by copyright for their entire life, plus 70 additional years.
- There is no doubt that Devries' paintings of the doodles are 'derivative works' stemming from the original creations of the children.
Do you think that the children should all share in the royalties from books, art and showcases that Devries produces for the rest of their lives (and beyond - for 7 decades)? Do you think that is in fact the case of what is going on? If Devries hasn't gotten a copyright release and/or isn't paying royalties, do you feel that he is somehow "exploiting" these kids or "stealing" from them?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Most interesting
Why should artistic children get special legal protections not enjoyed by every other child?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most interesting
Think of the children
There ought to be a law
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most interesting
I didn't know you frequented this site, nice to see you here!
^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most interesting
So, he wouldn't be making any money, anyways.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At any rate, if IP was taken to the extreme here, this guy could be in trouble plenty. I don't see why he shouldn't have to license the images the kids sent him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although: "I suppose they could argue parody, since the drawings are pretty bad"
Parody is unrelated to quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure they signed a release!
What?
All right, seriously? No copyright claim from the children. Likewise, when my son decides to draw copyrighted action figures, no one had better come after him, either. Gloves off, works both ways, a stitch in time saves nine.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consent
Children under the age of 18 are not legally allowed to enter into any agreement. It is always true that parents/legal guardians are required to give permission/enter into legal contracts on behalf of their children.
Thus, parents not only have the right, they are the only way to "sign away" copyright information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consent
Such agreements expire when the child becomes an adult. In other words, parents cannot enter their children into agreements that are binding for life. Otherwise legal guardians could sell children into virtual slavery: "Gimme a million dollars now, and I'll sign an agreement that this kid will work for you for free for the rest of his life".
Thus, parents not only have the right, they are the only way to "sign away" copyright information.
Only until the child becomes an adult. Then the agreement would become void.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answers, not questions
Start doing investigation and stop just looking at things and asking questions. Questions are good, but your real job is to investigate, to give us answers to the questions we have. And yes, you bring up good questions, but this article is way too short on facts. For all your questions, why not go out and do some research.
Do you believe that Devries should be forced to get formal copyright releases from each and every one of the kids in question?
Actually, it doesn't matter what we believe. It's what laws have stated and courts have ruled. Our opinions are not law. (For which I give thanks.)
Do you think he has done so?
This question is silly. Not only are we being asked to judge the law, we are being asked to be mind readers or psychics.
If so, should they be able to repudiate their copyright agreement when they turn 18 since many jurisdictions allow minors to repudiate contracts signed before they reach 18?
This is a great bit of information that I did not know. It is unclear how it applies in this situation, but it is a good start for a conversation with a lawyer.
If so, should they be able to take Devries's work out of circulation?
Another good question for the lawyer.
Do you think that the children should all share in the royalties from books, art and showcases that Devries produces for the rest of their lives (and beyond - for 7 decades)?
You ARE going to get that lawyer for the kids. I'm starting to worry about their rights.
Do you think that is in fact the case of what is going on?
Again, you need a lawyer and a psychic.
If Devries hasn't gotten a copyright release and/or isn't paying royalties, do you feel that he is somehow "exploiting" these kids or "stealing" from them?
OK, perhaps we should skip the lawyer and find the Attorneys General for the states involved. Exploitation of children and theft are very serious issues.
These are pretty serious questions
Good! You agree with me
. . . because under copyright law today, this book is trouble, and that's unfortunate, because it looks like a lovely book.
Oh, you're not interested in stopping the exploitation of children. It seems you're just interested in railing against one or two things you know about copyright law.
My guess would be that Devries actually had to get permission from the parents...
Guessing doesn't count.
... but do parents have the right to sign away the copyright on a child's work?
What did I tell you about finding case law?
And do those children then have the right to terminate that agreement at a later date?
Well, you told us there was some case law on the subject. Did you ask the lawyer if it applies? Tell us what the lawyer said.
Perhaps people think the likelihood of kids later terminating the agreement is quite low -- and maybe they're right.
By people, I think you mean Devries, his lawyer, his publisher, and their lawyer. I'm not a psychic, but I have a feeling those lawyers have thought about any future suits the children might bring.
But what would happen if a kid no longer wanted to be associated with that artwork?
Are you asking what the courts would do? Or the publisher would do? Or the kid (now adult) would do?
But if you don't know the answer, why not call Devries or the publisher and ask them what they would do in that case. This is what a reporter should do. Investigate, not pontificate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answers, not questions
And for the sake of our sanity and a proper reply to your post, organize your thoughts before you type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answers, not questions
I stopped at:
"Start doing investigation and stop just looking at things and asking questions"
What a stupid thing to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Answers, not questions
I first came to this site looking for peer input and valid information. Some great information is shared but the majority is gossip and speculation by non-professionals.
I now come here for entertainment purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Answers, not questions
PS: This is why we tend to NOT appreciate many 'professionals.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answers, not questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answers, not questions
Mike is not a reporter. He has specifically stated that he is not a reporter, or a journalist. By the way, please put some formatting in your post next time, so people can read it easily without trying to work out which parts are quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answers, not questions
I have discussed this before. This is a *discussion* site. I am not a reporter or a journalist. I post stuff that I find interesting, because I think it will make for an interesting discussion.
I'm sorry if you don't like the nature of the site, but no, it is not "my real job" to answer the questions. I post what I find interesting as a *start* of a discussion. If I had all the answers, what fun would that be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Answers, not questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a deep , complicated and important issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
automatic copyright?
There is no doubt that the children's original doodles are protected by copyright...
Is that statement true? I thought one had to formally register a copyright request and have it approved for a copyright to legally exist.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: automatic copyright?
You have a copyright on everything you wrote, even this comment. You can write a paper entitled 'I f*ing hate Copyright' and it would be forcibly covered by copyright until you have been dead 70 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: automatic copyright?
"In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: automatic copyright?
Wow, somebody was sure reading Plato's World of Ideas/Forms when writing the Bern Convention....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monster IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monster IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.davedevries.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative Commons to the rescue
This should be looked at as a way to esteem children. These kids had their work chosen for a Devrie tribute. If properly credited, then the problem goes away. My .02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creative Commons to the rescue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California Child Actor's Bill,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could actually be relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]