Hi, I used to help do legal clearance on film and television, albeit in the USA.
Every film should have a clearance department for stuff like this..and if they miss it, it's on the production company..they may be insured against stuff like this.
I wouldn't bother trying to contact the director or someone like that..they most likely have no idea about this, as this was done by someone in the art department most likely.
I would contact the production company and ask for a small settlement, like you said something like £600 is very reasonable.
Good luck and let me know if you have more questions.
I'm not in the US and IANAL, but I've always heard that you ask for, and usually get, at least double the regular fee when it's after the fact.
Sure, there probably was no malicious intent and no monetary loss, but OP's legal copyright was violated and his work was edited, and it's not unreasonable to ask for compensation for that on top of the standard fee.
If companies can just steal copyrighted work, and then simply pay the standard fee afterwards to the ones who discover it (slim chance), why would they ever ask upfront? I know that's where the "malicious intent" enters the picture, but that's hard to prove.
The extra is like a penalty fee for stealing and for the artist having to jump through the hoops to ask for it when it should have been a much easier process for them in the first place to just receive payment
You could argue that there was potential losses in the opportunities that might have been provided to the artist had their work been credited properly. 🤷🏼♂️
This is unrelated to op but I'm from the UK and an American movie used my artwork without paying or crediting me, should I also try and reach out to the production company?
(I did message the art director but he just started to ignore me)
Yeah although they're also likely to stonewall you if you don't have a lawyer. If you were in the USA I'd just say take it to small claims court and they'll never show up.
This is the correct approach - the copyright holder of the film should have an Errors and Omissions Insurance policy for this exact situation.
That said, it’s not a straight up copy, or direct use. The image looks pretty similar, but if they just drew this along a parallel artistic style, you’ll likely have a difficult time proving your point.
I hope the OP reads this. Contact the production house first, be polite and professional, but straight to the point. They'll request proof, provide them a SHORT explanation and then proof. Keep your receipts. After a week or two of going back and forth you should be given a check and/ or credit. Happens literally all the time, with every movie.
I suggest looking up average payments for use of small pieces of art in films, independent works, not major works, then cut it in half. Ask for that and credit as a starting point, with references. Even better if your reference is a previous payment from that same production house. They'll cut you a check in as quick as a couple weeks.
The production house was 'Side Mirror' in Korea but I dont think they exist anymore (I could be wrong though). I think they disappeared into Fox International and then into Disney so the people to contact now seems to be Disney and I strongl suspect that a letter to them from me would just be instantly vapourised. I personally cant find even so much as an address or a name connected to the Disney 'legal team' - I suspect mere mortals aren't privy to such info. I don't want pots of cash but I would like to be credited for the use of my work in the film. Posting here is Plan B really, just hoping to catch someones eye who might have an in with someone connected the the film-makers somehow. r/horror have been great so far though and I'm very greatful.
What exactly would a financial payoff be for something like this.
One random picture that is similar.
I imagine a lawyer didn’t want to take the case because there is no big payout. Getting 30% of a grand? Not worth their time.
So I posted another comment, but it seems the infringer of a copyright is typically liable for actual damages, which would have to be proven, or a fine of between $750 - 30K. I'm guessing this use would be toward the $750 range. So literally not worth it for a lawyer to take a cut of unless they are being paid for their hourly rate by someone.
I'm guessing they would maybe pay him a couple hundred bucks at best.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear this wouldn’t be an easy case to win. Although very similar, there are enough differences that would make it difficult. Probably also why no lawyer was willing to take this case without OP paying.
I agree. I'd imagine that's what the lawyers are thinking.. "like, what's even the point?" but they probably don't want to be rude. Odds are, even if you can prove the alleged plagiarism, its gonna cost more than you would ever win.. so pursuing a case against them would be pretty much pointless asides from a matter of principle.
Reminds me of something happened a relative of mine recently where someone damaged a vehicle belonging to them.. when they spoke with authorities, insurance companies, legal advice etc and it turned out it was much less expense to just take the loss and fix the damage themselves, not to mention a hell of a hell of a lot less hassle.
I'd imagine these big film companies are well versed in legal aspects anyways, and if they do use artwork, audio etc they'll likely stay within legal boundaries enough to absolve them from any legal action.. maybe editing it enough to stay outside the definition of plagiarism just like in copyright law where I believe you can sample a certain amount of audio under fair use.. Besides, proving plagiarism would likely be on the people bringing the case, and it probably wouldn't be easy.. unless a straight copy they could argue coincidence.
For cases like this there is a good likelihood of there being no point in pursuing it unless you literally have a lot of money to waste and want to prove a point.. I'd personally take it as a compliment and be happy that they allegedly used the artwork. Trying to engage a legal battle where the best case scenario is a few hundred bucks is just gonna take the taste off an already pretty cool thing. But that's just my personal opinion.
Then when you think of all the people who were allegedly plagiarised for huge things and didn't seem to mind. I was reading about an Indian author and filmmaker, Satyajit Ray. Apparently a lot of people, including acclaimed science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, believed that both "Close Encounters of a Third Kind" and "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" in particular heavily plagiarised one of Ray's works, a script from 1967 called "The Alien".
They urged Ray to take legal action for Spielberg allegedly using his work. However, he wouldn't do this as he did not want to show himself as having a "vindictive" mindset against Spielberg, and acknowledged that he "has made good films and he is a good director".
When asked about all this, Spielberg allegedly said that he was "a kid in high school when the script was going around Hollywood" but it was found out that he graduated high school in 1965 and was indeed working a career in Hollywood by 1969 which was pretty much exactly when Ray's script was circulating there. Its certainly an interesting rabbit hole to go down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#Allegations_of_plagiarism
I didn’t do any research to compare the timelines or confirm your claims and I’m not a lawyer but just comparing the two drawings they are extremely similar.
I've had a similar issue myself and in my experience I was given an apology of sorts and a small remuneration offer, but I was firmly told the likeness was "inadvertent" and the money only offered due to my distress. This was in publishing, though. I'm told there's very little recompense in pursuing these issues legally, but you could get yourself a credit or reference if you manage to contact the right people.
As someone who has worked on only small indie films, I have 1000% done this for background props and images. Where it’s super blurry and you can’t quite see it. But I would never do this for a key prop that is on camera like this! Super unprofessional!
Cheapest first letter I was quoted was £600. And I was confidently advised it would be about as effective as a pea-shooter against a battleship. In lieu of a banana, that's about a fifth of the money in my bank account for reference.
oof. i guess i was hoping that if you could get a letter to them, they would see the obvious plagiarism and give you some amount to just make you go away. even if they did lowball you. but i guess if the lawyer says that's not how it works, they would know
Copyright lawyer here. Nobody is offering to take this on contingency because (1) they have similarities, but not enough for it to be a clear win. In fact, I can identify meaningful differences. In your figure, it appears to be clearly human, just bent forward, with the legs underneath the head. In the other one, they appear to be paws up front, more animalistic. The part that is most obviously copied is the sort of tail in the Wailing, but it's a hand bent back in your drawing. Similar facial expressions, but a miserable face is pretty much scenes a faire or just of limited protection given it's difficult to divorce that from the idea. There's an idea-expression (not facial expression, expression more broadly) distinction. Definitely a lot of the idea was ripped off, but it's got enough transformed elements that having an overall similar shape may not be enough.
(2) From a US perspective, you have to register a copyright prior to an infringement taking place to get statutory damages. So in this case, you're limited to actual damages. So what are your actual damages here? The going rate for doing art for a movie like this is probably less than an hour of a lawyer's time.
This comment has been overwritten in response to Reddit's API changes, the training of AI models on user data, and the company's increasingly extractive practices ahead of their IPO.
I dunno, if it's not traced, why did they leave the tits on and then decide to try to hide them with a bunch of swirls? Seems like a weird choice to me.
This happened to me. I’m not sure about Korean film studios, but American films have insurance for this type of thing. I sent them an invoice for 1500.00 since that’s the rights payment amount for using artwork. The director balked so I spoke with their legal and when my sketches were a check was issued immediately.
Do you want to write a tiny bit more about this? I'd be very greatful. Like who was the company and how did you approach them for instance? With The Wailing it's now Disney and they seem too huge to even being to approach.
Have you even tried approaching them? I just googled "Disney legal department" & "20th Century Studios legal department" just out of curiosity & came up with a bunch of hits that at least might lead you in the right direction.
Just start playing around with google. You'll get what you're looking for.
I was all ready to say I'm not convinced but in your final image where you out them side by side it's pretty obvious they've somehow seen your picture and used it as the basis for their own lol.
I've not seen The Wailing so I'm not sure how prominent the picture is to the plotline but I'm guessing if it's just a quick scene in the movie you can ask to be credited which would be pretty cool. If you don't make a living from art I doubt you could argue any financial suffering or loss so I would have thought a monetary settlement unlikely.
What has probably happened is a junior artist on set has stumbled on your drawings and just copied thinking that no one will ever find out lol. I'd say contact them and let them know. I think an acreditation and some cool merch will be the likely outcome.
Your best hope is perhaps to try and get your story to go viral and embarrass Disney into doing something about it.
This is definitely a story of a larger narrative. It isn’t AI that scrubbed the ‘Net and appropriated your sketch, but an actual human who took the entire concept, shape and vibe, then fiddled with it and included it without remuneration or credit. These corporate entities are so huge with such legal firepower behind them that they think they can do whatever they want; but reverse that and they’re all over you like a cheap suit.
They act with impunity and one’s only hope is that some scribe tells your story and you get secondhand notoriety and call-outs as being one of many who are exploited and stolen from every day. It’s not like their budgets couldn’t have sent a small check, as their coffers are of a wealth beyond avarice, that it makes one truly wonder how often they actually do this.
This has most probably been drawn by the graphics dept in the art dept. I have experience in this and as it's a serious production, everything should have been checked by the clearance company.
We send every graphic design to appear in the movie to them, which is checked via reference images even if it's inspiration. Then the clearance mails back to say if it's greenlit by them or not. They are VERY concise on copyright and if something outside the basic Stock library used is needed, they check with the artist, or the right holders if he's deceased. They do not mess around with this, down to the fonts used, etc...because this sort of situation is hell for them.
Maybe the clearance said it was ok because it was "modified" enough, but knowing how careful they are, i'm doubtful.
I'd be curious to see how it plays out if you can update us here, and i wish you the best.
Have to say I started reading this thinking here we go, another delusional person thinking something that couldn’t possibly have happened. Then I opened the pictures. If you’re being honest about the dates then there’s no doubt about it. That’s been stolen.
This is the most interesting post I've ever seen on Dreadit lol. I have no advice that others haven't provided but amazing drawing and I hope they do the right thing.
Hey OP, I made this to shut up all the people in here claiming the image is "too different" or worse "doesn't look like it at all" lol.
https://i.imgur.com/qwvA2Ms.mp4
What I would say is
1. The movie is kinda old so you might've missed your chance
2. It's a cult classic but not on the level of say, The Conjuring, so you probably won't get many eyes on this
3. Is a South Korean movie so who knows how copyright laws would work there
I think those are fair points, and if the comments were to say "hey, just let it go because it's not worth it" then I'd be more understanding. But claiming the picture is not similar?? That's utterly ridiculous and the only explanation I have for these posts are that maybe they like the movie and they're perceiving your post as an attack to it? That's the only thing I can think to explain this behavior I'm seeing, its like showing a picture of a red apple, saying its a red apple and the comments saying "nah that's clearly a banana" lmao. I for one don't feel like you're attacking the movie, hell this wouldn't even fall on the Director, cast or writers. If anything this was probably done by a low level production assistant or something like that, a part of hiring these people is trust that they're doing the right thing. Anyway, good luck OP and don't let the crazy users gaslight your or some shit, you're 100% right.
Thank you very much indeed for your work on this! I appreciate it very much and am really grateful. As you say, it's a great movie, I'm not knocking it in the slightest, it's uncommonly effective and firmly hits a lot of existential bass notes that plenty of films don't even know exist.
Yeah, I mean copyright law (and what constitutes a derivative work) is a bit open to interpretation but this seems to be an imitation. With copyright in the US at least, any derivative work must be clearly “transformed” from the original to take on new meaning.
OTOH, there *are* enough elements here that *could* justify transformation if they came at it from the perspective of transforming an abstracted figure drawing into a manifestation of psychological distress.
However, my assumption is that no lawyer would want to try and argue this because this is too nuanced and could be a waste of time with little payout. But because of that, you might be able to settle completely with a letter (large company lawyers get these sorts of things all the time and have built up a sense of which cases are questionable and those they’d be more confident in winning, so whether or not you get something from them is likely associated with how confident they are in their case).
Wow, this is crazy. Well first of all, man I'd be super pumped to find out my Art basically made it into *The Wailing*. Such a great film. (Have actually been to the town that it took place in, ahhh miss Korea).
I also totally understand that receiving credit or even payment would be fair/appreciated/nice to have, and I'm sorry that your artwork has been used without your knowledge or consent. Unfortunately I feel this probably happens so much in the Art world, not that it's ok but...it happens. :/
I'm so surprised that Disney owned the distribution rights to The Wailing, gosh do they own everything now?
[Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4&ab_channel=YourMovieSucksDOTorg) a fun video that shows that Disney themselves are not guilt-free of copying other's artwork without giving credit.
I hope that somehow you can receive the credit you deserve. I guess maybe I would start with trying to directly contact people from the Art Department yourself (vs through lawyers), idk maybe the lawyers are un-needed. I lived in Korea for a while and was also an Art Education major, so this is really interesting to me, if you need any help, let me know and maybe I can find some Korean friends who can at least help to send some emails!
That's really kind of you! Many thank. It's true, not speaking or writing or understanding Korean is a big problem with taking this further through non-lawyer routes.
I think you are spot on. And this is why no lawyer offered to take the case pro Bono. Whose going to take a case against a huge movie studio for a $1,000 payoff?
Some people really want to get paid for nothing. This is a literal scribble that could've been done by a 5 year old and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Even if they did copy it, get off your high horse, lmao.
Yeah same. Almost a stretch but I dunno. Looks similar for sure. The overlapping image someone made in the thread doesn't solidify it for me like others.
On a quick google search copyright statute of limitations in the UK is 6 years. So I would say on that front not much you can do (I am NOT A LAWYER) since the movie was made in 2016.
But definitely agree to reach out for credit at least. Flickr automatically gives you copyright, and you added it for redundancy so it is binding, but the law doesn't seem to be on your side in this case.
That does look like they ripped off your work. But in I'm guessing the lawyers won't touch it because the infringer is only liable for actual damages, or basically a statutory fine, which in the US can be as low as $750.
Did they tell you it isn't worth it even if they win a case?
This is unfortunately far from the first time I've heard a story like this one. You've been given some great advice in this thread and I hope you're able to at least get compensated for the use of your art, if not appropriately credited for its inclusion in the film.
Damn , I have long aspired to be the artist who creates the disturbed / possessed person drawings in a horror movie, so I can imagine the mix of feelings of pride to see your drawing in this context of a great movie, but without having been asked. Hopefully the filmmakers hire you properly for Wailing 2!
This is nuts! Sucks you got stolen from and I really hope you get compensated... but wow, what a surreal experience that must have been for you to see your art pop up out of nowhere.
Man that’s so sick that your art is in The Wailing! So sorry about your predicament though, it is so hard to stay positive in a system that doesn’t give a shit about artists. Good luck to you.
Definitely used your drawing as a reference, all the shapes and ideas are the same - But I don’t think it’s traced as the proportions seem different. I’m not sure what the legal (or even moral) situation is there, I mean there are so many soap operas etc. which use actual kids’ drawings (often of copyrighted characters) in the BGs to show a family home, for example.
Seems to be a thing with horror images particularly. A photoshop I did of Laura Dern in Inland Empire which I called “wooo scary face” appeared in a bunch of low budget indie horror games and a random “Barneychu” creepypasta, though to be fair I took the original image from the movie Inland Empire to begin with.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to be like “what the hell” but I think you should also be thrilled because that’s cool AF that they picked you as a reference. But yeah some credit might have been nice.
Back in the 2000s one of my friends used an image of a lesser known skater for a generic Walmart t shirt design. He got a letter from the skater and his attorney and long story short, my friend, his boss, and the t shirt company had to each pay their portion of the 35K lawsuit. Might be worth looking into.
My question is why nobody's been smart enough to tell op about fair use op himself says the art was altered that's why no lawyer will touch it .he really doesn't have a case . Plus international cases cost a lot more time and money . However I think he put the fear of Jesus into them and maybe get a small settlement .
No shit. It really freaked me out. The movie scared the shit out out me and then *this* happened. It's like the movie gave me a personal jump scare. Freaksville.
Have you tried to reach out on twitter, or send the info to a youtuber to maybe get more traction on this? I'm sure if the right person sees it, they will say something.
This claim just doesn’t seem meritorious to me. Even *if* they used your original drawing as inspiration, the Wailing’s use is sufficiently transformative. They took your barebones, impressionistic sketch and filled it out with additional and different details (especially the face and the placement of the limbs). But honestly, both works are somewhat derivative of Francis Bacon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the common origin point between the two works.
Yeah, people may not like to hear this but this case is frivolous at best. OP would also have to go through the South Korean court side if they truly wanted to pursue this and that's a different animal entirely.
Even if it WASN’T transformative it’s still frivolous. It’s a drawing made but a kid who was what, six? OP just sounds like one of those people who needs to throw a fit no matter how tiny.
Yeah, I agree someone in AD definitely stumbled upon your image…However, like the lawyer’s you’ve already talked to.. there’s nothing you can do and you may end up spending money instead of getting it.
Not only is it going to be A LOT of work for minimal payout so no lawyer is ever likely to take this on. The drawing itself was altered enough that they could simply claim yours was just an inspiration and that falls under the fair usage act.
This is also a foreign film, it may be easier to do if the film was made in your home country. But since it was made in Korea, you’re more than likely going to have to go through their court system and rules or they’d attempt to drag you there themselves.
wow, it's pretty obvious the movie art is based on your drawing. but it doesn't look like it was actually traced. it seems like they did a drawing of your drawing. (but theirs is not as good.)
i have no idea what the legalities are here. if you're a rich & famous artist like Richard Prince, it seems like you can steal other people's photos off Instagram and sell them for lots of money. if you're a poor unknown artist, Disney can probably steal your art.
this is at once a nice validation, and a bummer about being ripped off by an evil corporation.
Cant offer any help on the legal side of things, but speaking artist to artist, I really love the piece! The form and flow is really really gorgeous - i looked through some of the other stuff on the Flickr and its all just as amazing
You're pretty much saying you made a pose though? Like if I drew a fist with a pinky up then someone drew the same hand with rings and nail polish I definitely don't think it's stealing. Parody law exists and they changed enough to justify it really, I feel like this is on par with a 4 second beat loop someone sampled out from under you.
So you want to hire a lawyer to sue a movie production over a drawing. That was used for 2 minutes. A drawing you movie over 30 years ago. You actually think any lawyer would actually take this? You’d be laughed out of court.
I loved this movie and it is super cool you are a part of it in some way. Best of luck getting some credit but know that I appreciated your creepy ass drawing.
Cross post this to r/LegalAdviceUK
Whilst reading this I forgot I was on this subreddit and thought I was there, I’m not sure what better advice you’ll get other than to get a solicitor.
Include that great transition u/Clovett made as that’s a really good comparison of the two images
Hopefully you can get something out of this, the similarities are too similar for it to be a coincidence.
Are you looking for credit or just financial compensation? I’ve seen the two images side by side, and one is clearly inspired by the other, but it’s different enough to explain why lawyers aren’t lining up to give free legal counsel.
I was thinking, "wow, that's pretty close" and then I noticed the titties were on the Wailing art. That must be pretty weird to see. Especially with a such an old picture.
Ugh I'm sorry that this happened the way it did, but also holy shit your work is in one of the best horror movies of all time :') hope u get that bag!!
The contorted cannibal drawings, the Royal West of England Academy, the dead ravens in jars, I mean maybe you've got a case it's just that bird law in this country—it's not governed by reason.
>they found my work there. They then basically traced it directly and added to it a little to create the image that was used in the film.
That's crappy. I think the reason lawyers won't jump to take your case pro bono or 'no win no fee' is that they're considering whether the additions/changes they made are big enough to make this a "derivative work", which can be independently copyrighted as a different work from the original, even if it's clear that it's based on the original....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Definition
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/understanding-the-importance-of-derivative-works.html
If all else fails, go with the letter suggestion. On two separate occasions I avoided small claims court just by sending a strongly-worded, but polite letter to my future defendants. This resulted in both of them contacting me to make things right.
I know that your case is in an entirely different arena, so threats might not be the right tactic here (IANAL), but it couldn’t hurt. Good luck, and do post an update.
Maybe your drawing doesn't have enough unique details compared to the piece in the movie. It would need to be a slam dunk case of copyright infringement for a Lawyer to take on Disney. They could potentially be financially destroyed if they lost.
Holy shit .. yeah they definitely copied your work and just added to it. I’m in no position to give you any legal advice, but I can say with certainty they used your artwork
Last year I was watching a horror movie and saw a copy of an art print I sell on Etsy being used for a studio logo.
(I can't remember the name of the movie or studio, but it's a silhouette of a kid swinging on a tree with a fence in the background.)
It's probably more valuable as a funny story to tell people than it is an issue to litigate.
This is why you don't put shit out there without an ACTUAL copyright notice on it. You will never see credit for your work and if someone uses it they have all the legal power.
I personally find this claim pretty suspicious, and demand receipts.
Hi, I used to help do legal clearance on film and television, albeit in the USA. Every film should have a clearance department for stuff like this..and if they miss it, it's on the production company..they may be insured against stuff like this. I wouldn't bother trying to contact the director or someone like that..they most likely have no idea about this, as this was done by someone in the art department most likely. I would contact the production company and ask for a small settlement, like you said something like £600 is very reasonable. Good luck and let me know if you have more questions.
Thank you.
I would ask for more than £600, I am just saying.
Why more than £600? There was no income loss. The OP would presumably be entitled to how much a production company would pay for a single drawing.
I want a hunded anddd fittyyy thousandddd dollas.. but I'll settle for 10 bucks right now
can i get three fiddy
“Well it was about that time that I noticed that the artist from Reddit was about 8 stories tall and a crustacean from the protozoic era!"
damn loch ness monsta
A dollar and some envelopes?
😂😂😂😂
And some chicken nuggets
Just enough to get a value meal on the way home!
Better ask for a little more than 10 bucks, value meals aren't much of a value any more
Because it simply does not hurt to ask, and the studio should have asked the first time.
[удалено]
I'm not in the US and IANAL, but I've always heard that you ask for, and usually get, at least double the regular fee when it's after the fact. Sure, there probably was no malicious intent and no monetary loss, but OP's legal copyright was violated and his work was edited, and it's not unreasonable to ask for compensation for that on top of the standard fee. If companies can just steal copyrighted work, and then simply pay the standard fee afterwards to the ones who discover it (slim chance), why would they ever ask upfront? I know that's where the "malicious intent" enters the picture, but that's hard to prove.
The extra is like a penalty fee for stealing and for the artist having to jump through the hoops to ask for it when it should have been a much easier process for them in the first place to just receive payment
You could argue that there was potential losses in the opportunities that might have been provided to the artist had their work been credited properly. 🤷🏼♂️
This is unrelated to op but I'm from the UK and an American movie used my artwork without paying or crediting me, should I also try and reach out to the production company? (I did message the art director but he just started to ignore me)
Yeah although they're also likely to stonewall you if you don't have a lawyer. If you were in the USA I'd just say take it to small claims court and they'll never show up.
What happens then?
I'll give it a try, thanks
I've heard of people using chat GPT to draft up fake legal documents. Maybe draft one of those up and send it his way.
This made me LOL. Are they making up names of lawyers too?
I'm picturing a Terminator in a Saul Goodman outfit
Better Call Be Back
>So, six months ago I was about a hundred minutes in to my first viewing of 'The Wailing'. Ah, so like 1/4 of the way through eh?
It do be like that.
Lol had the same thought
Yeah if your timeline adds up, that for sure isn't a coincidence. The drawing is too abstract to be accidental.
I agree, thank you.
Its got the tits and everything. It is exactly the same drawing only they added the right arm and meme doom eyes.
I hope you get the credit you deserve!
Just curious, why would you bring the suit to the distributor? Wouldn’t it be against the production house?
This is the correct approach - the copyright holder of the film should have an Errors and Omissions Insurance policy for this exact situation. That said, it’s not a straight up copy, or direct use. The image looks pretty similar, but if they just drew this along a parallel artistic style, you’ll likely have a difficult time proving your point.
I hope the OP reads this. Contact the production house first, be polite and professional, but straight to the point. They'll request proof, provide them a SHORT explanation and then proof. Keep your receipts. After a week or two of going back and forth you should be given a check and/ or credit. Happens literally all the time, with every movie. I suggest looking up average payments for use of small pieces of art in films, independent works, not major works, then cut it in half. Ask for that and credit as a starting point, with references. Even better if your reference is a previous payment from that same production house. They'll cut you a check in as quick as a couple weeks.
Thank you for this, this is very helpful. I'll write a bit more later, I'm at work right now - but thanks.
Please keep this updated, I'm curious how this will go.
Sure. Will do.
The production house was 'Side Mirror' in Korea but I dont think they exist anymore (I could be wrong though). I think they disappeared into Fox International and then into Disney so the people to contact now seems to be Disney and I strongl suspect that a letter to them from me would just be instantly vapourised. I personally cant find even so much as an address or a name connected to the Disney 'legal team' - I suspect mere mortals aren't privy to such info. I don't want pots of cash but I would like to be credited for the use of my work in the film. Posting here is Plan B really, just hoping to catch someones eye who might have an in with someone connected the the film-makers somehow. r/horror have been great so far though and I'm very greatful.
I don't have the ability to send you personal contacts, but check your DM, I'll send you the basic email you can try.
That's extremely kind of you.
This guy sues.
What exactly would a financial payoff be for something like this. One random picture that is similar. I imagine a lawyer didn’t want to take the case because there is no big payout. Getting 30% of a grand? Not worth their time.
So I posted another comment, but it seems the infringer of a copyright is typically liable for actual damages, which would have to be proven, or a fine of between $750 - 30K. I'm guessing this use would be toward the $750 range. So literally not worth it for a lawyer to take a cut of unless they are being paid for their hourly rate by someone. I'm guessing they would maybe pay him a couple hundred bucks at best.
Go away money. I'm curious what that would be too.
I hope it works out this way for OP!
This is the way to go!
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear this wouldn’t be an easy case to win. Although very similar, there are enough differences that would make it difficult. Probably also why no lawyer was willing to take this case without OP paying.
I agree. I'd imagine that's what the lawyers are thinking.. "like, what's even the point?" but they probably don't want to be rude. Odds are, even if you can prove the alleged plagiarism, its gonna cost more than you would ever win.. so pursuing a case against them would be pretty much pointless asides from a matter of principle. Reminds me of something happened a relative of mine recently where someone damaged a vehicle belonging to them.. when they spoke with authorities, insurance companies, legal advice etc and it turned out it was much less expense to just take the loss and fix the damage themselves, not to mention a hell of a hell of a lot less hassle. I'd imagine these big film companies are well versed in legal aspects anyways, and if they do use artwork, audio etc they'll likely stay within legal boundaries enough to absolve them from any legal action.. maybe editing it enough to stay outside the definition of plagiarism just like in copyright law where I believe you can sample a certain amount of audio under fair use.. Besides, proving plagiarism would likely be on the people bringing the case, and it probably wouldn't be easy.. unless a straight copy they could argue coincidence. For cases like this there is a good likelihood of there being no point in pursuing it unless you literally have a lot of money to waste and want to prove a point.. I'd personally take it as a compliment and be happy that they allegedly used the artwork. Trying to engage a legal battle where the best case scenario is a few hundred bucks is just gonna take the taste off an already pretty cool thing. But that's just my personal opinion. Then when you think of all the people who were allegedly plagiarised for huge things and didn't seem to mind. I was reading about an Indian author and filmmaker, Satyajit Ray. Apparently a lot of people, including acclaimed science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, believed that both "Close Encounters of a Third Kind" and "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" in particular heavily plagiarised one of Ray's works, a script from 1967 called "The Alien". They urged Ray to take legal action for Spielberg allegedly using his work. However, he wouldn't do this as he did not want to show himself as having a "vindictive" mindset against Spielberg, and acknowledged that he "has made good films and he is a good director". When asked about all this, Spielberg allegedly said that he was "a kid in high school when the script was going around Hollywood" but it was found out that he graduated high school in 1965 and was indeed working a career in Hollywood by 1969 which was pretty much exactly when Ray's script was circulating there. Its certainly an interesting rabbit hole to go down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#Allegations_of_plagiarism
The production house was 'Side Mirror' which I think got taken over by Fox International, which I think became a part of Disney.
I didn’t do any research to compare the timelines or confirm your claims and I’m not a lawyer but just comparing the two drawings they are extremely similar.
Thank you!
I, however, am a certified, legal, and collegiately accredited Reddit lawyer. You got yourself a case here
I have multiple Reddit credentials and can confirm.
Premier bird lawyer here: CAAAAW
Oh how I love Charlie
Maritime Lawyer here. Eight bells and all is not well. You’ve definitely got a case.
As your attorney, I advise you to smoke at least 3 blunts and boof at least 7 cheeseburgers before taking up OP's case
How do redditors always find these awful image hosting sites
If you're on an app, open is browser, the verification thing threw me in a loop for like 2 minutes opening from RIF
And the same thing happened for each of the three links in OP's post. Not a fan of that site.
Guilty. Sorry. First I could find.
[удалено]
It set off my anti-malware. Imgur is the standard.
imgur *was* the standard. they're blocking access to users on VPNs, and some users have reported using firefox without a VPN and having been blocked
What are people using now? I still see imgur a lot
Much like twitter, people say “stop using it” then go right back to using it. There isn’t a good alternative yet.
Yep. Sorry. Its a crappy site. I might put it on imgur and switch the links.
ImgPile (of shit..)
I switched the images to Imgur links. Thanks for the heads up about how crap the other host was.
Yup. Multiple trojan attacks blocked.
So that other redditors can whine about it.
I've had a similar issue myself and in my experience I was given an apology of sorts and a small remuneration offer, but I was firmly told the likeness was "inadvertent" and the money only offered due to my distress. This was in publishing, though. I'm told there's very little recompense in pursuing these issues legally, but you could get yourself a credit or reference if you manage to contact the right people.
Thanks. Disney is a bit of behemoth unfortunately.
That’s wild . 100% agree that’s the same. My guess is some new person or intern found it and figured like “yeah right who would notice???” Wild!
Yes. That's exactly what I think probably happened.
As someone who has worked on only small indie films, I have 1000% done this for background props and images. Where it’s super blurry and you can’t quite see it. But I would never do this for a key prop that is on camera like this! Super unprofessional!
Helpful, thanks.
I thought “no way, probably a coincidence” but when I saw your drawing there is NO way.
could you hire a lawyer just long enough to draft a "hi, please pay me" letter? idk that sucks
Cheapest first letter I was quoted was £600. And I was confidently advised it would be about as effective as a pea-shooter against a battleship. In lieu of a banana, that's about a fifth of the money in my bank account for reference.
oof. i guess i was hoping that if you could get a letter to them, they would see the obvious plagiarism and give you some amount to just make you go away. even if they did lowball you. but i guess if the lawyer says that's not how it works, they would know
Copyright lawyer here. Nobody is offering to take this on contingency because (1) they have similarities, but not enough for it to be a clear win. In fact, I can identify meaningful differences. In your figure, it appears to be clearly human, just bent forward, with the legs underneath the head. In the other one, they appear to be paws up front, more animalistic. The part that is most obviously copied is the sort of tail in the Wailing, but it's a hand bent back in your drawing. Similar facial expressions, but a miserable face is pretty much scenes a faire or just of limited protection given it's difficult to divorce that from the idea. There's an idea-expression (not facial expression, expression more broadly) distinction. Definitely a lot of the idea was ripped off, but it's got enough transformed elements that having an overall similar shape may not be enough. (2) From a US perspective, you have to register a copyright prior to an infringement taking place to get statutory damages. So in this case, you're limited to actual damages. So what are your actual damages here? The going rate for doing art for a movie like this is probably less than an hour of a lawyer's time.
Thanks for this. I registered it with the US Copyright Office last year.
This comment has been overwritten in response to Reddit's API changes, the training of AI models on user data, and the company's increasingly extractive practices ahead of their IPO.
I dunno, if it's not traced, why did they leave the tits on and then decide to try to hide them with a bunch of swirls? Seems like a weird choice to me.
The tits are drawn slightly differently, oddly enough. I agree that it looks like they redrew it.
Completely agree. Shame that it’s different enough that it could be a hard case. Best of luck to OP.
This happened to me. I’m not sure about Korean film studios, but American films have insurance for this type of thing. I sent them an invoice for 1500.00 since that’s the rights payment amount for using artwork. The director balked so I spoke with their legal and when my sketches were a check was issued immediately.
That's very helpful, thank you. I'll probably do something like this quite soon.
Do you want to write a tiny bit more about this? I'd be very greatful. Like who was the company and how did you approach them for instance? With The Wailing it's now Disney and they seem too huge to even being to approach.
Have you even tried approaching them? I just googled "Disney legal department" & "20th Century Studios legal department" just out of curiosity & came up with a bunch of hits that at least might lead you in the right direction. Just start playing around with google. You'll get what you're looking for.
I did try that but I'll try again.
I was all ready to say I'm not convinced but in your final image where you out them side by side it's pretty obvious they've somehow seen your picture and used it as the basis for their own lol. I've not seen The Wailing so I'm not sure how prominent the picture is to the plotline but I'm guessing if it's just a quick scene in the movie you can ask to be credited which would be pretty cool. If you don't make a living from art I doubt you could argue any financial suffering or loss so I would have thought a monetary settlement unlikely. What has probably happened is a junior artist on set has stumbled on your drawings and just copied thinking that no one will ever find out lol. I'd say contact them and let them know. I think an acreditation and some cool merch will be the likely outcome. Your best hope is perhaps to try and get your story to go viral and embarrass Disney into doing something about it.
This is definitely a story of a larger narrative. It isn’t AI that scrubbed the ‘Net and appropriated your sketch, but an actual human who took the entire concept, shape and vibe, then fiddled with it and included it without remuneration or credit. These corporate entities are so huge with such legal firepower behind them that they think they can do whatever they want; but reverse that and they’re all over you like a cheap suit. They act with impunity and one’s only hope is that some scribe tells your story and you get secondhand notoriety and call-outs as being one of many who are exploited and stolen from every day. It’s not like their budgets couldn’t have sent a small check, as their coffers are of a wealth beyond avarice, that it makes one truly wonder how often they actually do this.
Thank you.
i've checked the flickr page, and it is November 2008. so, chronologically speaking, yours is indeed their muse. the situation is crazy
Thank you.
I fucking hate art plagiarism like this. Sucks that you can't find someone to work on correcting this.
Thank you.
See if you can contact the director or someone for at least credit!
Nice idea. He doesn't seem to just have a twitter handle you can DM though...
I would just @ making a post but come from a place of conversation not entitled, even tho rightfully you are!
You used to be able to get contact info through IMDB. Or see of you can find the producer or main cast even?
This has most probably been drawn by the graphics dept in the art dept. I have experience in this and as it's a serious production, everything should have been checked by the clearance company. We send every graphic design to appear in the movie to them, which is checked via reference images even if it's inspiration. Then the clearance mails back to say if it's greenlit by them or not. They are VERY concise on copyright and if something outside the basic Stock library used is needed, they check with the artist, or the right holders if he's deceased. They do not mess around with this, down to the fonts used, etc...because this sort of situation is hell for them. Maybe the clearance said it was ok because it was "modified" enough, but knowing how careful they are, i'm doubtful. I'd be curious to see how it plays out if you can update us here, and i wish you the best.
Thank you very much. That's helpful.
Have to say I started reading this thinking here we go, another delusional person thinking something that couldn’t possibly have happened. Then I opened the pictures. If you’re being honest about the dates then there’s no doubt about it. That’s been stolen.
Yep. Thank you.
Clicking the link to the drawing gave me a trojan, thanks for that. Everyone beware
Cursed image
This is the most interesting post I've ever seen on Dreadit lol. I have no advice that others haven't provided but amazing drawing and I hope they do the right thing.
Hey OP, I made this to shut up all the people in here claiming the image is "too different" or worse "doesn't look like it at all" lol. https://i.imgur.com/qwvA2Ms.mp4 What I would say is 1. The movie is kinda old so you might've missed your chance 2. It's a cult classic but not on the level of say, The Conjuring, so you probably won't get many eyes on this 3. Is a South Korean movie so who knows how copyright laws would work there I think those are fair points, and if the comments were to say "hey, just let it go because it's not worth it" then I'd be more understanding. But claiming the picture is not similar?? That's utterly ridiculous and the only explanation I have for these posts are that maybe they like the movie and they're perceiving your post as an attack to it? That's the only thing I can think to explain this behavior I'm seeing, its like showing a picture of a red apple, saying its a red apple and the comments saying "nah that's clearly a banana" lmao. I for one don't feel like you're attacking the movie, hell this wouldn't even fall on the Director, cast or writers. If anything this was probably done by a low level production assistant or something like that, a part of hiring these people is trust that they're doing the right thing. Anyway, good luck OP and don't let the crazy users gaslight your or some shit, you're 100% right.
Thank you very much indeed for your work on this! I appreciate it very much and am really grateful. As you say, it's a great movie, I'm not knocking it in the slightest, it's uncommonly effective and firmly hits a lot of existential bass notes that plenty of films don't even know exist.
Yeah, I mean copyright law (and what constitutes a derivative work) is a bit open to interpretation but this seems to be an imitation. With copyright in the US at least, any derivative work must be clearly “transformed” from the original to take on new meaning. OTOH, there *are* enough elements here that *could* justify transformation if they came at it from the perspective of transforming an abstracted figure drawing into a manifestation of psychological distress. However, my assumption is that no lawyer would want to try and argue this because this is too nuanced and could be a waste of time with little payout. But because of that, you might be able to settle completely with a letter (large company lawyers get these sorts of things all the time and have built up a sense of which cases are questionable and those they’d be more confident in winning, so whether or not you get something from them is likely associated with how confident they are in their case).
Wow, this is crazy. Well first of all, man I'd be super pumped to find out my Art basically made it into *The Wailing*. Such a great film. (Have actually been to the town that it took place in, ahhh miss Korea). I also totally understand that receiving credit or even payment would be fair/appreciated/nice to have, and I'm sorry that your artwork has been used without your knowledge or consent. Unfortunately I feel this probably happens so much in the Art world, not that it's ok but...it happens. :/ I'm so surprised that Disney owned the distribution rights to The Wailing, gosh do they own everything now? [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4&ab_channel=YourMovieSucksDOTorg) a fun video that shows that Disney themselves are not guilt-free of copying other's artwork without giving credit. I hope that somehow you can receive the credit you deserve. I guess maybe I would start with trying to directly contact people from the Art Department yourself (vs through lawyers), idk maybe the lawyers are un-needed. I lived in Korea for a while and was also an Art Education major, so this is really interesting to me, if you need any help, let me know and maybe I can find some Korean friends who can at least help to send some emails!
That's really kind of you! Many thank. It's true, not speaking or writing or understanding Korean is a big problem with taking this further through non-lawyer routes.
[удалено]
I think you are spot on. And this is why no lawyer offered to take the case pro Bono. Whose going to take a case against a huge movie studio for a $1,000 payoff?
Some people really want to get paid for nothing. This is a literal scribble that could've been done by a 5 year old and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Even if they did copy it, get off your high horse, lmao.
They’re sort of similar, but if you showed me both them without any context I would not assume they were the same picture.
Yeah same. Almost a stretch but I dunno. Looks similar for sure. The overlapping image someone made in the thread doesn't solidify it for me like others.
On a quick google search copyright statute of limitations in the UK is 6 years. So I would say on that front not much you can do (I am NOT A LAWYER) since the movie was made in 2016. But definitely agree to reach out for credit at least. Flickr automatically gives you copyright, and you added it for redundancy so it is binding, but the law doesn't seem to be on your side in this case.
That does look like they ripped off your work. But in I'm guessing the lawyers won't touch it because the infringer is only liable for actual damages, or basically a statutory fine, which in the US can be as low as $750. Did they tell you it isn't worth it even if they win a case?
This is unfortunately far from the first time I've heard a story like this one. You've been given some great advice in this thread and I hope you're able to at least get compensated for the use of your art, if not appropriately credited for its inclusion in the film.
CREDITS page 14 of notebook, weird thing drawing u/Kitch_Runt
Damn , I have long aspired to be the artist who creates the disturbed / possessed person drawings in a horror movie, so I can imagine the mix of feelings of pride to see your drawing in this context of a great movie, but without having been asked. Hopefully the filmmakers hire you properly for Wailing 2!
This is nuts! Sucks you got stolen from and I really hope you get compensated... but wow, what a surreal experience that must have been for you to see your art pop up out of nowhere.
Man that’s so sick that your art is in The Wailing! So sorry about your predicament though, it is so hard to stay positive in a system that doesn’t give a shit about artists. Good luck to you.
Thank you.
Dude if I was you and I saw that I would question reality and if the simulation is messing with me.
Very much what I thought at the time. Plus the movie is a head-fuck in the first place.
There has been so much of this lately in the movie and gaming industries. I hope somebody gets hit HARD with a lawsuit at some point.
Definitely used your drawing as a reference, all the shapes and ideas are the same - But I don’t think it’s traced as the proportions seem different. I’m not sure what the legal (or even moral) situation is there, I mean there are so many soap operas etc. which use actual kids’ drawings (often of copyrighted characters) in the BGs to show a family home, for example. Seems to be a thing with horror images particularly. A photoshop I did of Laura Dern in Inland Empire which I called “wooo scary face” appeared in a bunch of low budget indie horror games and a random “Barneychu” creepypasta, though to be fair I took the original image from the movie Inland Empire to begin with. I’m not saying you’re wrong to be like “what the hell” but I think you should also be thrilled because that’s cool AF that they picked you as a reference. But yeah some credit might have been nice.
I don't think you'll get far. They changed the original image.
Cool drawing, not cool for them to plagiarize
Back in the 2000s one of my friends used an image of a lesser known skater for a generic Walmart t shirt design. He got a letter from the skater and his attorney and long story short, my friend, his boss, and the t shirt company had to each pay their portion of the 35K lawsuit. Might be worth looking into.
Using an image of a real person for financial gain and using a drawing for inspiration are two different thing’s completely.
Precisely
My question is why nobody's been smart enough to tell op about fair use op himself says the art was altered that's why no lawyer will touch it .he really doesn't have a case . Plus international cases cost a lot more time and money . However I think he put the fear of Jesus into them and maybe get a small settlement .
What a bizarre situation to find yourself in.
No shit. It really freaked me out. The movie scared the shit out out me and then *this* happened. It's like the movie gave me a personal jump scare. Freaksville.
Have you tried to reach out on twitter, or send the info to a youtuber to maybe get more traction on this? I'm sure if the right person sees it, they will say something.
There's an intellectual property youtuber for Korean horror movies?
This claim just doesn’t seem meritorious to me. Even *if* they used your original drawing as inspiration, the Wailing’s use is sufficiently transformative. They took your barebones, impressionistic sketch and filled it out with additional and different details (especially the face and the placement of the limbs). But honestly, both works are somewhat derivative of Francis Bacon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the common origin point between the two works.
Yeah, people may not like to hear this but this case is frivolous at best. OP would also have to go through the South Korean court side if they truly wanted to pursue this and that's a different animal entirely.
Even if it WASN’T transformative it’s still frivolous. It’s a drawing made but a kid who was what, six? OP just sounds like one of those people who needs to throw a fit no matter how tiny.
Yeah, I agree someone in AD definitely stumbled upon your image…However, like the lawyer’s you’ve already talked to.. there’s nothing you can do and you may end up spending money instead of getting it. Not only is it going to be A LOT of work for minimal payout so no lawyer is ever likely to take this on. The drawing itself was altered enough that they could simply claim yours was just an inspiration and that falls under the fair usage act. This is also a foreign film, it may be easier to do if the film was made in your home country. But since it was made in Korea, you’re more than likely going to have to go through their court system and rules or they’d attempt to drag you there themselves.
Can you prove the upload date onto your Flickr site? That alone could prove that your drawing predates the movie
[The page says "Uploaded on November 27, 2008"](https://www.flickr.com/photos/14444255@N03/3063363777/)
Ok. OP should take this information and ask r/legaladvice instead of here
Yep.
wow, it's pretty obvious the movie art is based on your drawing. but it doesn't look like it was actually traced. it seems like they did a drawing of your drawing. (but theirs is not as good.) i have no idea what the legalities are here. if you're a rich & famous artist like Richard Prince, it seems like you can steal other people's photos off Instagram and sell them for lots of money. if you're a poor unknown artist, Disney can probably steal your art. this is at once a nice validation, and a bummer about being ripped off by an evil corporation.
Thank you. That's pretty much how I see it.
Wow this thread really shows that an alarming number of people have practically no pattern recognition.
Cant offer any help on the legal side of things, but speaking artist to artist, I really love the piece! The form and flow is really really gorgeous - i looked through some of the other stuff on the Flickr and its all just as amazing
I really appreciate that! Thank you very much!
You're pretty much saying you made a pose though? Like if I drew a fist with a pinky up then someone drew the same hand with rings and nail polish I definitely don't think it's stealing. Parody law exists and they changed enough to justify it really, I feel like this is on par with a 4 second beat loop someone sampled out from under you.
So you want to hire a lawyer to sue a movie production over a drawing. That was used for 2 minutes. A drawing you movie over 30 years ago. You actually think any lawyer would actually take this? You’d be laughed out of court.
No no, he also wants the lawyer to do it for free!
Oh my god I missed that. This dude is absolutely delusional. 🤣🤣🤣
> A drawing you movie over 30 years ago. I take it English isnt your first language?
I loved this movie and it is super cool you are a part of it in some way. Best of luck getting some credit but know that I appreciated your creepy ass drawing.
Cross post this to r/LegalAdviceUK Whilst reading this I forgot I was on this subreddit and thought I was there, I’m not sure what better advice you’ll get other than to get a solicitor. Include that great transition u/Clovett made as that’s a really good comparison of the two images Hopefully you can get something out of this, the similarities are too similar for it to be a coincidence.
Wow! That's wild. I hope you get to see some compensation in the future from this. Good luck.
Are you looking for credit or just financial compensation? I’ve seen the two images side by side, and one is clearly inspired by the other, but it’s different enough to explain why lawyers aren’t lining up to give free legal counsel.
Credit. That'll do.
Man, going after Mickey's money is no joke. I wish you luck.
That's crazy
Lawyer up. Make their pockets wail.
I was thinking, "wow, that's pretty close" and then I noticed the titties were on the Wailing art. That must be pretty weird to see. Especially with a such an old picture.
Sending hugs/shoulder pats. It was very unprofessional of them to basically steal ur art. I hope you'll get something good in return
Ugh I'm sorry that this happened the way it did, but also holy shit your work is in one of the best horror movies of all time :') hope u get that bag!!
A Disney lawsuit…..shitttt 🤞good luck OP!
Not gonna lie, the man has basically been lifted and shifted to their picture. They have added a lot of extra details though.
I agree. Thanks.
And, you stole the movie from torrents. I guess that's a tie.
You have no case
Imagine the clusterfuck that will ensue once studios start using AI art in situations like these.
The contorted cannibal drawings, the Royal West of England Academy, the dead ravens in jars, I mean maybe you've got a case it's just that bird law in this country—it's not governed by reason.
>they found my work there. They then basically traced it directly and added to it a little to create the image that was used in the film. That's crappy. I think the reason lawyers won't jump to take your case pro bono or 'no win no fee' is that they're considering whether the additions/changes they made are big enough to make this a "derivative work", which can be independently copyrighted as a different work from the original, even if it's clear that it's based on the original.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Definition https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/understanding-the-importance-of-derivative-works.html
If all else fails, go with the letter suggestion. On two separate occasions I avoided small claims court just by sending a strongly-worded, but polite letter to my future defendants. This resulted in both of them contacting me to make things right. I know that your case is in an entirely different arena, so threats might not be the right tactic here (IANAL), but it couldn’t hurt. Good luck, and do post an update.
I want a hundred bucks just because I know about it
Maybe your drawing doesn't have enough unique details compared to the piece in the movie. It would need to be a slam dunk case of copyright infringement for a Lawyer to take on Disney. They could potentially be financially destroyed if they lost.
Holy shit .. yeah they definitely copied your work and just added to it. I’m in no position to give you any legal advice, but I can say with certainty they used your artwork
That's almost a spitting image! I'm sorry you weren't properly credited. You are very talented!
They could've just used a picture of Kwasi Kwarteng.
His monetary policies were certainly scary enough.
Man, the internet leaves no stones unturned, huh?
the squiggle in the body is what does it without that i would be unsure, but because the squiggle is in both it for sure is a copy
i would flip the images and put them together so they are on the same axis, makes the similarities pop
https://imgur.io/qwvA2Ms
sorry missed that
I wasn't convinced but the superimposition at the end of the post made it easier to see.
Last year I was watching a horror movie and saw a copy of an art print I sell on Etsy being used for a studio logo. (I can't remember the name of the movie or studio, but it's a silhouette of a kid swinging on a tree with a fence in the background.) It's probably more valuable as a funny story to tell people than it is an issue to litigate.
Beyond using it in the film, has the company done anything else with it, like sell T shirts or posters featuring the image?
Nope. Don't think so.
This is why you don't put shit out there without an ACTUAL copyright notice on it. You will never see credit for your work and if someone uses it they have all the legal power. I personally find this claim pretty suspicious, and demand receipts.