Disney Oil Paintings

[Acedink]

Not sure which board to post this in, but does anyone know of a good, yet affordable artist that takes commissions, and could paint Cinderella's Castle?

 

[fitzperry]

You may run into legal issues trying to commission a painting of the castle, as I believe it is trademarked. But have you thought about trying to find an art student?

 

[havoc315]

You may run into legal issues trying to commission a painting of the castle, as I believe it is trademarked. But have you thought about trying to find an art student?

There is absolutely no legal issue with painting something that is trademarked. Or Andy Warhol would be in big trouble.
Copyright is a different concern, but inapplicable here.

 

[fitzperry]

There is absolutely no legal issue with painting something that is trademarked. Or Andy Warhol would be in big trouble.
Copyright is a different concern, but inapplicable here.

I'm aware of that. The potential issue is with SELLING it, not painting it. That's why I suggested the op might have difficulty commissioning a painting of the Castle - I assumed he intended to pay someone for it. Selling an image of Cinderella Castle may require a license to do so from Disney.

Copyright is a different issue.

ETA: My knowledge of IP matters is limited and pertains more to photography, so I don't know how the law might apply differently to a painting. But I'm pretty sure you can't run around selling photos of Cinderella Castle or any other Disney icon or character without a proper license.

Shutterstock has this to say on the topic of restrictions on images from WDW Resort:

• The largest and most visited recreational resort in the world, containing four theme parks, two water parks, 24 themed hotels, and numerous shopping, dining, entertainment and recreational venues.
• Located southwest of Orlando, FL.
• Images from the entire resort are protected and are unacceptable for commercial and editorial use. (emphasis mine)

 

[Geoff_M]

Shutterstock has this to say on the topic of restrictions on images from WDW Resort:

• The largest and most visited recreational resort in the world, containing four theme parks, two water parks, 24 themed hotels, and numerous shopping, dining, entertainment and recreational venues.
• Located southwest of Orlando, FL.
• Images from the entire resort are protected and are unacceptable for commercial and editorial use. (emphasis mine)

Ummm, that bolded statement is nonsense. Editorial Use includes publication in news periodicals like newspapers and magazines. I can assure you that newspapers do not require WDW permission to put a photo of Cindy's castle alongside a store about WDW.

Also, our courts have ruled that even though a building may be trademarked (ex. you cannot build a hamburger stand that uses White Castle's distinctive design... regardless of what name you hang over the door), when it comes to 2-dimensional renderings, that protection is limited to a particular rendering of the building and does not cover every possible angle or depiction. The most applicable case that would apply here was the Rock-n-Roll HoF that tried to sue an artist for selling posters of the HoF building in Cleveland (R-n-R HoF vs. Gentile). Lower courts ruled for the HoF, but it was overturned on appeal by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A major part of the reasoning by the appeals court that found against the HoF was due to the fact hat they themselves had sold many different depictions of the HoF on souvenir merchandise over the years and thus had not created a singular photographic "mark" using the building.

As to any question of copyright of the castle, while in 1990 US copyright law was expanded to include architectural works. This only protects buildings constructed in, or after, 1990, and it excludes prohibitions of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of buildings unless it is a post-1990 building that cannot be seen from a "public space" (not the same thing as "private property"). So, by the date of the castle's construction date alone it is not copyrightable.

One of the tricky things about IP lawsuits is that each one has to be won or lost on its own unique merits. There are usually no hard and fast rules. In order to successfully sue a painter that painted a rendition of Cinderella Castle, they would have to prove several points, the most likely far fetched point would be that such a painting would reasonably be seen by a purchaser or the public as originating from or being endorsed by Disney. That is the crux of a "trademark". For example, if I decide to make candles and sell them at a craft show and put this rendering of the castle on the bottom of them, it's likely I'll lose any resulting lawsuit from Disney because of the impression I give that Disney either made or endorsed the candle:

The fact that Disney can be aggressive when it comes to lawsuits is one reason why groups like Shutterstock have over-reactive positions on Disney photos. And while there's no guarantees that a painter would win a suit filed by Disney, it doesn't seem likely that they'd win on the merits when it comes to a simple painting sold depicting the castle given legal precedence (particularly since trademark infringement would be their only option). When people opt to take up such legal challenges Disney lays down, and the facts are weak, things don't go Disney's way.

 

[fitzperry]

Look, I was merely trying to warn the op he might encounter some unanticipated obstacles in trying to complete this project, not get into a debate about a complicated legal issue. FWIW, I agree with you about the editorial use, but the fact that statement is out there illustrates the point I was trying to make, and that is why I quoted it. Disney is well known as an aggressive protector of its IP, and artists who are aware of that may be abundantly or even overly cautious in order to avoid trouble. I just thought that info might be useful to the op.

 

[Geoff_M]

Look, I was merely trying to warn the op he might encounter some unanticipated obstacles in trying to complete this project, not get into a debate about a complicated legal issue.

I understand, but you also added:

Selling an image of Cinderella Castle may require a license to do so from Disney.

This was the comment I was primarily addressing. I have no doubt that Disney might insist that an artist obtain such permission from them for a price, but whether it's actually required is another matter entirely.

Also, I think even given Disney's reputation for IP protection, you'd agree that there's a big difference between the risk of legal entanglement of a privately commissioned unique work (which the OP was asking about) and that of an artist trying to sell a run of lithographs of Cinderella Castle on eBay.