Lol @Alana
For that money, buyers could have bought more than one copy of UF4 second print instead.
3 Likes
If you’re spending that much money on a reprint with a crap plastic bootleg cover stapled over it, might as well save up a few hundred more and get an actual copy of UF4.
4 Likes
Newbie question, do all exclusives need to be run by Marvel or can you do whatever you want?
Well, honestly, what they did here didn’t violate anything unless they claim it was a Marvel published exclusive.
There’s nothing in the law that says you can’t take any comic you own, throw a new cover on it by stapling it on and then selling it as is. What this acetate exclusive should have been called was an “Etsy” exclusive… all they did was deform it with new art (if you want to call it that). The real controversy is, CGC should not be grading these as legit exclusives since theoretically if you jab a new staple through the book that wasn’t “published” by the actual publisher is actually damaging the comic.
4 Likes
Yes and for the most part you just pick a artist from a list for a particular book Marvel will offer exclusives for, you don’t get to see the art ahead of time or contact the artist.
1 Like
Interesting I didn’t know Skeff was apparently involved as one of the 2 retailers in this fiasco.
I always watch his videos just because they’re kind of fun and sillly (certainly not informative since he seems to think 9.8’s on brand new books is a major accomplishment).
But if he was involved in this - buh bye… no fist pumping and smiles will have me supporting you anymore.
That’s only if you want them as legit exclusives. Anyone can create or do what they did. Like I said in my previous comment, they didn’t really do anything wrong unless they claim 1. It’s an exclusive that was published by Marvel (if Marvel are the ones who stapled the new cover to them at the printer and 2. CGC is grading them as legit exclusives created by Marvel… which we now know, they aren’t.
But if they just stapled them on and were up front that they just had leftovers or got new ones printed and did the acetate themselves, there’s no laws preventing them from doing this.
2 Likes
This is called a derivative work under copyright law and it is most definitely prohibited by the copyright statutes.
There are also the trademark statutes. The fact that Marvel and Disney exercise such tight control over how, where, when, and who displays their logos, weighs heavily in their favor for prosecuting a trademark infringement claim here. There’s a pattern that all shops are aware of where Marvel exercises strong control over approving covers. That doesn’t bode well in terms of a lawsuit.
In a practical sense, Marvel could also just claim a violation of the terms of an exclusive that I’m sure stores have to sign or at least are on notice of. Marvel can just cut them off. The contract termination is usually the most swift and stinging justice.
3 Likes
This isn’t the rule in trademark law or copyright.
The primary standard in Trademark is whether the act would be likely to cause confusion among consumers. That has definitely happened here.
There’s no intent requirement under copyright infringement. Strict liability for the copying, derivative use, etc. of the copyrighted work.
I’d find that hard to believe since we have blank variants that anyone can “draw” on and then sell. You are still selling the work as intended but only adding to it. I would doubt there’s anything Marvel would do and if it’s even worth their time or effort.
I see adding a your own cover the same as defacing a book with ink then selling it. Technically both are damaging the “original work”…
IDK though… seems it’s a fine line since the “cover” can be removed with relative ease and was added after the fact. Also, did they sell their exclusive at a different price from originally? If not, can’t they claim this is just a bonus sleeve cover? Again, I doubt Marvel is going to do anything if they do.
1 Like
But didn’t they already have a contract to sell these (if they got them published again without Marvels consent or by Marvel, then yes, I could see this being true copyright infringement)? All they did was add a new “cover” to it which can come off as easily as they put on. IDK, seems like most crap on Etsy is in violation of Copyright laws if this was the case…
My new line of acetate covers will be Liefield covers with properly drawn feet on the acetate.
8 Likes
Bingo.
I’m not saying the law is correct from a policy standpoint, but that is the law. The current copyright framework is woefully out of date and really has no idea how to deal with the modern practice of intellectual property distribution.
However, it is still the law of the land.
Laurence Lessig probably has the best theory of a reformed copyright structure: Remix.
Maybe I should email my friend who’s an actual IP Lawyer for artists… Hmmm… 
He’ll tell you. There’s a difference between what is a strict violation of the law and enforcement. Because enforcement is in the hands of the intellectual property right holders hands, its inconsistent.
However, there are notorious litigious IP hawks and top of that list is Disney. If blank sketch covers did reach the level of a violation of copyright or trademark law, the reason they probably haven’t enforced it is due to Marvel and Disney not wanting to ruin good will with a fan base and traditional hobby activities. In the strictest sense, though, that guy drawing Iron Man for you in that small town convention without Marvel’s consent. Yep. Violation.
Here is a real time example of the future of these hot WhatNot ‘next miles’ variants… just guessing 
Canto 1 WhatNot NYCC variants almost a year later prices a tad lower than the original hype.
A much better investment than first print Canto 1’s… 
1 Like
It would be kind of silly for them to “produce” blank variants with the intent of people getting “commissions” done on them and then they go after those doing it…
What’s also messed up is I can take a picture of what you took, alter it enough to claim I changed it enough to call it my own piece of work of art or whatever and that’s allowed last I checked.
So where do acetate covers draw the line? Seems like it can go both ways… they created their own cover to plaster over the existing work they left untouched, sold it since the existing stock was “surplus” they already paid Marvel to publish and then sell themselves… Hmm… It’d be really nice to see what type of contract one signs when they do “store exclusives” from Marvel cause there could be anything within there and last I heard, shops who enter into such agreements are never allowed to talk about what is in them so all of these copyright laws could be moot pending what’s actually under “contract” and NDA as well.
What if I take the acetate off of the facsimile and then staple it to a first print Ultimate Fallout #4 then I have a 1/1 exclusive variant first print first Miles. I’ll get like $30,000 from Dinesh for it.
1 Like
Has any artist done a stamp for blank covers to allow mass production to be sold by the artist? This case reminds me of a mass production approach like stamping vs sketching.