Second opinion on whether or not my use of copyrighted works is fair use

[gmcalpin]

I am a Chicago-based webcartoonist.

I do a digitally-illustrated comic strip about the staff of a movie theater, called Multiplex, which can be found at [url=http://www.multiplexcomic.com]Multiplex - a comic strip about life at a movie theater[/url].

Here's an example: [url=http://www.multiplexcomic.com/archive.php?name=248]Multiplex #248: Training Day[/url]

In the comic strip, I have frequently used (small) reproductions of movie posters or film stills and quoted dialogue, often — but not always — to comment on the specific film. Sometimes the strip comments on film in general, or parodying a film, but SOME of the movie posters are simply background elements, used to convey the idea that this is a "real-world" movie theater, set in real time.

I know that when I'm commenting or making fun of on a specific movie, use of the poster or stills is definitely fair use (commentary and parody), but I'm less sure about my use of the background posters which are often unrelated to the commentary, even if they are typically very small.

I am reasonably well-versed in copyright law (for a lay person) and feel that these uses constitute fair use "transformation" of the original artwork — but I would like the opinions of copyright lawyers on this matter, because I am looking to publish a print collection of the webcomic in the near future.

[divgradcurl]

Originally Posted by gmcalpin

I am a Chicago-based webcartoonist.

I do a digitally-illustrated comic strip about the staff of a movie theater, called Multiplex, which can be found at [url=http://www.multiplexcomic.com]Multiplex - a comic strip about life at a movie theater[/url].

Here's an example: [url=http://www.multiplexcomic.com/archive.php?name=248]Multiplex #248: Training Day[/url]

In the comic strip, I have frequently used (small) reproductions of movie posters or film stills and quoted dialogue, often — but not always — to comment on the specific film. Sometimes the strip comments on film in general, or parodying a film, but SOME of the movie posters are simply background elements, used to convey the idea that this is a "real-world" movie theater, set in real time.

I know that when I'm commenting or making fun of on a specific movie, use of the poster or stills is definitely fair use (commentary and parody), but I'm less sure about my use of the background posters which are often unrelated to the commentary, even if they are typically very small.

I am reasonably well-versed in copyright law (for a lay person) and feel that these uses constitute fair use "transformation" of the original artwork — but I would like the opinions of copyright lawyers on this matter, because I am looking to publish a print collection of the webcomic in the near future.

You really should take some examples to a copyright lawyer who can review the actual materials and advise you accordingly -- that's where you are going to get the most accurate advice.

Your use, even if transformative, may still be a copyright problem because you likely have an unauthorized copy before making a transformation. For example, if I pulled a bunch of pictures at random off of the web and made a collage or mosaic or something, sure, I have transformed the images into a new piece of art that is worthy of a copyright -- but I have violated the rights of all of the copyright owners of the original images, the rights to control the reproduction and creation of derivative works.

A simple "transformative" work is going to get much less protection that parody or comment under fair use, so you would be well-advised to speak with an attorney who can review the actual artwork for an opinion.