With so many out of school Oliver Jeffers, Mac Barnett and Mo Willems, Tony DiTerlizzi are doing a daily read, chat, draw of their books and characters.

How cool is that‽

Oliver Jeffers reads and discusses one book per day on Instagram Live:
https://www.instagram.com/oliverjeffers

Mac Barnett reads and offers a running commentary on one book per day on Instagram Live:
https://www.instagram.com/macbarnett

Mo Willems does a drawing and shows dummies, sketches and finished art for a character each day on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/RmzjCPQv3y8

Tony DiTerlizzi is doing a live drawing each day on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/TonyDiterlizzi/

Thought I'd share a recent master copy study. The top image is by Kenard Pak. There was a fairly spirited discussion in my agent group about mediums and techniques he used to create it, so I decided to have a go at how I would have made the image. (FYI -- a whole bunch of physical media pieces that are composed/layered digitally)

But the great bit is how master copies like this give you permission to do things that you might not otherwise think of. I will definitely be incorporating elements of this method into future work!

Call this a shameless plug for my SVS Dynamic Expressions class if you like (enrolling now) -- but I'm kinda' excited that the new Venom movie is coming out. I've been fairly mixed on this so far (still wounded by Spiderman 3) but gotta' say the trailers make it look pretty good!

I spend a lot of time dissecting picture books. Trying to understand why I love certain ones and why I'm non-plussed by others. Then I try to bring that insight to my own books.

This is a page turn from one of my favorites "Nothing" by Jon Agee.
Check out how he uses the slow build of sequential images on this spread . . .

. . . to really pay off the utter insanity of this one*.

*That said, I do think there is a missed opportunity here.
Dutching the camera to shift away from the perfect 90 degree angles of this spread would have added to the overall sense of frenetic energy, and the kind of social pressure craziness that ensues for the next few pages.

This is a super smart book. Totally worth a check out from your local library.

@Laurel-Aylesworth There are no rules to laying out a dummy. Every book is going to be different. I'm a fan of taking various books that are either similar in subject matter or that "feel" similar to the book I'm dummying up. Photographing each page and laying it out as thumbnails. Then looking to see what choices the illustrator made. I find it's easier to see patterns in pacing, compositional choices, color scripting etc.

For example in Dan Santat's BEEKLE it's clear the choice to deviate from full bleed spreads is a choice rarely and carefully made. Everything is full bleed spreads except two where he uses vignettes to both speed up (pg 21-21) and slow down (pg 36-37) the action.

The first time I read it, I found the tree spreads on pgs 26-27 and 28-29 to be oddly flat and out of place with the other illustrations in the book. It wasn't until I laid this out that I realized Dan was trying to mimic/foreshadow Alice's drawing of the same tree on pg 35.

Also the desaturated/monochromatic quality of the images starting on pg 18 and continuing through pg 23 becomes more obvious.

I'll also often go through and try to simplify the images into simple black, white and grey shapes so see how value and silhouette affect the experience of the book.

When I did that to BEEKLE I realized that the little white shape of Beekle always appears on the right page of the spread -- except for pg 18-19, 22-23, 26-27 and 28-29. These are the moments in the book where Beekle is feeling unsure or overwhelmed.

These are some of the highlights from this particular book breakdown. Do this to a few other books and you'll start to see how other illustrators approach laying out books.

I think it's fine to post about this. Will did a FB live video this morning talking about this very issue. He has a characteristically calm and reasonable response to the change in the project status.

As for your question about making/selling fan art: There is clearly a market for fan art out there. But it is important to understand what you are doing when you make fan art and even more importantly when you try to monetize it.

Whether you are making money or not -- the mere act of creating fan art is a copyright infringement. The important bit is whether the fundamental infringement rises to the level of an "actionable" infringement.

I was drawing comic characters from the age of 8 when I got my first X-men comic from a friend at school. While all those drawings were "technically" infringements they never rose to the level of "actionable infringements". Along the way I got more invested in the Marvel characters, I became a little "cooler" to my friends at school, and I learned how to draw.

So yes -- I think that fan art can be a useful and productive thing.

It's when you try to monetize fan art that you need to go in with eyes wide open. Understanding that the fan art you make is fundamentally an infringement. You are creating copies and derivatives of intellectual property created and owned by someone else. If you are going to use and generate income off fan art, without negotiating a license beforehand with the Intellectual Property (IP) owner, you need to have a full and complete understanding of the Fair Use Defense. And in the case of some characters, you need to understand Trademark Law.

Which goes to the second half of your question -- is it worth the risk trying to sell it?
I have made concerted effort to study copyright law and how it pertains to illustrators. In the absence of a license from the original IP holder I have landed on -- No -- it is not worth trying to sell it.

It is, in my opinion, always better to negotiate a license with the IP holder if I want to sell fan art.

And I want to clarify -- the term "negotiate" can vary in it's meaning. Most people think it means "pay" (and often it does) but it can also just mean "ask and get permission".

This is simply a variation on the @demetrius post above but one of my favorite methods is pulled from Norman Rockwell. Basically he renders the "imaginative" part in a higher key than "reality". Definitely color casts it as well (usually in the old-timey yellow ochre)

@JODY I'm reminded of Franklin Booth, who wanted to learn pen and ink. He did many copies of other artist's works. Only --- he accidentally copied wood engravings! (thought they were pen and ink pieces) Very different process. But in doing so he became one of the BEST pen and ink artists ever!

@burvantill I feel like I can speak to that. The tinny sound you hear is because @Lee-White 's studio is actually a shipping container floating about 10 miles off the Tennessee coast. Weird, I know, but he swears by the rent.

Because your post is so timely I'm gonna jump in and do a demo/plug for the upcoming SVS class Dynamic Expressions: Drawing Heads and Hands. You've got a solid foundation here. I cannot recommend your exercise of 100 hands enough. This is a great way to get good at hands! The thing that I would encourage you to do is really nail down the underlying geometry in hands. Try to emphasize lines of action (see finger tips in stage 2). I'd also recommend that you draw hands in contrasty lighting. Form shadows are going to do wonders for your understanding of the geometry that make up hands and fingers. I can tell that you are a detail oriented artist (from the attention paid to shading and wrinkles) but hold off on that until you've really nailed the base drawing. And when drawing hands watch out for finger positions that look odd - even if that's EXACTLY how the hand was posed. I'm constantly repositioning my hand reference so that the final drawing "looks" right.

@Kumica-Truong-0 said in Explaining copyright to non-artists:

Cat Coloring Book:

@davidhohn So I guess this is where it becomes a little messy, and I fell into the trap of being so excited about the project, I jumped ahead before any contracts were drawn up or any expectations were even discussed. Months prior, she had asked for a quote for the colouring book - which I provided a heavily discounted rate - to which she responded she couldn't afford.
This time around, it was me that brought it up.. in response to many requests from followers (asking for a whole book, after seeing the single colouring page I had donated). So I suppose I just assumed there was no need for a contract as there was nothing being exchanged as far as I was concerned. It was just my own little project, although it spawned from an initial request from her - the donation of a colouring page.
So, to answer your question - yes and no. haha

Based on what you've written here, you are right, there's no need for a contract. You wanted to make something and you did. You never intended the work to be used for anything other than your own personal use and/or portfolio.

As soon that the cat owner wanted to use the images, then you'd want a contract to clarify what rights were being licensed and for how long. (Whether money was exchanged or not)

Children's Book Project:

Regarding the licence agreement for the children's book, although I am aware that giving exclusive rights with no bounds, is essentially giving up all my power, I wasn't too concerned in this instance as the other party is a good friend of 25 years so our mutual respect and trust is ultimately what sealed the deal. The only reason why I let the licence cast such a wide net was to ease her concerns that someone else couldn't come along and offer me a ridiculous sum of money for usage rights.
The only limitations specified in the contract are the way in which she can use the artwork i.e. in the book (first edition), or for promo purposes leading up to the launch. However, I wouldn't be so lax in any other instance.

Based on what you wrote here the license is not the grant of rights I was thinking of. You've further defined "Exclusive rights, worldwide for as long as the first edition was in print" to mean reproduction of the artwork to the first edition of the book only and for promotion of that first edition. That seems reasonable to me and it highlights that the wording of a contract really matters.

So use for marketing materials, say, would you normally draw up a separate contract rather than including it in the same one?

Nope. The rights to use the artwork in promotion would simply be listed in the Grant of Rights.

How do illustrators (assuming they don't have an agent) normally manage which licenses have expired, etc. I'm imagining it to be quite time consuming and unsustainable after a handful..?

Nope. It's very easy, and fun! You are making money from work you did years ago. Passive revenue is the BEST revenue!

Just imagine being a car rental company. Do they get overwhelmed when they have more than 10 cars available to rent? Or even 20? Sure, when you have 1000 or more you might want to hire some help, but by that time the profits would justify the expense.

As for the two other illustrators happily giving up their copyright - in this case, as my client is actually a friend, there's no possibility of bending truths or manipulation - she actually sent me their contracts and/or screenshots of emails/chats. It really took me by surprise, and was quite disappointing. I often feel like we artists, are at least 50% to blame for the misconceptions society continue to have of the creative industry, and the crappy treatment of being undervalued and underpaid - because we keep doing stuff like giving away our copyrights or not charging full rates (guilty! )

The fact that you are working to learn how to do this says great things about your character and business acumen. And the converse is arguably true of the other illustrators in question.

@Danilo-Silva Graphic Artist Guild Pricing and Ethical Guidelines has a number of basic contracts for each niche of the creative market (editorial, picture book, surface design etc). I also like Tad Crawfords Business and Legal Forms for Illustrators as he does a great job of breaking down the legal language into something that is immediately understandable.

Oh, I LOVE this!!

While I have never had a book cover with royalties I know of at least two other illustrators who have received them. I love this! I genuinely want this to become industry standard, so I will be asking/offering for royalties in all future book cover projects.

I don't know that every publisher will agree -- but you will never get what you don't ask for.

Artist should retain copyright. You are licensing only the rights the client needs. Be as specific as possible with the rights licensed. If the client needs/demands more rights up the licensing fee accordingly.

You should get your name on the book but likely not on the cover. Inside the back flap of dust jacket for hardcover books, on back cover for paperbacks. Request they include a url to your website.

@Heather-Boyd This is great! I can see all the work that went in and that's how it gets done! Love that you've turned the room around and put the viewer in the hall outside the room. 95% of everything in this drawing looks good to me!

The only element that stands out as a bit odd is the clock. It just doesn't look like a foreshortened circle in perspective right now.

If you expand out (slightly) to the foreshortened square plane that the circle/ellipse is drawn inside I can absolutely see how you got there but that square plane looks like a foreshortened rectangle rather than a foreshortened square. And that's the problem. An ellipse drawn inside a rectangle will look like a foreshortened oval.

That said, you did everything "correct". I can see your work (as my elementary teacher loved to say) But it's easy to introduce a bit of human error and even technically correct perspective can look off in the end as those little errors compound. So you just need to keep making it look correct all along the way.

So just change that rectangular plane around the clock to a square plane and you are good to go!

General caveat: I am not a lawyer so all opinions are my own and based on personal experience and/or research.

@Kumica-Truong-0 said in Explaining copyright to non-artists:

@davidhohn thanks for taking the time to respond To answer your questions (and I apologise if you read my previous reply in which case this may get a little repetitive)

When you get the owner's blessing is it in writing?
When I say "get the owner's blessing", it more often than not occurs after I've already done the illustration. It's nothing formal, and more out of politeness and stems from the thought of "how would I feel if someone drew my face and tagged me on social media without (me) having any prior knowledge of it?"

That's a good instinct. In legal terms what you are referring to "The Right of Publicity"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity

I'm not sure if there is any legal obligation to get written consent, however as a matter of 'not stepping on anyones toes', I will first show/send the illustration to the person in question and wait for a (positive) response before sharing it to a wider audience.

If you are still thinking of your animal illustrations, there is a question of whether Right of Publicity extends to animals
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/grumpy-cat-gets-movie-deal-560658

But getting written consent definitely limits your legal exposure should the owner change their mind at some point in the future.

And this, is what I refer to as "getting their blessing".. and is usually in a chat/DM so technically in writing.

Yes e-mails, chats and DM's would be considered "in writing" and can be legally binding.

Question - where does the model fit in to the copyright equation? Do they get acknowledged? In the case of an animal, what happens? What happens if you identify them and/or namedrop i.e. essentially using their brand for your benefit - does this change your legal obligations?

If the animal has a recognized brand then, yes, you would arguably be building on the creativity of someone else and would increase your legal exposure. That concept is discussed in the article posted above.

And when you say "give" do you mean they get a printed copy, or a digital file -- or do you mean you give them physical original art?
I give them a digital copy along with a personal use licence. In the case of the cat lady however, I've given a lot more than I've needed to (including several illustrations in digital format, merch, $250 donation as a token of my appreciation for the exposure she provided) - in fact, I don't believe I am legally obliged to give anything at all (?) so anything I do give should be a bonus.. right?

Based on the information you've written in this thread, you are not obligated to give the pet owner anything.

Can I assume the cat owner is the client? What are you trying to get from the client that she isn't giving you? Are you looking for payment (totally reasonable BTW) or do you just want to maintain your copyright?
Normally, I would be looking for both payment and to keep my copyrights. But in this instance, I am simply looking for her to understand what it is she is actually asking for, and why it is unreasonable and completely unfair.
In her mind, it isn't even about the exposure - I just don't think she understands the value of an illustration and the work/time that goes into a single piece, let alone 16 pieces. In her mind, the fact that I "used" her cat to base my illustrations on. In her words, "you used my cat as a subject and I'll give you an audience of 110k followers to promote your colouring book, so in exchange you should give me the source files and copyrights"

I am a little confused here. Did you create a coloring book on your own or did the pet owner commission you to create it? Your initial message says "I was then asked to illustrate an entire colouring book." This tells me that you were asked/hired to make the coloring book. A coloring book that you would NOT have created on your own. Do I have this right?

What rights did that exclusive license cover?
Exclusive rights, worldwide for as long as the first edition was in print

While a better than Work For Hire (handing over your copyrights) "Exclusive rights, worldwide for as long as the first edition was in print" is still a significant grant of rights.
Are you limiting those rights in any way? For example are you licensing book format rights only or are you also including merchandise? Are you allowing your images to be included in anthologies, excerpted for magazine or online use etc?

I would personally recommend licensing ONLY the rights the client intends to put the work to right now. So if they plan to make a 32 page hardcover picture book and they expect to print (and sell) 5000 copies. License them the rights to print 5000 copies of your illustrations formatted in a hardcover 32 page picture book. And nothing more.

If the book is successful and they sell out of the 5000 copies they can then come back to you and negotiate a license for 10000 more copies. Or they can negotiate a license for a paperback version ore they can negotiate a license to reproduce the book online or . . . you get the idea.

That is way too generous of you. I have a few guesses why they would offer a WFH and none of them are flattering.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in my explanation. Ultimately, my issue wasn't with the client as I was able to convince them in the end.
My issue was with the 2 other illustrators the client asked for quotes from, to compare my prices as well as the contract I was offering. I thought both illustrators would confirm my point that a licensing agreement was best for both parties thereby convincing the client it was best practice.. but turns out, both illustrators offer transfer of copyright. I'm just trying to understand why!!

Oh, I understood you correctly. IF two other illustrators (that you describe as "well established") readily agreed to WFH it indicates that they are either woefully ignorant of basic business practices or . . . (well, this is where it gets into the unflattering part)

But is it possible your client was lying to you? Unfortunately, it would not surprise me.
If you can confirm with the illustrators in question that they did offer WFH terms you may also be able to get them to explain their reasoning.
And then please send them over to these boards so they can learn how to license their work properly!

Uhhh . . . . . wow! That's pretty cool!
This is all kinds of moody!

@Kumica-Truong-0 said in Explaining copyright to non-artists:

Hi all! I'm sure this topic has been discussed at length in the past so you'll have to forgive me - I'm new here.

No worries. This is a topic that should come up often.

So I seem to keep running into issues relating to copyright. The best way to describe them is probably through 2 situations in the past month that have just blown my mind

1. I do a lot of pet illustrations, and in many cases use it on/for merch to raise funds for a related cause, non-profit or the pet themselves. I ofcourse get the pet owner's blessing first, and give them the illustration for free.

Couple things. When you get the owner's blessing is it in writing? Contract or e-mail or even a good ol' letter? Avoid verbal "contracts" as they are effectively unenforceable. And when you say "give" do you mean they get a printed copy, or a digital file -- or do you mean you give them physical original art?

So anyway, on this particular occasion, I was asked to donate a colouring page for Mr. Cat's goody bag which were to be handed out to the kids at his meet'n'greet event, which I happily did as it would help raise awareness of special needs pets.

As it was so well received I was then asked to illustrate an entire colouring book. The owner however, expected to receive all the source files (for 16+ illustrations) as well as an unlimited licence to make copies of the colouring book.. FOR FREE! Wait, my mistake.. not for free, in exchange for using her cat as a model and for a few posts/stories on her IG account. I mean, sure, she has over 100,000 followers but seriously?! My illustrations are very stylised so the cat I drew could damn well be ANY cat. I can't seem to get through to her and have basically given up trying

Can I assume the cat owner is the client? What are you trying to get from the client that she isn't giving you? Are you looking for payment (totally reasonable BTW) or do you just want to maintain your copyright?

but am wondering how I could better explain how this is completely unfair if a similar situation were to arise in future.

I can understand how frustrating this can be -- but also don't overcomplicate it. Just say "I don't work for free". Everyone understands this concept. And if the client tries to use the: "But think of the exposure!" , simply explain that your credit card company doesn't take "exposure" payments.

That's not to say that exposure doesn't have some potential value. If you feel that exposure value is worthwhile you could offer something like an "exposure discount" -- but I would still require being paid some amount for the time, energy, and resources dedicated to the project.

Something to keep in mind. The fact that this client has 100,000+ followers means that this project has significant potential value to the client. Therefore any licensing fee you quote should be adjusted upward accordingly. When pricing a project you don't base it solely on the value of the project to YOU (too many illustrators price projects on their "hourly rate"). Rather pro illustrators calculate the licensing fee based on the value of the project to the CLIENT.

Does anyone know of a good explainer video or resource to explain to non-artists from the artist's perspective?

Now that you mention it -- no. Not that it doesn't exist somewhere on YouTube's platform, but I spend a lot of time researching and thinking about copyright and licensing and I've never come across what you are talking about. It would be a valuable resource though!

1. I was recently asked to illustrate my first children's book ever but when receiving the contract that requested i hand over my copyrights, i refused, and offered an exclusive licence instead.

What rights did that exclusive license cover?

After much back and forth I finally got them to agree, however as a part of this process, they requested quotes from 2 other illustrators (in an attempt to ascertain what was industry best practice) - these were both well established illustrators, i might add - and what I thought would prove the points i had been arguing, did the complete opposite, as both illustrators offered to hand over their copyrights.

As a freelance illustrator there is only one reason I can use to justify transferring my copyright to a client, and that is -- the budget for the project is so high that I feel it compensates me for EVERY POTENTIAL USE the image could be put to for the duration of copyright protection (my life +70 years).

My opening quote for a Work For Hire (WFH) project is $30,000 per illustration. I feel that is a perfectly reasonable price for a client to exclusively own, and profit from, a single image for what will be (approximately) 110 years.

I should note that I have yet to have a client take me up on this, BUT it quickly shifts the conversation away from WFH to a discussion of the rights the client ACTUALLY NEEDS RIGHT NOW AND HAS THE BUDGET FOR.

The added bonus is, if the project is wildly successful and the client needs more rights in the future, they can ALWAYS come back to license them.

The only explanation I could think of was that, they had so much work coming in, it was just easier to give copyrights rather than to try and manage a bunch of licensing agreements (renewals etc.)

That is way too generous of you. I have a few guesses why they would offer a WFH and none of them are flattering. The largest part of my business model is based on "passive income" (that is, ongoing revenue generated from projects that I have already completed)

Does anyone here offer transfer of their copyrights or know of anyone that does? If so, why‽!

Like @NessIllustration when I started out (just out of school and was ignorant of the concept of licensing copyright) I signed WFH contracts. I will always be grateful for Graphic Artists Guild for offering a class in copyright and contracts which opened my eyes right up. So while I am open to a WFH transfer of right (for the $30,000/per image previously mentioned) every project I have done in that last 15 years has been for specific and limited grant of rights.

And as a final thought if that $30,000/image seems outrageously expensive to you -- I guarantee you that there are illustrators who think that is way too cheap! I have images that are ticking right up there in terms of income generated via relicensing to multiple clients over the years.

@KariBu Very clever!

@Heather-Boyd Oh yeah! Your ellipses look great! That's the thing about perspective -- you only notice it when it doesn't quite look right.