https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEP5zb_eXvX2q2BlH8XkXNA/videos

I discovered Pete Beard's "Unsung Heroes of Illustration" videos a few months back and will visit it from time to time.
I found myself watching this channel this morning and it was a lovely balm for an otherwise stressful day.

It occurred to me that if there was ever an audience who should know about this channel it was anyone who has subscribed to SVS! The creator has a very mellow british accent and the artwork is straight up inspirational.

You'll find artists that you didn't know you loved, and possibly discover a historical connection to the artists that you already love.

Please post other resources like this that you've discovered.

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/

Watched the video. My verdict: I don't know.

There are two different issues being blended in the video. Content vs arrangement of information.

As for content -- I've never seen Dunn's book but nothing he highlighted was unique or original to me. I've been drawing, learning, and teaching a long time and these are simply concepts and techniques that I've learned over the years. They are fundamentally facts. Facts are not protected by copyright.

Arrangement of information: Given that this is a fact-based book that is designed to teach, the arrangement of information is important and is more readily protected by copyright. From the video there appears to be a basis for a claim on this point.

BUT Dunn has not seen the finished book. Amount and nature of infringement matters. The only way to properly evaluate is by putting each book side by side and carefully evaluating both. Ideally, done by an impartial third party.

Instead we are only seeing one side that is clearly highly biased.

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!

Every so often I try out new assignments for myself. I love the idea that by simply changing the lighting of a scene you can alter the experience for the viewer. I recently had a go with this european village photo I found. Starting with this bright, sunny daytime scene ...

I spent a few hours turning it into this moody, mysterious night scene.

Pretty fun! Just thought I'd share.

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.

@mag For a submission ready dummy I would suggest a hybrid of the two options you posted.

Take your rough sketches and add a bit of shape based toning (I use the lasso tool in photoshop). In the image below I simply added a few minutes worth of toning to the rough sketch version you posted.

This is one of my favorite things to do when working on a dummy because you get so much value out of relatively little effort! And it encourages me to think about designing the images at a very early stage.

@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".

@kylebeaudette

I agree with what they were saying on the podcast, that it is often 'the mark of an amateur'. Someone draws a flower for 20 minutes, then writes copyright info all over it or even a huge signature and date. Instead of a nice flower, I see their ideas of grandeur and paranoia.

Fundamentally I agree with you (see my earlier response).
The trouble is that what you've described above isn't what was described in the podcast. Will referenced a "big copyright "c" in the bottom with their signature"

I want to be fair and not pick on Will here. It's possible that in that brief comment in this one podcast he was picturing what you describe.
But a new illustrator trying to make their way in this industry likely would not.
A new illustrator would hear "pros don't do that".
That new illustrator, looking for clarification, might head over to Will, Jake or Lee's Instagram pages. There they would find multiple posts with no credit line at all!

This is a mistake.

Maybe the guys have a good reason not to include a credit line on work posted online. I've yet to hear it, but I'm always open to a reasonable argument.

My opinion and personal experience is that posting work online with no way to link the work back to the OC is bad advice for an illustrator starting out in this industry at this time.

@danielerossi I marked the time in the episode that the issue is raised. It's at the 17:46 minute mark. So you can check it out.

I want to acknowledge that this is not the point or even the focus of the question; the issue of including a copyright symbol in the bottom corner is only raised in passing, but it is a criticism that I've seen often in the illustration community. Usually with some variation of the opinion: "Including a credit line isn't needed, or is unprofessional"

One of the things that I like about the 3PPodcast is that it's directed to new illustrators. So clarifying an incredibly important point like this is better done sooner than later!

but what goes through my mind when I add my copyright and signature — “someone may photoshop it out” But that’s the reality of the Internet.

It sure is the reality of the internet! There's no way to completely protect your work from being infringed or stolen. But by the same token, I lock my car each night. Sure a window could be broken or it could be stolen in the morning but I still do fairly easy and reasonable things to make sure I protect my property.

making sure not to add my copyright/sig too close to the edges of an Instagram post. This is in case someone uses the Repost app to share my image where the app adds the original poster credit along the sides. Of course, it would be my name displayed but after a while (if I’m lucky to go as viral!), it can be changed.

This doesn't seem paranoid to me -- it seems smart!
I don't think that most people on the internet are looking to deny creators their credit. They just aren't thinking about it! A repost app is trying to make it easier to maintain credit but as you point out, the design of the app isn't foolproof. No reason not to make it a bit easier for future fans!

@kylebeaudette So I listened to today's podcast as well.
Can I assume this post is in reference to the comment made at 17:46 about putting copyright info on work that's posted online? I recognize that in the post above you are exaggerating the point being discussed -- but that's not going to stop the soapbox I'm about to climb up on.

I'm going to use the "you" in the following post to mean all illustrators and not you specifically.

The idea that it's not necessary or even considered "amateurish" to put your name on the work you post to your website or social media is mistaken.

Instead ALWAYS PUT YOUR NAME ON YOUR WORK
It is the height of professionalism and is required in the internet age we live in.

Think about it this way -- later in the question Jake references this quote:
"An artist's worst problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity"
What could be more obscure than putting your work out on a social media site -- a place that is designed to share work around -- WITHOUT YOUR NAME‽

As with all things there is a balance to strike.
Should you plaster your name across the image in a way that obscures the illustration?
No, of course not.

Should you not put any kind of credit or contact information on your image at all, because "the pros don't do that"?
No way! Take credit for the amazing work you create!

I know first hand that an art director who comes across your image on Pinterest, or Tumblr or reblogged on Instagram etc. and sees "YourName.com" (or some reasonable variation thereof) clearly posted on an image , rather than being put off, will instead thank you for it! Ideally by contacting you with a project.

So sorry about the confusion!
Glad you guys didn't miss the Book Breakdown.
And I'll be more careful with my posting information in the future!

@LauraA You post an interesting question!
First I think it's important to distinguish the definitions of "fan art". The distinctions got a bit muddled during the podcast conversation

The question asked in the podcast was about "fan art". That is, artwork based on intellectual property owned by someone else (Batman, Captain Marvel, Star Wars, etc). In this case the fan-artist is looking at an image already created and then making a "new" image that looks substantially similar. In copyright law this is called a "derivative".

Fundamentally all fan art of this kind is an infringement. To legally reproduce it requires permission from the current IP owner.

As was mentioned in the podcast this fundamental infringement can (and often is) allowed/tolerated/sometimes encouraged by the IP owner for a variety of reasons that Jake covers in the podcast.

Now there's what you created for Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe . . .
What you made (while certainly artwork of a story of which you are a fan) is not "fan art"
Here's why:
The copyright to a text applies ONLY to the text and is owned by the author.
The copyright to an image applies ONLY to the image and is owned by the illustrator.
As you wrote:

I have liked the Narnia series since I was a kid, long before the movies came out. When I did my own illustrations I went out of the way to read the text carefully and not take my imagery either from the movies or from Pauline Baynes's lovely original illustrations. Any apparent similarity is either from the text or from my study of 1940s evacuee clothing

With this piece you've done exactly what every illustrator who has ever worked with an author has done for decades. The author can never claim ownership of the artist's visual interpretation of the written text.

You mention the "film producers". The film producers of LW&W created and own only their version of the story (the script) and their versions of the characters (actors likenesses and costuming choices)
Any similarities between your illustration and the movie interpretations CAN overlap but must be limited to the description in the original text. If your illustration looks significantly like the actor, or use a distinct costuming choice from the movie then you've crossed the line into infringing on the LW&W movie.

In this post I'm talking just about copyright. One of the fun new wrinkles for IP is that of trademark. I did see the there's a "word mark" held by the C.S. Lewis (PTE.) Ltd. for "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe". So if you were going to aggressively promote and sell the print I would suggest contacting an IP attorney

@carlianne You can go into your system preferences for the keyboard and instruct the OS that !+?=‽

You'll find that some programs and websites support it and some don't. But it's always worth it!

In the episode Lee (kind of) stumbled onto one of the things that gives me great pleasure in my typing life and so I would like to add a bit more information for anyone else who would like to use this woefully underused punctuation mark . . .

The "brand new" punctuation Lee created in this podcast is in fact already a thing -- and an awesome thing it is!

This mark --> ‽ <-- is called an interrobang (although I fully admit that "Quemation" is a much better name) created by Martin Speckter in 1962.

I first heard about it from this episode of 99Percent Invisible
It is now my favorite punctuation mark. I mean, who wouldn't love something as expressive at this‽

@Randi-Gordon Great list. Thanks for posting!

@Becky I had this question starting out. Here's my personal anecdote:
I wanted to include iconic red Converse high tops in this children's theater poster I was doing. I contacted an IP attorney via Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

The advice I got for the project was, technically I should remove the logo, but that most companies don't have a problem with logos being included in smaller projects like a theater poster as long as it doesn't disparage the company. That is, legally it was an infringement (but a trademark infringement rather than copyright infringement) but that the infringement would likely be "tolerated".

I still decided to remove the Converse logo from the poster as it wasn't absolutely required to communicate my keywords.

But for instances like this I would recommend checking with an IP attorney.

Thank you for the links. The copyright document will be useful in the long run, but seems intimidating at the moment.

I totally get that! Nibble away at it in chunks. Perhaps on a night when insomnia is an issue? But if you make your living via copyright (and all illustrators do to one degree or another) I think it just makes sense to know how it works.

Do you recommend a particular edition of the Business and Legal Forms for Illustrators?

Not really. If you can get the most recent, go for it! But my copy is easily 15 years old.