Commons:Deletion requests/File:10.18.09BigAppleCon1.jpg
Delete User:KTo288 has nominated this image for deletion, providing this as the rationale: "The likeness of Batman and Spiderman are owned by their respective publishers, in addition this is a derivative work of the artist who is still at work, no permission from any of the three."
Keep Regarding the publishers, making sketches and other artwork depicting superheroes and other characters, including copyright-protected ones, is S.O.P. at comic book conventions. Conventions are a venue for, among other things, publicity for comic book publishers and the entire industry. It's why the publishers themselves show up to talk to fans, participate in panel discussions, etc, especially when you consider the current health of the American comic book industry, or lackthereof. They want these things to be publicized. It's why the Big Apple Con grants me a press pass for this very reason. Copyright infringement is not a legal matter that occurs in a vacuum. When a copyright holder wants someone to cease and desist using their intellectual property, they tend to notify them. When they don't care, they tend not to care. Marvel and DC never prohibit artists, even ones not currently working for them, from profiting from making sketches and other types of artwork.
Regarding the artist, Eric Michael Maruscak, I'm not sure how permission is needed from him if its a given that the characters do not belong to him, nor do I see how the fact that he is still at work is at all relevant to this. Again, don't you think struggling artists want to be photographed at these events? When someone like him goes to a convention to make artwork, he does so for the expressed purpose of being seen and photographed! It's how they get covered in sources like this one. The idea that he would not want people to record him doing this unless they ask permission is just ludicrous. How else are the goings-on at the convention to be covered by the media? Nightscream (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: The original rationale for speedy deletion was correct: this is a derivative work, completely clear. Not enforcing copyright is a complete different thing than releasing something under a free licence, and our Precautionary principle does not allow rationales that base themselves on "The copyright owner does not care" kind of arguments. Belgrano (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
