Very OT: Copyright of characters

OK, I belong to a church and help with youth work, we are a fairly big church and as such we employ someone to do all of the artwork, graphics, flyers etc and he is very good. They have recently designed a character to be used with all youth work displays.

Problem is it is an exact copy of Marvin the paranoid android from Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy (the new one), question is, do you think that the character design is copyrighted? It will be displayed quite a lot in church, on power point presentations, videos etc so just don’t want to be doing something we shouldn’t.

They have recently designed a character

it is an exact copy of Marvin the paranoid android

Designed is the wrong word then surely?

Yep, ok, used?

Even if it’s nit copyrighted, you may be guilty of passing off.

Best with your own design tbh

It would be easier to just get something that’s a new design and not a copy and use that – you know you own it then?

I’d suggest they tweak it, i.e different colour, shaped eyes, longer legs etc, so as to differentiate it enough.

If, as you say, it is a complete rip off and looks exactly the same, I would be concerned with paying them for what they’ve done on it to-date.

Let’s see it.

Robot sells Christianity weirdness!

You’re not making profit out of it, so they’d have to be a real bunch of arses to take you to court. That said, artists have a right to make a living, so ripping them off isn’t really game. Do something based on Marvin, then it is a ‘creative interpretation’ innit? OR, stump up the readies for a bespoke cartoon by an actual artist.

The image rights will be owned by the film company.

you shouldn’t be using it without permission. Obviously when the man from the the legal dept of the film company to check up on you, you’ll be in trouble..;-)

Oh.. and that chap you employ to do design, take away his tracing paper and see what he comes up with

Once worked with a student on some e-learning stuff. He came back with this “Adjective Detective” or some shit which he obviously hadn’t done himself (computer science student). I googled “detective cartoon” on google images and this image was on the first page.

My response was “you can’t do that. Go away and draw one yourself!”

The licensing for Marvin the Paranoid Android and all images pertaining to it is likely held by a huge Hollywood movie studio.

You’re not making profit out of it, so they’d have to be a real bunch of arses to take you to court.

Possibly, but different using it to sell a religious message adds an extra dimension. I wouldn’t want anyone using anything I’d created for religious purposes, irrespective of payment.

not to mention Douglas Adams is a “radical atheist”* so you might just piss him off enough to sue you 😉

*

it conveyed the fact that he really meant it. “I am convinced that there is not a god,” he said

Bit ironic to use an android in a religious context, no? Created by Man in his own image… 🙂

not to mention Douglas Adams is a “radical atheist” so you might just piss him off enough to sue you

And as such you can say what you like about him, since he’s dead and won’t be in heaven looking down on us all.

If it really is recognisable as Marvin the paranoid android then i wouldn’t use it. Aside from it being morally questionable which I would have thought should be a consideration for a church group it just devalues whatever message you are trying to get across.

If I saw it and recognised it as the other character my first thoughts would be rip off rather than to focus on the intended message.

All valid points (well most!), thanks, I have passed on my concerns.

You’re welcome.