Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:The issue with the copyright is really confusing. Should I or everybody else maybe ask for their permission to create artwork based on Disney characters?
No, because artwork is one's own interpretation of something else.
The problem with the daycare centers was that they are a paid institution. Even if the artist did it for free, Disney could make the case that some money was exchanged elsewhere that did compensate for the artist, and since Disney wasn't getting a cut of it (as it is their copyright), it would be illegal.
With fan art, it's not made for mass distribution or for a profit, and on the internet, it's an even bigger gray area. Often the best reason that many people use (and one I've been discussing at length in quite a few e-mails) is the Fair Use exemption from copyright laws. Essentially if a copyrighted material is being reproduced for educational or referential reasons, and specifically done with no commercial intent and no profit gained (and no money involved), then there is nothing illegal being done.
For example, let's say that Sarah Jane Smith writes a book called "My Adventures with The Doctor", and a student writes a book report about it. He quotes a few passages from the book in his report, and since it's being used both educationally and referentially, the copyright isn't infringed. But if another student decides to take Chapter 15: K-9 and Company, and pass it off as a creative story he wrote, that would be both plagiarism and copyright infringement.
With fan art, stuff done like animated avatars or masterpieces of Microsoft Paint belong solely to the creator. Disney may own the copyright of the images, but it's the creator who owns both the DVD or other source of the images, and the programs used. Disney can't sue Disney Tattoo Guy or the tattoo artist who drew on him, and they can't sue a 5 year old who decides to doodle Mickey Mouse in his spare time.
Escapay