Recently in art Category

February 26, 2010

We Can Use Clip Art, Right?

Thumbnail image for Cat.pngDear Rich: Our company offers a website directory service for advertisers. The advertisers can supply a photo but some of them now want to supply artwork. As long as the image came from clip-art, or some other publicly "royalty-free" stock photo site, it can be used without permission, correct? We wish that were true. 
Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify. 
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free. 
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection. 
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like. 
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art. 

February 24, 2010

Protecting Equestrian Graphics

InternationaVelvet2.jpgDear Rich: I am equestrian artist that will be adding a t-shirt line to my portfolio. My graphic designer has created my horseshoe graphic, which I own and I have created one line phrases for each shirt. I will also be using these graphics on other items such as bags, mugs etc. I have a few questions as this is all new territory for me. (1) I am currently working with a woman who can embroider, applique and silk screen them for me. How can I prevent her from selling my line herself on her own web site? (2) I will be in contact with a company that will make the shirts and then also bring them to trade shows in our industry. Having not talked to them yet, my guess is they pay you an amount for every shirt sold since they are doing most of the marketing. (3) I don't understand the licensing process much and what are the benefits and how do I even do it? How can I prevent others from duplicating my work...most importantly the phrases I come up with as these are unique. Since the Dear Rich Staff is trying to increase readership and since we have a relative who is a devoted equestrian, it wouldn't be a good idea  to discuss how much we don't like all that horse stuff (especially the weird little English hats with the brim) and how we can't stand "horse movies." (And being lawyers we don't understand why there are no mandatory helmet laws except in Florida and New York and even then, that's only for kids under 16 -- what's up with that? And what about a helmet for the horse while we're at it.). 
Anyway, aside from our problems with over-sized four-legged animals, you had a question (or questions).  Okay, here goes: (1) Generally, if you own the copyright (or trademark) on the merchandise, you control who can reproduce it. So, the woman who works for you wouldn't have any rights to reproduce the horse art. If you're still concerned, you can prevent the worker from competing against you by having her sign a written agreement that states she can't sell your designs.  If your designs are not protectable under either copyright or trademark law (see below), that agreement may be hard to enforce. (2) We're not sure that #2, above, is a question so we can't help you with the company or explain how they do business. You should ask them about their terms and then compare them with competitors. We assume you're aware of online merchandising sources like Zazzle and Cafe Press. (3) A license is a form of permission -- in which you allow somebody to exploit property you own in return for a payment, usually in the form of a royalty. It can be a great way to do business because the company doing the licensing (the "licensee") will often police and protect your work as well. You can read more about it in this handy Nolo form kit on the subject. 
Short phrase thing. You will have a hard time stopping others from using your short phrases (by themselves) since they're not protected under copyright law. We've talked about this a few times in the past and we're paranoid about boring our readers with more on the subject.  You can always protect those phrases when used in association with a graphic -- that is you can stop others from copying the combination. You may be able to register each phrase as a trademark for use with T-shirts and similar merchandise. However, that's a little bit of a financial investment as each phrase will require a separate registration for each class of goods. Tally ho!
December 3, 2009

Good Source for Hard Copy Public Domain Clip Art

MomBook.jpgDear Rich: My sister and I are planning on writing a small book about our mom. I plan on illustrating the book. What is a good source of clip art that I can use without worrying about copyright infringement ? I actually want a hard copy of images that I can physically cut out the old fashioned way. Wow, we love real clip art -- not that digital stuff -- and we love you for reminding us of back in the day when we used to write the Monroe County obituaries and the HOT LINE column at the Bloomington Herald-Telephone (now the Herald-Times) and where the "art" department consisted of a room with unbelievable clip art catalogs. (The Dear Rich Staff could live inside that clip-art world.) ... Right, you had a question! The short answer is that one of the best sources of hard-copy clip art is Dover Publications (and no, we're not a paid affiliate).

For more information on copyright-free content, check out Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
November 5, 2009

How Much Public Domain Can You Eat?

eatpublicdomain.jpg
Dear Rich: I am creating a computer program that requires a lot of line art. I found a series of books ('Scan This Book', 'Scan This Book Two', and, of course, 'Scan This Book Three') that display excellent public domain line art. The legalese at the beginning of the book states that all of the art is copyright free, but that the selection and layout is copyrighted. My program has nothing to do with distributing clip art, and I do not need to use the layouts used in the books. If I were to use most of the art from these books, would I be infringing on the author's/publisher's copyright? Would it matter if I slightly altered the images by coloring them? Would it matter if I combined their selection of images with other public domain images? The short answer is that you're fine copying the material in the book. Like all-you-can-eat restaurants, owners of public domain collections don't mind how much you digest, they just don't want you taking all their stuff and selling it somewhere else. Assuming your software product is not created to sell public domain art, there's no reason to bother with any of your other questions.
Copyright Rules. As you know, you can do whatever you want with public domain artwork. However, under copyright law, the owners of the book may have a compilation copyright. We say "may" because compiling public domain works doesn't automatically amount to a compilation copyright. There must be sufficient creativity in the judgment, selection and arrangement of the public domain material -- for example, "The Best American Stories from the 19th Century" or "Sketches of Victorian Kitchens" are probably protectable because they require decision-making and selections. Even if the book constitutes a copyrightable collection, that copyright is still regarded as being "thin" -- meaning that you would need to lift nearly all of the thing "as is" to infringe it. Public domain compilers such as Dover are primarily concerned with someone taking their material and competing with them. In summary, if you are using the public domain material for aesthetic or decorative purposes and not redistributing the artwork for re-use or re-sale, you're free to do whatever you want.
BTW. The Dear Rich Staff believes that the Scan This Book series is out of print (we couldn't find new copies available online and we couldn't locate the publisher Art Direction Book Company). That doesn't mean nobody will assert copyright; but it does indicate that it's not at the forefront of a publisher's radar.

To learn more about public domain, see Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
October 23, 2009

Animal Mascots, Therapy, and Fair Use

Thumbnail image for TrixMagnets1979-Front.jpg
Dear Rich: I am an artist studying the use of corporate mascots such as the Trix rabbit. One of the main points in my thesis is the lack of freedom in discussing the mascots  used to sell products to children (and the danger that poses). As part of my exploration of the topic I am creating artworks made out of these mascots, cutting up toys and making sculpture from the pieces. I am doing this for my Masters degree and may continue onto a Ph.D. I have some questions. Am I infringing copyright if I: (1) show the work at my degree show? (2) show the work in a commercial gallery? (3) publish images of the work in a commercial book (4) make drawings or paintings of the works and publish these commercially? or (5) were to claim they were produced in art therapy sessions would they count as informational? I understand that I would be allowed to reproduce these animal mascots for informational purposes, for example in a textbook or news article. (6) Does the exception only apply to reproductions of the mascots as they are? I noticed, for example, that someone had been prosecuted for putting Barbie and Ken dolls in lewd positions and photographing them. (7) Is there any way around this problem such as publishing in a country with no laws on copyright or publishing anonymously? I feel very passionately about this topic and would be willing to consider creating the artworks as anonymous graffiti if necessary. 
NIMBY Please. The Dear Rich Staff feels your passion but prefaces this response with one request - if you are going to take the graffiti route, could you please avoid tagging our street. (We live in the outer Richmond District in San Francisco, a few blocks from the Walgreens). We've got this law in the city that requires the residents to remove graffiti within 30 days and frankly we're tired of using toxic cleaning products and paint. 
You Have Quesitons. Your letter included seven questions and to avoid exceeding the short attention span of our loyal readership, we're going to try and keep our answers brief. As for questions 1 and 2, yes you are infringing, but you have a powerful fair use argument and are not likely to be discovered by anyone who might care. Re: question 3 and 4, yes, you are infringing and commercial uses make the fair use arguments a tougher sell. Still, the trend is to permit this type of use and we think you will likely qualify under a fair use defense (which by the way means you may have to defend yourself in court). 
You're in Art Therapy. As for question 5, you got us with this one. We understand art therapy and its implications and we're fascinated by the argument that copying someone's work is a transformative use (as required for a fair use defense). Alas, we believe that while you are being transformed by the therapy, the underlying work is not. On that basis (and with no caselaw to support our position), we don't think the art-therapy-as-fair-use argument will fly. 
Informational Uses and Trademarks. In question 6, you ask about informational uses. Here you're confusing copyrights and trademarks, a common error since mascots function as both. The "informational" issue relates to use as a trademark. All of your potential uses appear to be informational since you are using these images to make editorial statements. As for making Barbi and Ken do lewd things, that's a whole other issue we'll address in another blog. In any case, we understand that everyone can go through an I-hate-my-Barbie phase.  
The Land of No Copyright. As for question 7, we think you're imagining an off-shore world where you can infringe to your heart's content. The reality is that if your work is sold or distributed in the U.S., you can be sued for infringement here, as can any retailer offering your work. If you're a U.S. citizen that makes it even easier to go after you. So unless you're planning to move somewhere where the residents have set up servers with infringing or illegal content (often a country that ends with the suffix, "stan"), then you will be a target for lawsuits. 
Some Random Thoughts. In a surprising cross-species mascot switcheroo, we were surprised to learn that Trix was once promoted by stick figures and Mickey Mouse. 

To learn more about trademark and copyright law, take a look at my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark Law: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 16, 2009

Public Art = Private Copyright

rodinthinker.jpgIf I paint a picture of a statue that's located on a public street and then sell the picture, am I in violation of copyright law? Also, I should probably mention that the statue and I are in the U.S. and that the sculptor is alive (although I do not know what the state of the copyright on the work is). The short answer is that an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work -- including a publicly viewable one such as a mural -- is an infringement. Also, the fact that the sculptor is still alive indicates that the work is protected under copyright law. Therefore, if the copyright owner sees your reproduction, there's a reasonable chance you'll open your mailbox to find a cease and desist letter. If you're talking about a single painting, obviously the chances of being noticed are far less than if you are selling postcard reproductions. And it's also unlikely that artists will go after reproductions that are part of a blog reporting public art. Similarly, the less prominent that the sculpture is within your painting -- for example, you painted a city street and the  sculpture is simply one of many elements in the painting -- the less likely you are to trigger a complaint (and the better your chances for arguing fair use). A film production also used an architectural works exemption to justify public sculpture reproductions in a Batman movie. Despite our warnings, the Dear Rich Staff believes that some public art begs for unauthorized reproductions. (By the way here's a nice article on the subject of public art controversies.)

For information about all types of copyright law, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 8, 2009

She Wants to Use Bloch Paintings on TV

bloch2.jpg
Dear Rich: I am a television producer who would love to use the work of the Danish painter Carl Bloch within a project of mine. Bloch was born on May 23, 1834 in Copenhagen, Denmark. I'm sure his work is in public domain and out of copyright but would I have to pay any kind of royalties or fees to anyone to broadcast his paintings on television.You are correct. Bloch's work is in the public domain. Danish copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years and Bloch died in 1890. You should not have to pay a fee for the right to broadcast the paintings on a television program, however you may have to pay a fee to acquire access to the paintings -- for example, some museums require photographic access fees or fees for the right to use photographic reproductions prepared especially for  the museum. Note, as we have indicated in previous posts, there is no copyright in a slavish photo reproduction of a public domain painting.
If the work is in the public domain, why is there a copyright notice on Bloch's painting (above)? Establishments such as the Hope Gallery earn revenue by selling reproductions of public domain works and probably include the copyright notice with the intention of discouraging competitors and tracking copying on the Internet (such as performed here by the Dear Rich Staff). We suppose we could remove the notice (since copyright law prohibits the placement of false copyright notices (See 506(c)) but we're too busy packing up personal belongings to mess with Photoshop right now. (By the way copyright law prohibits the fraudulent removal of notices as well (see 506(d).) 

To learn more about the public domain of works, check out Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
October 5, 2009

Brown Bagging Banned Books

catcher.jpgDear Rich: My nonprofit foundation wants to create and sell a calendar of bookmarks with photos of books that have been challenged or banned. The photos show the cover in a scene or "still life" that relates to the title. In all cases, the title can be seen, even when much of the book cover is otherwise obscured (at least 10% is obscured). Some book covers also have artwork by artists who illustrated the book. Only one of the books is in the public domain. The Foundation is planning to sell about 2000 editions of this 16-month calendar bookmark. Do we need permission from each publisher if we use the jacket or cover of the book in a composed "scene" where the jackets are obscured by at least 10%? What if we photographed the books wrapped in brown paper with the title handwritten? Sorry, we wanted to answer your question during "Banned Books Week," but time just got away from us. Hey, we like your brown-bag idea (it works for some) and no permission would be required. 
Still Lifes. As for your "still life" concept, the safest course is to get permission for the book cover art. At the same time, if someone says no, or you can't locate the owner, you can probably get by without permission. You have a strong argument that your work is transformative and constitutes fair use. BTW, the Dear Rich Staff isn't sure what you mean when you write of using "artwork by artists who illustrated the book(s)." If you have their permission for the  additional art, great. Otherwise, you might be pushing the fair use boundaries by reproducing non-cover illustrations.
Trademark and titles. Single book titles are rarely protected -- that's why your brown bag approach is okay. However, Harry Potter, because it's a series, is federally registered and Warner Brothers owns the rights for calendars (Reg. No.3419797). For that reason, you might not want to use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on your cover, packaging or advertising. That also puts you in a better position to argue that your internal use of Harry Potter is editorial and non-infringing ... should the issue arise.

To find out more about permissions of all types, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
September 21, 2009

Music Ensemble Wants to Use Turner Paintings

turner-storm.jpgDear Rich: I run a small nonprofit chamber music ensemble and am researching images to use on the brochure we are putting together for our season. I'd love to use a Turner painting of Venetian canals, since it echoes imagery in a song in one of our programs. My graphics person insists that all paintings are protected, and that I need to find images from an online source like shutterstock, which, needless to say, doesn't have any Turner paintings. Can you clarify? According to the Dear Rich Staff's research, the British "painter of light" died in 1851. In Europe, copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the author. Unless we're missing something (or we've got the wrong British painter named William Turner), all of the paintings are in the public domain. Perhaps your graphics person believes that the photographs of fine art paintings have their own copyright. That's not the case as the courts will not enforce copyrights in slavish reproductions of public domain works. 

Want to know how to determine what's in the public domain? Take a look at Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. 

September 2, 2009

Going Postal: Image Rejection for Customized Stamps

Freud Stamp.jpgDear Rich: I have a cartoon of a character I created -- Dr. Julia Chicken -- facing off with Sigmund Freud. I wanted to make  U.S. postage stamps using that image but my artwork was rejected by Zazzle.com on the grounds of some celebrity malarkey. I had a feeling that Freud would give me trouble, but I'm not sure why. First of all, it's a parody, but even greater reason for confusion is the fact that the Freud photo is public domain. The short answer is that Zazzle is not legally obligated to manufacture your stamp. In order to use Zazzle, you must agree to their User Agreement and as you know, that means you can't use pictures of celebrities. Strange as it seems, the man who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology and popularized the couch ("And how do you feel about that?") is still considered a celebrity 70 years after his death. He even has Beverly Hills representation. In addition to the 'celebrity malarkey,' the Zazzle User Agreement also won't let you "create a 'new' image using elements from images other people have created." So you've got two strikes against you. (Other companies sell custom postage stamps and their policies appear similar.) As for your parody and public domain defense, they're not relevant since the User Agreement trumps copyright (and nobody is accusing you of copyright infringment, anyway.) The Dear Rich staff believes you're best off dumping Sigmund from the imagery and just proceeding with Dr. Julia on stamps, instead.
August 24, 2009

Mary Tyler Moore and the Kinko's Konondrum

large_mtm-hatarty.jpgDear Rich: I want to take a digital photo of the famous opening shot for the Mary Tyler Moore Show where she tosses her hat up in the air and have that image spread onto a canvas. It would only be reproduced once and hung up at home for display. My problem is that I need to have one of the online companies reproduce this for me as I don't have the equipment to reproduce it onto canvas myself. They are asking if I have legal copyright permission to do this. Do I need it?! The short answer is that you probably don't need permission. Your use is likely excused under fair use principles (we won't go into the boring details). The trouble is that you can't explain that to the reproduction company because they want something in their files that says you have permission so that they can get you to pay for their lawsuit in case Mary (or ABC Family Television) finds out about your painting, decides it's improper and sues the reproduction company -- a situation that is about as unlikely as Mary turning the whole world on with her smile. 
The Kinko's Kondondrum
The Dear Rich Staff refers to your situation as the Kinko's Konondrum -- so named because we once faced this exact situation at a Kinko's (before they were FedExKinko's ... er, FedExOffice) and we tried to explain to the clerk behind the counter that we were the author of a book on copyright and that yes, our use was permissible even though we did not have permission. The clerk wasn't interested in our claims and we couldn't blame him.  (This was a few years after Kinko's had lost a fair use case over coursepack copying). In the end, we lied to get the job done. We do not advise you to lie and wish you the best in dealing with your moral dilemma. BTW, we hope you like our artistic take on Mary's hat throw --  we call it 'Love is All Around.'

August 19, 2009

Holy Ghosts: Claiming Copyright on 200 Year-old Painting

iStock_000009274075XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I found an abandoned painting in an old house I used to live in. It was painted in the 1800's.  I would like to make posters of it.  Is there a way I can become the copyright owner? The short answer is "no" (and we're a little bit saddened by your question.) You are free to make posters and you are also free to modify the work with your own additional artwork and make derivative versions and -- provided you've added some original authorship -- you can control the copyright on the derivatives. But you cannot claim copyright ownership over the original. 
Why We Get Depressed
Nothing personal, but the idea of someone hijacking public domain material and limiting its use depresses the Dear Rich staff -- whether it is a book publisher claiming copyright over Moby Dick or a museum trying to claim copyright over its photos of the Mona Lisa (a practice known as 'copyfraud'). And of course, whoever created that painting would really be depressed to learn -- should they return from the dead -- that someone  is claiming all rights to the work. You don't want to be haunted by that possibility.

To find out more about the public domain, see Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
August 13, 2009

Exploding Head Coloring Book Lawsuit?


Thumbnail image for Exploding head.jpgDear Rich: I am planning to release an album on iTunes. For the cover I was planning on using a drawing that I traced from a coloring book, I'm assuming its copyrighted but have no clue where it is from. I traced the face but I altered it by having the head explode with rainbow colored popcorn and blood. I also colored the original black and white image. I was wondering if this will become a potential lawsuit or if it will be ok. First, of all, thanks for the warning. Second, you probably don't need to worry about being chased for your exploding coloring-book popcorn head (wow, what a great name for a band). Yes, it's true that the coloring book company owns the copyright for the images, and yes they could sue you for infringement. But it's unlikely that they would litigate against someone for reproducing a single colored-in image. (From a public relations point of view, that seems like a major sales turn off.) You may get some guidance if there are any restrictions listed in the coloring book. And you may be able to determine who owns the image by using this search engine. In addition, you may have a solid fair use claim -- your modification sounds sufficiently transformative. Okay, well it's time for the Dear Rich staff to get back to our coloring book.
July 28, 2009

'Breaker Copies' and the First Sale Doctrine

FirstsaleBooks.jpgDear Rich: On many of the largest online book sites one can select a category called "breaker copy," a book that has been damaged such that it has little value to a collector, but it contains plates and or vintage prints which may then be removed and sold hence the name "breaker copy." There is a huge market for these prints on eBay and other auction sites. My question is, does this fall under the first sale rule or is it a copyright violation? The short answer is that the practice of breaking apart books and selling the components requires a long answer. The Dear Rich staff is sorry to have to drag you through the following sleep-inducing explanation but this area of the law is not fully settled.
What's the First Sale Doctrine?
The first sale doctrine guarantees you the right "to sell or otherwise dispose" of your books, movies and music, etc. But in two California cases, (Mirage and Greenwich Workshop) federal courts ruled that ripping out images from a book and reselling them in frames is not permitted under the first sale doctrine because the seller has created derivative works. A New York court seemed to agree with the California rulings, although that case involved a company that bought posters and then resold them after making them appear like oil paintings on canvas.
The Trouble with the California Cases
The trouble with the California cases is their theory about derivative works. Copyright scholar Melville Nimmer disagreed with it and some courts do not seem to follow it. One court  said that sticking something in a frame is a "mundane" act (don't tell that to these people) and doesn't demonstrate the minimum level of creativity required to create a derivative work.  An Illinois case (Deck the Wallsheld that the practice of cracking open a box of notecards and mounting them on tiles was permissible under the first sale doctrine (a ruling supported by a Texas case, C.M. Paula Co. v. Logancited by the Supreme Court).
What Should You Do?
In summary, you are likely to be headed for a problem if sued in California (or the 9th Circuit).  In other parts of the country, it's murkier. Copyright owners may threaten a lawsuit but not file, concerned they could set a bad precedent. One thing seems certain, you will always be more of a target if you are selling a lot of works by a particular artist -- for example, the collected works of Patrick Nagel vs. a collection of cubist art. And of course many works are in the public domain and you are free to reproduce those without any concerns about the pesky first sale doctrine.
July 17, 2009

T-Shirt License of Artwork

iStock_000005493447XSmall.jpg
Dear Rich: I am an artist and was recently approached by a woman who wants to use one of my images on t-shirts. She has proposed a simple arrangement doing 24 shirts at a time. As she sells out of one batch, she will make another 24. This is not a million dollar transaction but I have no idea how to respond to it. How do I know what the going rate is? The short answer is that artists get anywhere between 5 to 20% (or more) of the revenue generated by the shirt. It depends on the demand, the size of the print run and your bargaining power. Sometimes the royalty is paid only after costs are deducted; sometimes it is straight off the top. Some online T-shirt merchants even let the artist set the royalty.  
Beyond the Royalty
You should also ask yourself a few questions. Is the amount of money coming in worth your time and energy? What if you're not satisfied with the quality of the reproduction? Will the arrangement preclude you from other more lucrative deals? Do you have any reason to believe the t-shirt maker is not a trustworthy business person? If you have any doubts, it's probably a good idea to make the initial term of the agreement short, perhaps six months to a year (you can always renew). And it's best to keep it nonexclusive as well (you can always amend it later). And as they say in the music business, don't do a handshake deal, get some paper. Below is a sample short form t-shirt license taken from Getting Permission (written by the Dear Rich staff). Explanations for the agreement and a much more detailed long- form merchandise agreement can be found in the book, as well. And of course, make sure your artwork doesn't cross over into personality rights,trademarks, or otherwise illegal content.  (click to download:  T-Shirt License Agreement (Short Form))