Red Sparrow (Blu-ray SteelBook) (Cine-Museum Art #02) [Italy]

[tommyh84]

Release date: 22-25 August 2018
Purchase link: CineMuseum - (Pre-order July 7 at 2:30 PM Italy time, GMT +2) - Find your local timing HERE
Group buy: hosted by Aniv
Note: Print run 200

Spoiler

Spoiler: Previous artworks

 

[dchamp444]

Hi, our line is called "Art" because we try to offer alternative artworks and we're still waiting for approval.
For The Untouchables we have proposed a work created by an English artist, we would like to do the same with Red Sparrow.
We had some options using official artworks:

This is 100000x better.

 

[awb85]

Hi, our line is called "Art" because we try to offer alternative artworks and we're still waiting for approval.
For The Untouchables we have proposed a work created by an English artist, we would like to do the same with Red Sparrow.
We had some options using official artworks:

This one is so much better. Hope this is the one you guys end up going with.

 

[Hewitt89]

Well using an unofficial artwork simply makes it bootleg

Artwork doesn’t make it bootleg, bootleg is if it’s released without the studio’s consent. If this artwork should be approved it’s still an official release.

That being said, personally I think the «official» variant shown is extremely much better.

 

[davetherave]

TBH I really like the official variant too.

 

[mebeingsilly]

Artwork doesn’t make it bootleg, bootleg is if it’s released without the studio’s consent. If this artwork should be approved it’s still an official release.

That being said, personally I think the «official» variant shown is extremely much better.

Well every professionally-shot photo has a copyright and only photos of JLaw taken for this movie are allowed to be used for products or promotions related to the movie. Given the front cover is fanmade, I highly doubt it is actually from the movie’s photoshoot then the studio simply can’t approve it since they don’t own the copyright. Even the photo of the building in the back may have a copyright too

 

[ariba266]

I definitely prefer the unofficial artwork.

 

[Hewitt89]

Well every professionally-shot photo has a copyright and only photos of JLaw taken for this movie are allowed to be used for products or promotions related to the movie. Given the front cover is fanmade, I highly doubt it is actually from the movie’s photoshoot then the studio simply can’t approve it since they don’t own the copyright. Even the photo of the building in the back may have a copyright too

Yes I’m not talking about the photo itself, only what would make it a bootleg release. If it is approved by the studio though, these details would be worked out and therefore making it not a bootleg but an official release. As for the photo, if it’s made by an artist or a photo taken by a photographer obviously also they have to consent to the use and get royalties. With this being fanmade, copyrights might be complex as to who owns what and if they consent to the use in this context. Hence why it’s extremely hard to get unofficial artwork approved for release.

 

[psychoscot]

This for the win!

 

[Jericho]

Well every professionally-shot photo has a copyright and only photos of JLaw taken for this movie are allowed to be used for products or promotions related to the movie. Given the front cover is fanmade, I highly doubt it is actually from the movie’s photoshoot then the studio simply can’t approve it since they don’t own the copyright. Even the photo of the building in the back may have a copyright too

Plausibly. Thought the "fan-made" design likely took Lawrence's photo from elsewhere. Which quite possibly was from one of the "official" photos. So in a roundabout way, the photo itself might be cleared. Though you're also right in that the other elements bring other possible copyright issues that need to be cleared. So a lot of hoops to jump through, making the approval process here difficult. But I don't mind the effort trying as it's a nice design.

And if it fails, where there's always Plan B

 

[awb85]

Plausibly. Thought the "fan-made" design likely took Lawrence's photo from elsewhere. Which quite possibly was from one of the "official" photos. So in a roundabout way, the photo itself might be cleared. Though you're also right in that the other elements bring other possible copyright issues that need to be cleared. So a lot of hoops to jump through, making the approval process here difficult. But I don't mind the effort trying as it's a nice design.

And if it fails, where there's always Plan B

Jennifer's face/photo is from a different photoshoot that had nothing to do with the film. It was made well before any studio shots from the movie were released. Wouldn't they have to identify which photoshoot it's from first then seek the photographer's approval? And wouldn't the person who created the artwork also have to give their approval?

 

[SEAN3431476]

We're "fighting" with Fox to approve first Artwork for Lenticular on front!
Is not easy because the image is unofficial and without copyright...but we hope for a positive ending!

We're working to some alternative artworks and we can confirm that final effect will be great and exclusive!

Thank you to all collectors for advices and support, it's very important for a little label like Cine-Museum.

Carlo *CM*

Please fight for the second artwork.

 

[Jericho]

Jennifer's face/photo is from a different photoshoot that had nothing to do with the film. It was made well before any studio shots from the movie were released. Wouldn't they have to identify which photoshoot it's from first then seek the photographer's approval? And wouldn't the person who created the artwork also have to give their approval?

If that's the case, then yes. They would need consent from both Lawrence (for rights of publicity) and the copyright holder (normally the photographer, but it could have been assigned, work for hire, etc... to someone else). As for the other creator of the artwork, the answer is more complex. Plausibly they have their own rights in their creation, but if they're stealing other people's works, then their particular selection and arrangement may have no protection. But on something like this, you'd certainly err on the side of caution and get everyone's consent to avoid any issues.

 

[DMD4k]

The more I read the thread the more I want this.

 

[willbar84]

This for the win!View attachment 377654

I second this 100% This is in a league of its own. The fan made variant on the front of the one pending approval looks disjointed which just doesn’t gel right with the movie making it look out of place when compared back to the slight variant to official artwork on the back, I do like the Russian text though. Sorry I just don’t like it but on the other hand the one attached above is all class and really captures the essence of Dominika / JLaw and I love, love the artwork used on the back to show of that beautiful red ballet dress I own the 4K Best Buy Steelbook all ready for Red Sparrow but would really consider buying this just for the Slip alone as not quite sure if this comes with goodies or not.

 

[duckandrun]

Jennifer's face/photo is from a different photoshoot that had nothing to do with the film. It was made well before any studio shots from the movie were released. Wouldn't they have to identify which photoshoot it's from first then seek the photographer's approval? And wouldn't the person who created the artwork also have to give their approval?

We're looking to find author of this picture. As for The Untouchables we paid royalties to Fiona McCall for her work on Back Artwork.
Sometimes is not easy to find the author of artworks but maybe your post will help us to give more infos to Fox to approve final artworks!

Thanks for your help!

 

[psychoscot]

We're looking to find author of this picture. As for The Untouchables we paid royalties to Fiona McCall for her work on Back Artwork.
Sometimes is not easy to find the author of artworks but maybe your post will help us to give more infos to Fox to approve final artworks!

Thanks for your help!

It's terrible. As fan art it's ok, but as a slip for a steel it's shockingly bad and very badly photoshopped

 

[willbar84]

It's terrible. As fan art it's ok, but as a slip for a steel it's shockingly bad and very badly photoshopped

Yep nothing premium about that.

 

[Hewitt89]

I have to agree. The idea is cool but it’s badly executed. Especially the hat looks totally off, very amateurish. The slip with official artwork looks so much more professional. Just my two cents of course but I’d consider buying the official slip, would not by the fan art slip. I appreciate the effort to explore art with this line but ultimately it needs to look good and professional.

 

[psychoscot]

I have to agree. The idea is cool but it’s badly executed. Especially the hat looks totally off, very amateurish. The slip with official artwork looks so much more professional. Just my two cents of course but I’d consider buying the official slip, would not by the fan art slip. I appreciate the effort to explore art with this line but ultimately it needs to look good and professional.

Same, be an instant purchase if it was the second option, but pass on the fan art, that hat is just shocking and the more you look at it the more it just looks placed on the image

 

[Veronica Mars]

We're looking to find author of this picture. As for The Untouchables we paid royalties to Fiona McCall for her work on Back Artwork.
Sometimes is not easy to find the author of artworks but maybe your post will help us to give more infos to Fox to approve final artworks!

Thanks for your help!

I know what you do is hard work and you only want to release a great product but I really hope you can listen to the feedback here and go with the official artwork. It’s so much better and I’m already picturing it on my shelves with my other excellent exclusives. Thanks.