If I paint an original picture of a cartoon or comic book character can I sell the painting without violating copyright?

An original painting of a known cartoon or comic book character, although "original" in its execution, is a "derivative work" of the known content. In the US and many other jurisdictions that follow the Berne convention, only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work: a derivative work. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (US Code, Title 17). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: -- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; -- The nature of the copyrighted work; -- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and --The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use, including use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied. The safest course, however, is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.

The Spiderman character and image and trademark are owned by someone else, and the owner has the exclusive right to make "derivative works" from their creation. But you have a 1st Amendment right to create art, and to parody others' art, and comment on their work. Where are the lines? My colleague set out the "fair use" guidelines that judges look to, and after lawyers argue and judges review each case as it's presented, they draw a line for each case. The short answer and necessarily vague answer is that all the rights belong to someone else. But if you "transform" Spidey in your painting, it's probably going to provide you with a good defense to a claim of infringement. If your work simply puts Spidey in a new situation but doesn't transform the character and make it your own, you may be held liable for infringement. You can and should hire counsel to look to precedent to see how judges have viewed similar challenged uses, and compare them with yours. Disclaimer: Please note that this answer does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it is impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship.

No, you may not. The cartoon character is copyrighted and/or trademarked. any depiction is a violation of the owners rights. A painting may be considered a derivative work and as such still infringing if not licensed by the owner.