>>47802614>>47802257>>47802227>>47802256The copyright in the design of Venusaur belongs to Nintendo. Venusaur is not merely a functional component of Pokemon games; it is a distinct work. A fan-drawing of Venusaur does not infringe this copyright if it shows a sufficient degree of independent intellectual effort. Here (
>>47802185), the pose, perspective, setting, aesthetic, lighting, and expression are all independent creative labors distinct from the manual labor of simply drawing Venusaur. Is that enough to create copyright in the image? Probably yes. Is OP's copying the image an infringement of the copyright? Probably also yes, whereas all of the independent intellectual effort of the image is copied in the sprites, although you could argue that spriting requires its own intellectual effort in order to communicate personality and volume at a very small scale. OP has clearly made such choices, but the linework mostly replicates that of the original art. Is the fanartist likely to sue? Absolutely no, and if they did, they could not claim much more than lost profits, which are likely to be nil in this case. This is different to the Pokemon Prism C and D where multiple issues were at play:
1. The use of the trademark Pokemon could confuse consumers, and convince that the official product was of a lower quality than what the trademark owner intended to release to market
2. The game offered proprietary software for free with cosmetic and narrative alterations
3. The trademark owner does not want Pokemon to be known for whatever Pokemon fans may release as Pokemon. Where an unofficial release is more notorious, that release may also distract from official releases or create comparisons that are undesirable.
So, OP can sell his sprites, as he is unlikely to be sued for breach of copyright. If OP did not trace art, but released sprites that were traces of official art or were otherwise extremely generic, he could infringe the copyright in Venusaur.
