Some might point and say sexism, but I think it's consistent with established tropes. There are piles of analogies between sex and aggression (the Latin word for “sheath” is vagina). An image of a penis-like shark attacking a nude woman is another to throw on the pile.
Accessible internet probably took the wind out of their sails. Media has become less porny over time, and the younger generations have even expressed an aversion to it.
Fetish content is *RAMPANT* when you know the techniques that are being used, for example. Edging is *very*, *very* popular in clickbait content, for example.
I see what you did there.
IIRC, there are some films in public domain for having "failed" to do this as well.
Not if you're an illustrator doing work for hire. It's not unreasonable or unusual for the company who commissioned the art to own the copyright. It doesn't always work that way, but there's no reason to think Kastel was robbed without us knowing the actual terms of his contract with Universal. I assume he sold the copyright to Universal, and Universal fumbled the copyright after that, but that doesn't mean it reverts back to Kastel.
That law has been replaced and you now get copyright automatically.
Sounds like you could accidentally make someone else's art public domain by forgetting to include them on the copyright page...
edit well, perhaps that's part of the reason the copyright laws were updated.
Art director Alex Gotfryd came up with the concept of the Shark and the Swimmer, while Paul Bacon did the original drawing.
At this point what’s to distinguish Kastel’s painting of a shark and a swimmer from anyone else making a painting of a shark and a swimmer?
finnh•2h ago
That explains why the swimmer, at least, looks a bit fake.