The Keown one. Zulem posted a HUGE pic of the original after y'all's comments.

Huh. Didn't know you could post images there.

Disney has been well-known for zealously guarding their properties. I'm thinking a few more of these kind of fuck-ups and there'll be no more Marvel design challenges at Threadless.

You must have dropped out of my FF thread. I was bitching about not having the red version or the close-up and then figured out I could post them in the thread.

Seems to me, swipe or no, these would all violate Disney's copyright.

Going to look now. Interesting that the FF only netted 207 submissions.

Paulo, you have been 5ved.

Thanks, Marcus! And for the comment too!

Just sent Art two more rips.

None of the ones I have documented have been taken down.

Links?

Probably be easier to just post the jpegs since I include what it was ripped off from.





There's about 10 others I'm suspicious of but couldn't find anything. And that first graphic up there, the arms upraised on the lower right? That's used in about 5 different designs.

We've talked about most of these. But if you know of some I missed let me know.

This one seems a bit dubious to me:



I guess if you traced them and superimposed one over the other, they'd line up, maybe.

I was going to shoot 'em all and let Art sort 'em out. The one with the dots is probably changed enough but you recognized it. Who knows? They apparently have no standards, anyway.

Or very oddly shifting ones anyway. Maybe I'll email the guy who contacted me and see what he says.

Also, the reply from the video-game-ad thief:




Anyway, its kind of funny how one of those is titled "This ends now!" One can only hope...

What is he even saying there? That he painted over the original in Photoshop in copying it, so that's ok because he didn't just copy/past the thing as-is?

That putting it in Photoshop and putting some sort of odd pharmaceutical effect on it makes it his own work

"Hate" and "hater" seems to be the standard response. Which means all these idiots are under 30. And we should stop trying to apply any of our out-dated standards or ethics or morality on them.

Daddio.

What's worse, they feel perfectly safe at threadless to not only steal but defend it when called on it. I would kick their asses so far off that site they'd have to beg me to even consider looking at their next effort.

I guess they see their heroes do it all the time. Or aren't sure what "own artwork" means.

Maybe the folks at Threadless don't know either...

From a legal standpoint he may be right and it may fall under fair use, but under the rules of this contest I don't believe he is.

Regardless of right or wrong it is lazy and kind of pathetic.

Art just emailed me back saying only, "Thanks, Rick!". I assume that was for the first one, too.

I don't think so, judging from the following:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-a.html

At the very least, I think attribution must be given.


Agreed.

"Fair use" might be the wrong word. There was a fine artist who took a picture of another artists' painting and redisplayed the photograph as his own work so there is at least prescient for his argument. Of course that artist was more trying to make an artistic statement and not just being a lazy self entitled tool.