What’s the law on using old movie posters on your shirts?

Posters from the 1980s and earlier.
Is there a law against us modifying these and reusing them in shirts, decks, etc?

1. 

   disembodied head said over 1 year ago

   it’s called stealing...unless you license them

2. 

   Geoff May said over 1 year ago

   Yeah, there’s some legalities to it. Just depends on whether the designer or the company he/she is designing them for cares.

3. 

   illdthedj said over 1 year ago

   from teh wiki:

   In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years, after which the invention becomes part of the public domain.

   A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain.

   The expiration of a copyright is more complex than that of a patent. Historically the United States has specified terms of a number of years following creation or publication; this number has been increased several times. Most other countries specify terms of a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator; this number varies from one country to another (50 years and 70 years are the most common), and has also been increased in many of them. See List of countries' copyright length. Legal traditions differ on whether a work in the public domain can have its copyright restored. Term extensions by the U.S. and Australia generally have not removed works from the public domain, but merely delayed the addition of works to it. By contrast, a European Union directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection was applied retrospectively, restoring and extending the terms of copyright on material previously in the public domain.

   SOOooooooooooo......in conclusion....i PERSONALLY wouldnt fuck with anything less than 70 years old.

   I have only used something that wasn’t mine once, and that was a medieval wood carving of a knight, and i added a ton of stuff to it so it wasn’t just me stealing an image and plopping on a shirt.

   i mean, i see so called "parodies" all the time....i forget who did it, but robocop from a comic book eating a slice of pizza. i totally thought that was not kosher, considering he just took the original work and added on to it, but i guess he was able to sell them.

   i dunno. there needs to be a lawyer on emptees lol

4. 

   Michael Partridge said over 1 year ago

   there is some weird thing that relates to parodies, they aren’t seen as such a legal negative black zone as copyright/patent theft. I will try and check that, I remember seeing it in an article about weird al!

5. 

   Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

   illdthedj said: from teh wiki: In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years, after which the invention becomes part of the public domain. A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain. The expiration of a copyright is more complex than that of a patent. Historically the United States has specified terms of a number of years following creation or publication; this number has been increased several times. Most other countries specify terms of a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator; this number varies from one country to another (50 years and 70 years are the most common), and has also been increased in many of them. See List of countries' copyright length. Legal traditions differ on whether a work in the public domain can have its copyright restored. Term extensions by the U.S. and Australia generally have not removed works from the public domain, but merely delayed the addition of works to it. By contrast, a European Union directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection was applied retrospectively, restoring and extending the terms of copyright on material previously in the public domain. SOOooooooooooo......in conclusion....i PERSONALLY wouldnt fuck with anything less than 70 years old. I have only used something that wasn’t mine once, and that was a medieval wood carving of a knight, and i added a ton of stuff to it so it wasn’t just me stealing an image and plopping on a shirt. i mean, i see so called "parodies" all the time....i forget who did it, but robocop from a comic book eating a slice of pizza. i totally thought that was not kosher, considering he just took the original work and added on to it, but i guess he was able to sell them. i dunno. there needs to be a lawyer on emptees lol

   hey fucktard, if you want to call me out at least call me out on something not the least ripped off of my work. I looked at the comic book, which i have signed by the artist and drew it and added the pizza and whatnot, colored and shaded it my way. i didnt scan it and plop it on a shirt like you claim.

   I have used movie posters and images and stuff that isnt mine. I take that risk, I’m not saying I am right by any means. Thanks

6. 

   sht! said over 1 year ago

   im not sure but maybe this will help!

   http://www.howtostartaclothingcompany.com/truth-copyrights-licensing/

7. 

   illdthedj said over 1 year ago

   Kyle Crawford said:

   illdthedj said: from teh wiki: In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years, after which the invention becomes part of the public domain. A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain. The expiration of a copyright is more complex than that of a patent. Historically the United States has specified terms of a number of years following creation or publication; this number has been increased several times. Most other countries specify terms of a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator; this number varies from one country to another (50 years and 70 years are the most common), and has also been increased in many of them. See List of countries' copyright length. Legal traditions differ on whether a work in the public domain can have its copyright restored. Term extensions by the U.S. and Australia generally have not removed works from the public domain, but merely delayed the addition of works to it. By contrast, a European Union directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection was applied retrospectively, restoring and extending the terms of copyright on material previously in the public domain. SOOooooooooooo......in conclusion....i PERSONALLY wouldnt fuck with anything less than 70 years old. I have only used something that wasn’t mine once, and that was a medieval wood carving of a knight, and i added a ton of stuff to it so it wasn’t just me stealing an image and plopping on a shirt. i mean, i see so called "parodies" all the time....i forget who did it, but robocop from a comic book eating a slice of pizza. i totally thought that was not kosher, considering he just took the original work and added on to it, but i guess he was able to sell them. i dunno. there needs to be a lawyer on emptees lol

   hey fucktard, if you want to call me out at least call me out on something not the least ripped off of my work. I looked at the comic book, which i have signed by the artist and drew it and added the pizza and whatnot, colored and shaded it my way. i didnt scan it and plop it on a shirt like you claim.

   I have used movie posters and images and stuff that isnt mine. I take that risk, I’m not saying I am right by any means. Thanks

   whoa there bucko, dont get so excited, i never said you ripped anything or claimed that you scanned it plopped it on a shirt. i was saying that in context to a design i did, where i borrowed imagery for a design, but added to it.

   i was just using it as an example. its an obvious image of robo cop, but you added the pizza to it. i personally like the shirt... i just brought it up in a discussion over legality. i was saying i wouldnt think that would be legal. is it legal? or isnt it? im just discussing the legality of parodies, no need to get all agro and call me a fucktard. i mean, ive seen that comic you drew your robo cop from. like i said previously, i took something myself, redrew it, and added my own spin to it.

   so you visually sample from popular culture...many artists do. im just curious what crosses the line between legal and not. how much do you have to add? or is redrawing previous imagery and adding to it still not legal?

   you say you take that risk...so are you saying its illegal?

   like i said, i never called that design a rip, you read into it too much. settle down YOU FUCKING JERKLEAGUE FUCKFACE lol jk ;p

8. 

   Jay Nicholas said over 1 year ago

   Why does every thread get shit on.

9. 

   Angray said over 1 year ago

   This is the shirt in question, illdthedj. It sounded like you didn’t remember it all that well, so I thought I’d post it.

   
   

10. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    There’s some gray area with parody. There’s less gray area when tracing other’s work or photos, though. IE, one can draw Jason Voorhees taking a leak, but they can’t trace a movie still to do so (legally, at least).

11. 

    illdthedj said over 1 year ago

    Angray said: There’s some gray area with parody. There’s less gray area when tracing other’s work or photos, though. IE, one can draw Jason Voorhees taking a leak, but they can’t trace a movie still to do so (legally, at least).

    so is it the difference between drawing from something vs. tracing?

    on seeing it again and looking closely, you can tell he drew from the comic and didnt scan or trace it, but based on that article sht! posted (http://www.howtostartaclothingcompany.com/truth-copyrights-licensing/) that shirt is copyright infringement, and that the parody argument is moot.

    dont get me wrong, i think the shirt is hilarious, and there is an original idea in recontextualizing robocop....like i said, i never called it a rip, but i was bringing it up in discussing what crosses the line legally and what dosnt.

    but him putting words in my mouth, saying i called it a rip when i didnt, and name calling and also saying "im taking the risk" is making me think he knows he is walking a thin line (i guess i touched a nerve?)....and that "parodies" can be argued as copyright infringement as long as the other side has big enough lawyers and spends the time looking for them.

    so is a litigious society destroying the ability to parody in tshirt design?

    i mean, pop artists have done it for ages. look at warhol and the soup can. he silk screened the exact can. if i silk screened a coca cola can onto a shirt and sold it nowadays i would be hit with a cease and desist in a flash.

    basically it seems like the answer to my question is "everything remotely similar is copyright infringement" but on the other hand all the parodies i see like this one and ones i see on shirt sites like 6dollarshirts.com and the like are kosher as long as you fly below the radar, dont get caught, and have something different about the design.

    there just seems to be a TON of gray area and no real defining, dividing line.

    i have a feeling this topic has been discussed many a time on emptees without any defining answer.

12. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    In my opinion that robocop is a pretty blatant copy, But I suppose the pizza slice makes it a parody?

    but like Kyle said, "I take that risk, I’m not saying I am right by any means."

13. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    I don’t think it is safe as a parody, no. It’s pretty clearly a trace. Note the barbed wire shadows on his chest despite there being no barbed wire, etc. I wasn’t posting in defense of it, but rather to put the earlier comments in proper context.

14. 

    mel89 said over 1 year ago

    you can use images that are in the public domain if the copyright hasn’t been renewed, but like he said, most of that stuff will be 70-100+ years old.

    if you take something from a movie poster from the 80s or even 60s-70s it’s probably still copyrighted and you could get in trouble. I read an article about a guy who got sued by a bunch of movie companies for doing this, even though the films he referenced were pretty old (dracula, frankenstein,etc)

15. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    See, often the TRADEMARK is still good even if the COPYRIGHT is expired. That’s why those old Universal monsters are still legally off limits.

16. 

    Jon Kruse said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said:

    illdthedj said: from teh wiki: In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years, after which the invention becomes part of the public domain. A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain. The expiration of a copyright is more complex than that of a patent. Historically the United States has specified terms of a number of years following creation or publication; this number has been increased several times. Most other countries specify terms of a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator; this number varies from one country to another (50 years and 70 years are the most common), and has also been increased in many of them. See List of countries' copyright length. Legal traditions differ on whether a work in the public domain can have its copyright restored. Term extensions by the U.S. and Australia generally have not removed works from the public domain, but merely delayed the addition of works to it. By contrast, a European Union directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection was applied retrospectively, restoring and extending the terms of copyright on material previously in the public domain. SOOooooooooooo......in conclusion....i PERSONALLY wouldnt fuck with anything less than 70 years old. I have only used something that wasn’t mine once, and that was a medieval wood carving of a knight, and i added a ton of stuff to it so it wasn’t just me stealing an image and plopping on a shirt. i mean, i see so called "parodies" all the time....i forget who did it, but robocop from a comic book eating a slice of pizza. i totally thought that was not kosher, considering he just took the original work and added on to it, but i guess he was able to sell them. i dunno. there needs to be a lawyer on emptees lol

    hey fucktard, if you want to call me out at least call me out on something not the least ripped off of my work. I looked at the comic book, which i have signed by the artist and drew it and added the pizza and whatnot, colored and shaded it my way. i didnt scan it and plop it on a shirt like you claim.

    I have used movie posters and images and stuff that isnt mine. I take that risk, I’m not saying I am right by any means. Thanks

    If the artist signs the work you’re copying it is fair game just as long as it’s 100% hand traced.

17. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    The art lines up too much to not be traced.

18. 

    Jon Kruse said over 1 year ago

    Angray said: I don’t think it is safe as a parody, no. It’s pretty clearly a trace. Note the barbed wire shadows on his chest despite there being no barbed wire, etc. I wasn’t posting in defense of it, but rather to put the earlier comments in proper context.

    good eye on the barbed wire.

19. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    yep! and the shading is spot on too!

20. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said: yep! and the shading is spot on too!

    The blue secondary tones aren’t spot on, but so what? The lineart is clearly drawn over, best case. And, yes, you make some of the same shading mistakes as the original colorist. Inconsistent light sources, etc. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with two eyeballs.

21. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    Anyhow, back to the actual discussion. Trademark is different than copyright. Disney has been using trademark to skirt around the fact that the copyrights are expiring on several characters of note like Mickey Mouse.

22. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit, so whats the point of dragging me down. I do it for my brand. Case Closed move on, we get it you dont like me, and like to make me look like a douche every second you can, but I do a fine job of that myself.

23. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    We were discussing the greater context of the legality of tracing and appropriating existing intellectual property. You’re welcome to contribute to the discussion.

24. 

    Travis Cook said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit, so whats the point of dragging me down. I do it for my brand.

    Marvel hasn’t done anything about it, so why does everyone give so many shits.

25. 

    AJHB said over 1 year ago

    The robocop tee is a good subject of discussion. But I was talking about the reuse of dated movie posters, here is an accurate example. (Kyle, I’m not attacking you in this thread, I was just curious as to if you need licensing to produce shirts like the following).

    

    Originally from 1987 film poster:
    

    I’m always a little edgy around using stock images and stuff, because I’m never quite sure if I can use them freely/obviously, and I’m to impatient to find and email the creator for permission (usually on deviantart).

26. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    Yes. You would need to get permission, minimally, to legally potatochop that image onto a shirt.

27. 

    CASTLE said over 1 year ago

    dman, I planed on getting this printed and thought 2 things.. Frankenstein is old as hell and I’ve seen this image used I thought "freely" so I’d be safe plus I thought if I was in actually violation there it would be covered under parody. Now I don’t knwo what to to do. If hand draw this and slightly change a few things would I be ok? what to do....

    

28. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    You can chance it, but you’re better off drawing your own interpretation and avoiding legal issues with the added benefit of doing something more original.

29. 

    Geoff May said over 1 year ago

    Angray said: The art lines up too much to not be traced.

30. 

    CASTLE said over 1 year ago

    like all those electric Frankenstein shirts and posters and stuff which are obviously the iconic Frankenstein but definitly original drawings, I was wondering if that is ok to do or do you need permission. All this stuff is tricky

31. 

    heavyprints said over 1 year ago

    Travis Cook said:

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit, so whats the point of dragging me down. I do it for my brand.

    Marvel hasn’t done anything about it, so why does everyone give so many shits.

    These laws don’t just protect marvel comics, they protect your work too. Don’t be so naive.

32. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    Original drawings, in the context of your shirt, should be okay; Frankenstein is a bit of a unique case, though!

    See, Frankenstein is the name commonly attributed to the monster in the Universal films, but is actually the moniker of the Dr. in the novel. So, using Frankenstein to reference the monster sort of implies usage of the character in the Universal Studios works. I’ve seen some nasty legal battles over that.

33. 

    justinryan said over 1 year ago

    I don’t know, dudes.. I am definitely against rips, but I think what Kyle does is different then when you copy someone elses design and sell it to a band.

34. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    I don’t think copying and pasting a pre-existing movie poster is very, if at all, different. That said, if you re-read the original posts, he was used as an example by DJ, but this thread isn’t about him, per se.

35. 

    Travis Cook said over 1 year ago

    heavyprints said:

    Travis Cook said:

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit, so whats the point of dragging me down. I do it for my brand.

    Marvel hasn’t done anything about it, so why does everyone give so many shits.

    These laws don’t just protect marvel comics, they protect your work too. Don’t be so naive.

    I’m just saying that marvel is a verryyy large company, and they just have this character that they own. Plenty of people have drawn these comics for them, and take part in a single image. These characters are so well known that people copying them is just to be expected.
    When it’s a small time artist who does a single design of its kind and it’s copied it’s a much bigger deal. I’m not saying the laws are bad; they’re great! I’m just saying we don’t need to give Kyle a hard time about it. Plus, it’d be silly now since he’s sold this design for like a year and nobody has said anything.

36. 

    justinryan said over 1 year ago

    I definitely did read the other posts, I was just saying that I feel that it is different to do that for his own line then to say, trace over a mask and sell it to a band as 100% your own. granted, they are both 100% wrong, but I think the genre that EZ is in (and other horror based lines), it is a different case, as well as the fact that he isn’t putting it out there saying it’s 100% his creation. I can look at the robo cop shirt and say, "oh that’s robocop eating pizza" and know he didn’t create robocop. you know? just my opinion. not really trying to take sides here. you know I like you and Kyle.. just throwing my opinion out there.

37. 

    heavyprints said over 1 year ago

    This thread is not about Kyle. He was just used as an example.

    Kyle was in contact with the person who drew that comic and they were okay with it, which I think was a stroke of luck on his part. Some people would have sued the pants off of him.

    Maybe you guys shouldn’t have given Edgil a hard time about it either. I mean, crap. Some of the artists he ripped were pretty bigtime. Everybody made a point to run him off of the site though.

38. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    justinryan said: I don’t know, dudes.. I am definitely against rips, but I think what Kyle does is different then when you copy someone elses design and sell it to a band.

    I don’t see how it is different at all,

    with the exception that he does not claim originality - that is different.

    I think this whole discussion is an important one, cause you see so many small potato shirt lines that ignore trademark and copyright laws. But the fact that they exist does not make it ok or legal, it means that the original holders of the property do not consider it worthy of litigation -

39. 

    downrodeo said over 1 year ago

    Angray said: I don’t think copying and pasting a pre-existing movie poster is very, if at all, different. That said, if you re-read the original posts, he was used as an example by DJ, but this thread isn’t about him, per se.

    Kyle Crawford said: thats the claim to my success is just slapping on a poster and typing my name on it. It’s awesome

    So should we forgive Edgil now? or for that matter, Kelly Orr? And I apologize for not sticking to the topic.

40. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    How about when I dunno since he wants to jump on the trace band wagon, Geoffs saosin piece with that skull that at least 10 others on this site have traced, or the trex skull that many others have.

    or how about the pictures that collision theory uses of animals for his prize winning pieces?

    how about that collab shirt between he and geoff with predator?

    the fact is I openly admit that even though it is I guess my line of work, that I dont claim to be this original mastermind. I am either using someone elses textures, someone elses fonts, or someone elses pictures of animals. I could go on. When I get time to go to the zoo and take my own pics (which I have) and when I have the time to sit down and make textures (which I have) I will.

    Not everyone can be this amazing original piece of amaray’sment (amazement+ray)

    sometimes you have to work with what you have, if it’s right or wrong. We can bitch about this all day, all year and Make this another emptees fight like last time this matter got brought up.

41. 

    heavyprints said over 1 year ago

    justinryan said: I definitely did read the other posts, I was just saying that I feel that it is different to do that for his own line then to say, trace over a mask and sell it to a band as 100% your own. granted, they are both 100% wrong, but I think the genre that EZ is in (and other horror based lines), it is a different case, as well as the fact that he isn’t putting it out there saying it’s 100% his creation. I can look at the robo cop shirt and say, "oh that’s robocop eating pizza" and know he didn’t create robocop. you know? just my opinion. not really trying to take sides here. you know I like you and Kyle.. just throwing my opinion out there.

    This is where Licensing comes in. If you’re a legitimate company you should have no trouble getting anyone to license things to you for use. Generally licenses aren’t ridiculously expensive, although they will obviously effect the price of your product slightly.

42. 

    Travis Cook said over 1 year ago

    Edgil copied one of a kind works of art. Not a comic book character.

    @AJHB: I think it all depends what you are talking about.

43. 

    AJHB said over 1 year ago

    This was always going to end in a shitstorm, my bad guys.

44. 

    Geoff May said over 1 year ago

    heavyprints said: This thread is not about Kyle. He was just used as an example. Kyle was in contact with the person who drew that comic and they were okay with it, which I think was a stroke of luck on his part. Some people would have sued the pants off of him. Maybe you guys shouldn’t have given Edgil a hard time about it either. I mean, crap. Some of the artists he ripped were pretty bigtime. Everybody made a point to run him off of the site though.

    Edgil tried to pass other people’s art that he traced or HIGHLY derived from as his own. I doubt anyone thinks Kyle created Robocop.

45. 

    Geoff May said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said: How about when I dunno since he wants to jump on the trace band wagon, Geoffs saosin piece with that skull that at least 10 others on this site have traced, or the trex skull that many others have. or how about the pictures that collision theory uses of animals for his prize winning pieces? how about that collab shirt between he and geoff with predator? the fact is I openly admit that even though it is I guess my line of work, that I dont claim to be this original mastermind. I am either using someone elses textures, someone elses fonts, or someone elses pictures of animals. I could go on. When I get time to go to the zoo and take my own pics (which I have) and when I have the time to sit down and make textures (which I have) I will. Not everyone can be this amazing original piece of amaray’sment (amazement+ray) sometimes you have to work with what you have, if it’s right or wrong. We can bitch about this all day, all year and Make this another emptees fight like last time this matter got brought up.

    Big surprise, you ripping on me. haha

46. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    AJHB said: This was always going to end in a shitstorm, my bad guys.

    I think it’s been pretty on topic. Some good has come of it; see the Frankenstein post.

47. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    I take comic books very seriously.

    Lee Sullivan is a stand up guy.

48. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    I just think this whole thing is hypocritical...
    people who are bitching about this or joining in on the fight are probably working on pirated copies of photoshop or whatever app of choice while listening to their illegally downloaded music.

    It’s the same thing, I say yep, thats this movie poster.

    It’s just retarded. While it’s wrong, some people do what they want to make cool art and make money.

    Then theres people will come on here and bash or compliment an album in which the band members frequent this site before the fucking thing ever comes out.

49. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    I think it is hypocritical that some folks who derive get tarred and feathered and others get sales.

    where is the line? Is there a line?

50. 

    downrodeo said over 1 year ago

    isaboa said: I think it is hypocritical that some folks who derive get tarred and feathered and others get sales. where is the line? Is there a line?

    totally agree with this.

51. 

    wotto said over 1 year ago

    I aint getting into this too much but my honest opinion is that tracing someone else’s artwork is lame and weak. When I was at art school some guy traced another guys work and they threw him out. Rightly so.

    There is way too much tracing going on imho across the whole design industry.

    If your good at tracing it don’t make you an artist.

52. 

    Geoff May said over 1 year ago

    isaboa said: I think it is hypocritical that some folks who derive get tarred and feathered and others get sales. where is the line? Is there a line?

    Good question

53. 

    heavyprints said over 1 year ago

    Travis Cook said: Edgil copied one of a kind works of art. Not a comic book character. @AJHB: I think it all depends what you are talking about.

    I was going to argue with you about how this was alot like Edgil and stuff too, but you kind of tried to blow off what he did also. So either you are pretty okay with people yoinking each others work, or you just decide to ignore morality and laws when it comes to people you look up to.

    Either way it’s not really relevant to this conversation.

54. 

    Angray said over 1 year ago

    wotto said: I aint getting into this too much but my honest opinion is that tracing someone else’s artwork is lame and weak. When I was at art school some guy traced another guys work and they threw him out. Rightly so. There is way too much tracing going on imho across the whole design industry. If your good at tracing it don’t make you an artist.

    Good points worth considering. In my background, when it came to graphic design, stealing someone’s work called for a near-banishment from the community. There is not much we have if we don’t have honesty/honor. It says a lot about a person’s real character (see: Edgil, etc.).

    It makes sense a school would have a similar policy. I guess it’s like cheating on your exams!

55. 

    4Sevens said over 1 year ago

    Angray said:

    wotto said: I aint getting into this too much but my honest opinion is that tracing someone else’s artwork is lame and weak. When I was at art school some guy traced another guys work and they threw him out. Rightly so. There is way too much tracing going on imho across the whole design industry. If your good at tracing it don’t make you an artist.

    Good points worth considering. In my background, when it came to graphic design, stealing someone’s work called for a near-banishment from the community. There is not much we have if we don’t have honesty/honor. It says a lot about a person’s real character (see: Edgil, etc.).

    It makes sense a school would have a similar policy. I guess it’s like cheating on your exams!

    I think that this ^^^^
    has almost everything do with this vvvv

    isaboa said: I think it is hypocritical that some folks who derive get tarred and feathered and others get sales. where is the line? Is there a line?

    I think the line in the sand, so to speak, as it has been drawn by general consensus in the emptees community has everything to do with perceived dishonesty, and even if both instances of using someone else’s work without permission is illegal/immoral, anybody not perceived as taking credit for the work is not as ostracized as somebody who is doing exactly that.
    Taking that into consideration and looking at it on a sort of sliding scale, I think most people would agree that Kyle still takes a ton of shit periodically just to be a participant in the forums and promote his clothing line here, and many people who are not Kyle would’ve been/have been driven away under just as harsh or even less harsh treatment.

56. 

    Michael Partridge said over 1 year ago

    law.com says this about a parody

    "parody
    n. the humorous use of an existing song, play, or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning. Parodies have been challenged as copyright infringements on the original works, particularly since some have reaped terrific profits. Recent decisions favor the parodies and say they have an originality of their own and, thus, are not infringements. There is a free speech issue involved in these decisions since parodies traditionally have social and political significance."

    intersting article from the legaldictionary.com

    Not that my opinion matters that much, but it would seem that Kyle’s Robocop falls under the banner of a parody.

    So AJHB if you consider what you were thinking a parody, then it is different to redrawing, tracing, whatever. Kyle my opinion on this is totally neutral, I like what you do.

57. 

    Kolby said over 1 year ago

    This thread is balls.

58. 

    Sushilove said over 1 year ago

    haven’t we already discused about this many times before?

    everytime someone asks about using images from old horror movies (i.e. the famous frankenstein image)... then someone gets electric zombie out and so on...

59. 

    chris666 said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit, so whats the point of dragging me down. I do it for my brand. Case Closed move on.

    that

60. 

    Tender Branson said over 1 year ago

    isaboa said: where is the line? Is there a line?

    If you’re going to rag on Kyle, then you’d better start giving shit to anyone whose ever created a parody. I don’t care if you say he traced Robocop or took an image straight from a poster. The bottom line is that anyone creating a parody, whether they drew it from scratch or not, is in essence stealing the idea from someone else.

    The reason that Edgil and that Burn something get so much shit is because they are stealing the ideas of other artists and passing it off as if they are artists, as well as selling the images to unknowing bands and companies.

    Besides that, they are mainly getting bashed because they are douches and liars. Hell Edgil proceeded to lie two or three times before he finally just disappeared all together.

61. 

    disembodied head said over 1 year ago

    

62. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    Tender Branson said:

    isaboa said: where is the line? Is there a line?

    If you’re going to rag on Kyle, then you’d better start giving shit to anyone whose ever created a parody. I don’t care if you say he traced Robocop or took an image straight from a poster. The bottom line is that anyone creating a parody, whether they drew it from scratch or not, is in essence stealing the idea from someone else.

    The reason that Edgil and that Burn something get so much shit is because they are stealing the ideas of other artists and passing it off as if they are artists, as well as selling the images to unknowing bands and companies.

    Besides that, they are mainly getting bashed because they are douches and liars. Hell Edgil proceeded to lie two or three times before he finally just disappeared all together.

    I think my comments in this discussion are pretty casual and for the purposes of the discussion. I am kinda insulated from all the BS on this site, I know very few of you guys. But to say that the people who have been lambasted for ripping were done so because they were assholes not rippers is ridiculous. You are making excuses methinks.

    Also - i take exception with your initial statement about anyone who has ever created a parody. I mean to say that I understand the narrow line of using trademarked/copyrighted characters, like jimmy’s horsemen shirt. Or hell even my radnarok design (which happens to include robocop) What I am taking issue with is the duplication the actual work.

    See this is two different issues:
    - using copyrighted characters, persons etc in ones original illustration be it fair parody or not
    - Duplication of actual copyrighted work and making additions or adjustments and claiming parody (or not claiming parody and flatly stating that it is a theft)

    the robocop with a pizza slice if it was an original work would be potentially borderline parody - But to say the Nekromantic shirt is parody is BS, that appears to be someone liking the poster and slapping it on a shirt with a logo.

    If Kyle drew something original and awesome, I am sure he would get pissed if someone else came along and traced it then sold it (even if the biter stated flatly that the work is unoriginal and stolen) I anticipate that kyle’s reaction would be similar to mine or yours or Lee Sullivan’s.

    I think the disregard of creators rights by another creator is pretty slimy business.

    But again this is just my opinion, and forums are cool cause they are full of opinions.

63. 

    Killer Napkins said over 1 year ago

    so is image appropriation and "found" images in fine art illegal? how about the use of trademarked images in massive collaging artwork? I am just curious.. I heard if there was a certain percentage of the original image (not saying tracing other’s artwork, saying a photo in a magazine or something) changed to make it part of your own work, i thought that was OK. I dunno though.

64. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    i did use the poster, but i didnt just slap it on a shirt. regardless what i did/do for my line is wrong, but why are you concerning yourself with it? are you gettign sued? you most certainly dont have to buy the shirt. It’s a retarded fucking argument. regardless. to say everyone on here is perfect little angels would be the biggest crock of shit. I want to see the dude who has bought every app, bought every font, every picture on this site. Let’s see it happen

65. 

    AJHB said over 1 year ago

    Here’s an example of the use of stock images, from one of my favourite designers Electrik Suicide. For the sake of argument let’s say that none of the photos used belong or were taken by ES.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrik_suicide/3280161140/

    I’d just like to reiterate I’m not targeting anyone in this thread, I’m just trying to get my head around all these legalities.

    Discuss.

66. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    Kyle Crawford said: i did use the poster, but i didnt just slap it on a shirt. regardless what i did/do for my line is wrong, but why are you concerning yourself with it? are you gettign sued? you most certainly dont have to buy the shirt. It’s a retarded fucking argument. regardless. to say everyone on here is perfect little angels would be the biggest crock of shit. I want to see the dude who has bought every app, bought every font, every picture on this site. Let’s see it happen

    I was responding to tender Branson. But no I am not getting sued, I actually was just getting involved in a discussion who’s subject matter interests me.

    It is not a retarded argument. I think the initial question and the responses so far have been an interesting read.

    From my experience on this website, I totally agree that the population here is less than honest.

    And I guess the fact that I own my software and my music and my fonts makes me a chump. We all play by our own rules and our own internal compass of what is right or wrong.

67. 

    Kyle Crawford said over 1 year ago

    it doesnt make you a chump. I commend you. But here’s how we can sum it up for everyone.

    if you didnt take the picture, its stealing.
    if you didnt draw the image, its stealing.
    if i didnt come from a royalty free or purchased from a stock site, its stealing
    if you didnt create make or do anything yourself, you stole.

    and stealing is bad.
    but guess what people do it anyway

68. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    true enough

69. 

    Tender Branson said over 1 year ago

    I’m not comparing Kyle’s work to being a parody. He has already admitted (several times) that he took the art and uses it for his brand. So that is that.

    I’m just simply saying that it is hypocritical to think that parodies (as well as referencing photos) is an okay practice and Kyle’s work isn’t. It’s all a stolen idea. Remaking your version of Darth Vader, Biff, or Garbage Pail Kids is not original, parody or not.

    As in all criminal acts, there are various punishments for various crimes. In the case of Edgil, he ripped SEVERAL artists over a long period of time. In the case of Burn this Forever, he made his enemies long ago, finding out that he ripped a couple of designs is just icing on the cake for those who hate him.

70. 

    isaboa said over 1 year ago

    tender Branson

    But the reasoning behind parody rights, is that you are creating an new original statement other that the original intent of the character being parodied. Be it for humor, satire, political statement or otherwise. That is where the protection and freedom comes in.

    or am I off base here?

71. 

    mel89 said over 1 year ago

    AJHB said: Here’s an example of the use of stock images, from one of my favourite designers Electrik Suicide. For the sake of argument let’s say that none of the photos used belong or were taken by ES. http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrik_suicide/3280161140/ I’d just like to reiterate I’m not targeting anyone in this thread, I’m just trying to get my head around all these legalities. Discuss.

    from what I can tell, he (electrik suicide) uses photos that are stock images or in the public domain, and then he manipulates them to create his designs. since he uses photos that aren’t copyrighted or trademarked, he can’t get in trouble because he’s not "stealing". i personally don’t think there is anything wrong with what he does

    there are other artists who use images that are copyrighted and/or trademarked in their designs. they take images knowing full well they could get sued for it. see: http://www.howtostartaclothingcompany.com/truth-copyrights-licensing/

72. 

    mel89 said over 1 year ago

    Tender Branson said: I’m not comparing Kyle’s work to being a parody. He has already admitted (several times) that he took the art and uses it for his brand. So that is that. I’m just simply saying that it is hypocritical to think that parodies (as well as referencing photos) is an okay practice and Kyle’s work isn’t. It’s all a stolen idea. Remaking your version of Darth Vader, Biff, or Garbage Pail Kids is not original, parody or not. As in all criminal acts, there are various punishments for various crimes. In the case of Edgil, he ripped SEVERAL artists over a long period of time. In the case of Burn this Forever, he made his enemies long ago, finding out that he ripped a couple of designs is just icing on the cake for those who hate him.

    you might think it’s the same thing, in your eyes you see both as being morally wrong and unoriginal, but legally there are distinctions. parodies are often legally protected

73. 

    chris666 said over 1 year ago

    Tender Branson said: I’m not comparing Kyle’s work to being a parody. He has already admitted (several times) that he took the art and uses it for his brand. So that is that.

    so if the brand is happy with the rip it is all ok. just drop it.

74. 

    Michael Partridge said over 1 year ago

    mel89 said:

    AJHB said: Here’s an example of the use of stock images, from one of my favourite designers Electrik Suicide. For the sake of argument let’s say that none of the photos used belong or were taken by ES. http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrik_suicide/3280161140/ I’d just like to reiterate I’m not targeting anyone in this thread, I’m just trying to get my head around all these legalities. Discuss.

    from what I can tell, he (electrik suicide) uses photos that are stock images or in the public domain, and then he manipulates them to create his designs. since he uses photos that aren’t copyrighted or trademarked, he can’t get in trouble because he’s not "stealing". i personally don’t think there is anything wrong with what he does

    there are other artists who use images that are copyrighted and/or trademarked in their designs. they take images knowing full well they could get sued for it. see: http://www.howtostartaclothingcompany.com/truth-copyrights-licensing/

    there is a big difference between buying an image of a unicorn (case to example) from istock and googling unicorns and just using the first one you find.

    One is good, other is bad. End of. I’ve just finished a job using a stock image a band gave me, they liked the image, told me to "do my thing" and the end result was a happy one.

75. 

    mel89 said over 1 year ago

    Defy Designs said:

    mel89 said:

    AJHB said: Here’s an example of the use of stock images, from one of my favourite designers Electrik Suicide. For the sake of argument let’s say that none of the photos used belong or were taken by ES. http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrik_suicide/3280161140/ I’d just like to reiterate I’m not targeting anyone in this thread, I’m just trying to get my head around all these legalities. Discuss.

    from what I can tell, he (electrik suicide) uses photos that are stock images or in the public domain, and then he manipulates them to create his designs. since he uses photos that aren’t copyrighted or trademarked, he can’t get in trouble because he’s not "stealing". i personally don’t think there is anything wrong with what he does

    there are other artists who use images that are copyrighted and/or trademarked in their designs. they take images knowing full well they could get sued for it. see: http://www.howtostartaclothingcompany.com/truth-copyrights-licensing/

    there is a big difference between buying an image of a unicorn (case to example) from istock and googling unicorns and just using the first one you find.

    One is good, other is bad. End of. I’ve just finished a job using a stock image a band gave me, they liked the image, told me to "do my thing" and the end result was a happy one.

    exactly what I was trying to say

76. 

    boycrieswolf said over 1 year ago

    Can I just ask what about famous paintings like The Birth of Venus or stuff as old as that , I’ve seen these be redone before as well, whats the rules on stuff like that?

77. 

    Sushilove said over 1 year ago

    boycrieswolf said: Can I just ask what about famous paintings like The Birth of Venus or stuff as old as that , I’ve seen these be redone before as well, whats the rules on stuff like that?

    I believe after a certain period of time all images become public domain. so pretty much any artwork older like a 100 years has no copyright.

78. 

    Kolby said over 1 year ago

    Sushilove said:

    boycrieswolf said: Can I just ask what about famous paintings like The Birth of Venus or stuff as old as that , I’ve seen these be redone before as well, whats the rules on stuff like that?

    I believe after a certain period of time all images become public domain. so pretty much any artwork older like a 100 years has no copyright.

    wrong

    Life of the artist + 70 years

79. 

    mel89 said over 1 year ago

    Kolby said:

    Sushilove said:

    boycrieswolf said: Can I just ask what about famous paintings like The Birth of Venus or stuff as old as that , I’ve seen these be redone before as well, whats the rules on stuff like that?

    I believe after a certain period of time all images become public domain. so pretty much any artwork older like a 100 years has no copyright.

    wrong

    Life of the artist + 70 years

    also copyrights can be renewed

80. 

    CallumGreen said over 1 year ago

    I can’t be arsed to read through what seems to be (sorry if i’m wrong) another shir filled thread, but didn’t this whole community jack edgil for;

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit,.

    ?

81. 

    hideouscarwreck said over 1 year ago

    Callum_Green said: I can’t be arsed to read through what seems to be (sorry if i’m wrong) another shir filled thread, but didn’t this whole community jack edgil for;

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit,.

    ?

    see:

    justgeoff said: Edgil tried to pass other people’s art that he traced or HIGHLY derived from as his own. I doubt anyone thinks Kyle created Robocop.

82. 

    derekdeal said over 1 year ago

    Callum_Green said: I can’t be arsed to read through what seems to be (sorry if i’m wrong) another shir filled thread, but didn’t this whole community jack edgil for;

    Kyle Crawford said: I’m just saying, I am openly admitting that I basically steal shit,.

    ?

    nobody arsed you to read anything broseph

83. 

    andrE w. said over 1 year ago

    derekdeal said: nobody arsed you to read anything broseph

    oh, thats actually true!

84. 

    henchmania said about 1 year ago

    Yawn.

85. 

    Evanimal said about 1 year ago

    When you’re making merch on the fly, as I know from working at a big merch company where we had to do at least 3 or 4 shirts a day, I can ABSOLUTELY tell you that we begged, borrowed, and stole. If you have deadlines, no one gives or even should give a good goddamn about what you’re using, just how to get the job done in the best way possible. Hopefully you have enough sense to distress, manipulate, or retrace with variations enough to keep your ass out of the fire, but in the world of full time band merch design, there is very little room for moral boundaries. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. This isn’t fine art, this is commercial cut throat real world job art.

86. 

    Cavalry said about 1 year ago

    Can’t we all just appreciate art for being art? Why get so caught up in the technical side of things?

    Oh god, please don’t smite me Zeus...

87. 

    Evanimal said about 1 year ago

    Forreal.

88. 

    Deformed Giraffe said about 1 year ago

    Anything pre 1923 is up for grabs anything post 1923...questionable!

    pastiche
    [n] - a work of art that imitates the style of some previous work.

    Some would say that impersonation is a kind of flattery.

89. 

    Cavalry said about 1 year ago

    I’m just saying, but whenever I look at designs on emptees and love them, I NEVER think "Oh, that looks traced, copied, reused, whatever"

    If it looks awesome as a piece of art then I enjoy it, its visually appealing to me. Take Kyles "Robocop tee" for example. That to me is an awesome design, I would have never known it was traced, shaded whatever. Because in all honesty it SHOULDN’T matter (Wish there were italics so it didn’t look like I was screaming).

    Kyle introduced me to some new art which I thought was really cool, and probably many others who don’t even know that robocop comics exist (thats pretty sweet though).

    isn’t that what arts about? Do I need to even mention Andy Warhol? Crazy art, did he use original objects? The point is its visually appealing, I don’t care about the "legal" details.

90. 

    8-bit ZOMBIE said about 1 year ago

    henchmania said: Yawn.

    Kind of of funny that you bump a 2 month old thread with a post that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

    And yet here I am posting a comment that is just as worthless. Dammit.

    So as no to be a hypocrite - None of us live in an artistic vacuum. Everything we see on here or in our daily lives gets filtered through our brains. It’s so easy to take things from other artists and apply it to our own work and not even realize it. That being said, that’s nowhere near tracing/taking images.

    And yet here’s where I get hypocritical again. I really hate seeing people rip off other people and try to pass it off as their own. But I can admire when people take inspiration (Or downright take someone else’s images) and do it with style and skill. Since everyone is using Kyle as an example, (Sorry Kyle) I’ll say that I love his stuff. He has a lot talent. AND he admits to taking things from other’s. I see a lot of Kyle’s stuff (Especially his EZ stuff) as him holding up a mirror to the world in which he lives. He loves TMNT/horror/wrestling and it shows. Is it right? I dunno. But I like it.

    So the line between originality and stealing is bold yet blurry? I guess that’s what I’m saying... Some cases are blatant thievery. Some cases are a skillful and creative in their own right.

    Aaaaaaand I’m done rambling.

91. 

    RNSI said about 1 year ago

    So Kyle, I understand you know the legal issues you may be getting yourself into when you use the Nekromantik poster for your own EZ line. But you have also used movie posters for many of the bands you’ve done work for. Do the bands/labels understand there may be legal consequences with printing such material?

    And who would be responsible if litigation occurs? Kyle, the band or the label???

92. 

    RNSI said about 1 year ago

    TheRedemptionSong said:

    RNSI said: So Kyle, I understand you know the legal issues you may be getting yourself into when you use the Nekromantik poster for your own EZ line. But you have also used movie posters for many of the bands you’ve done work for. Do the bands/labels understand there may be legal consequences with printing such material? And who would be responsible if litigation occurs? Kyle, the band or the label???

    no one, because it will never happen.
    honestly no one will EVER take kyle to court over a design. people have better things to do.

    this thread is fucking dumb as shit.

    who cares.

    Apparently a lot of people care. There are 90+ posts in this thread. And if this thread is "dumb as shit" maybe your time would be better spent polluting other threads with your 2¢

93. 

    RNSI said about 1 year ago

    ^^^^^You’re one of a kind man. And still keep coming back to this thread that is "dumb as shit."

94. Log In
    back