le sigh

fire zeh missles?

they need a crew to search the world for designs so they know theyre all legit and totally original.

Who am I kidding?

You guys really know how to take things in your stirde dont you? do everyone a favour and get off your pedastalls.

Dear angry teenagers,

So it wasn't totally original, and he's got a small check and some store credit to show for it.

Why didn't you do it before him?

With love,

Everyone else.

It's not all about the money. These is, in essence, an art design website, which just happens to print the winning pieces on a tee. In a 'proper' competition, you wouldn't dare plagerise, which is what this person has done. It's just down right dirty, and unfair to the contestants who have worked hard and put real thought into their own designs. So lay of the "Dear Angry Teenager" patronising shit, and let people have their say, as they're intitled to it, esp if they're designing tees.

Point one: the original design is from a NINTEEN SIXTIES coloring book. The copyright has expired. In addition, the word "plagiarize" is incorrect. Jonas made it clear even before the end of scoring that the illustration was a parody, and the idea wasn't originally his own. Thus, he never tried to pass it off has his own (and not plagiarized).

The artist, on August 23rd, nearly two months before print, said the following:

"I'm sorry peruvianjew, but i'm not tryin' to insult the music they made, i've got nothing against the beatles, but i came up with the idea when i saw a coloring book for young girls back in the '60's with all sorts of beatles drawings, including 'john making diner', 'george fishing' and other hilarious stuff. Now that's sacriligious. I decided to spoof it with this illustration. Thx for all the great comments so far! "

Three days later, he said the following:

"hatexspinnerbalt, i allready said it was a spoof on a coloring book of the beatles, i manipulated the illustration, vectorised it and added the make-up, ribbons and earrings, that was my concept, that was the way i colored the beatles, by adding the drag queen elements, it became funny. I don't know what your point is, of course this is a very old illustration of the beatles, which i manipulated to a t-shirtdesign, it's been done before and it will be done in the future. Vectorising and changing the drawing to a t-shirt design took me hours and hours , so i take credit for that."

These types of illustrations are common place within the industry. I have a hard time believing a 16 year old has the knowledge of sitting in on large art commissions and years of art history lectures.

Design isn't a math equation. Stop drawing lines in the sand; it makes your lack of knowledge for art history glare a horrible envious green.

Actually, the copyright hasn't expired. Here in Aus, copyright extends to 50 years after the death of the artist before an image enters the public domain (for photography, it's 50 years after an image is published, not taken)...this isn't yet 50 years old. In the US, copyright legislation is even more stringent.

Beyond any issues regarding copyright legislation, I think the right thing to do would be for the designer to link to the source image in his initial sub post, which he didn't do. He was also a little ambiguous to begin with & made it seem he was merely influenced by an illustration he saw, when in fact he's appropriated it.

As I said in another blog about this, I have no problems with appropriating found images & using them in a design...I do so myself...I collect vintage ephemera as a resource & inspiration...but due to this, I make sure I'm aware of copyright legislation & whether an image is in the public domain or not. I'd also be mortified if I thought anyone was giving me credit for something I wasn't wholly responsible for, so clearly give credit when it's due.

But shucks, Threadless isn't based out of Australia.

Out of the book (USA):

"The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years... For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors."

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#302

Sections 302 and 303 outline the circumstances in which the author should have already applied for renewed copyright, must be living (or kin as passed down and renewed within 28 years of death), and must also show probable infringement from the secondary artist (or hack in some of your cases).

So, lets get this dead author of a small circulated coloring book from the 60s to come out and show cause that Jonas indeed stole his art (for which he didn't, he remade and changed) and published the work with malicious intent.

i don't like it cause it takes the piss out of the beatles:one of my fave's and they are great ambassadors of music.

i'm a brit so it's taking the piss out of me culture.

According to my limited knowledge of US copyright law, if the original image is post-63, the copyright extension is automatic...& I think by looking at their hairdos, that this illy is from 64-65...their hair was shorter in 63. Could be wrong on this as I'm no Beatles expert...but whatever, it's cutting it pretty damn fine.

The point is, it's up to the designer to ensure they're abiding by the law, & forgetting legislation for a minute, there's the ethics of crediting the original image & its origins. Be honest...how would you feel if youwere the artist who created the original?

Don't get me wrong...I think this is a great shirt & will probably buy it...as I stated earlier, I don't have a problem with this kind of apropriation...I'm just discussing some of the legal & ethical ramefications, that's all.

Addy Bear...I don't think you need to take it so seriously...The Beatles had a great sense of humour, they'd probably see the funny side...& it's drawing a very long bow to suggest it's disrespectful to British people!

maybe so,
but half of um are dead.

I think karena said it best when she said.....

"forgetting legislation for a minute, there's the ethics of crediting the original image & its origins. Be honest...how would you feel if youwere the artist who created the original?"


We pride ourselves around threadless about being creative and good designers. And although it might have taken a good amount of time to do the work to manipulate the image, the questions lie with the ethics... and within the heart of the person.

whatever happens nobody do a led zepplin piss take. please!!!

why are we catching this stuff until it's printed anymore?

theres nothing to catch in this instance... a parody of something, even if copyrighted, is legal

i said it when it was in the running

I hate it when this crap happens.

awesome name, hatexspinnerbait, This Lullaby is a great book. :D

Maybe, since sometimes it gets lost in the scoring pages when somebody is called out, there should be a little flag button for unoriginal work in the scoring pages.
So in this case, somebody could click it, leave an email address and state how it's unoriginal and - if possible - could source the original for the guys at Threadless and leave an email address where they can be reached, if Threadless has any questions?
There is massive potential for abuse and crying wolf, obviously, but maybe if you require all information like email addres, threadless login AND an explanation...?

"you barely added anything to this though. besides, drag queens would have wigs and stuff. but whatever. it didnt win."

tell that to duchamp who turned a urinal upside down and called it fountain. he didn't add ANYTHING to it, except an artistic context- which is what the bows and jewelry add to the illustration. not only did he redraw it, but he took it out of what people think of when they think beatle's and turned that upside down.