Threadless.com - Best t-shirts in the world
Type Tees - Amazing tees created from submitted slogans!
The Select Series - Artist edition limited invite only tee shirt designs
Threadless Kids - Designer kids & baby clothing
Fourcolours
Fourcolours aka Darren Hudson Hick is 35.12 years old, has been a member since November 18, 2007, has scored 2826 submissions, giving an average score of 2.13.
  Nov 24 '07 by Fourcolours        192 Comments        Watch this      Share:  Share on facebook    Share on delicious    Share on digg    Share on MySpace    Tweet this    Stumble this    Share this on Kaboodle   
Hi all –

I’m new to Threadless, but on going through a lot of the designs (both submitted and up for critique), I felt compelled to write a little missive on copyright.

I’ve noticed a good number of designs on the site that blatantly infringe established copyrights. I’ve also noticed that, by and large, the general public is not aware of even the basics of what constitutes copyright infringement, and what is allowable. As Threadless is largely populated by artists, it seems a worthwhile topic to investigate here.

Although my own interests in copyright are largely ethical in nature, what artists (and Threadless itself) will want to be concerned about are the legal and monetary implications. First, it is important to note that under the current law, the punishment for each and every act of infringement is a minimum of $750 (and a maximum of $30,000). As such, one need only multiply the number of infringements on any particular shirt by the number of t-shirts printed and again by $750, and one has the total bill. (For example, then, if your shirt infringes two copyrights and 1,000 copies are printed, and you are sued and lose, you will owe a minimum of $1.5 million.)

Now, there is in US copyright law a wide berth allowing for ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials. However, fair use is a decidedly messy area of copyright law, and, unfortunately, the only way to truly determine if a use is fair is to get sued and see what the courts have to say. This is, you’ll note, an extremely expensive and time-consuming process (even if you win the suit).

Perhaps the most common argument made by those accused of infringement is that their use is ‘personal use’. This is really just another way of saying ‘fair use’. Without going into the details of fair use, given that Threadless is selling the shirts, this weighs heavily against any case you might have. Also note that whether or not an infringing work is for sale is by no means THE determining factor in copyright lawsuits.

The second most common argument made by those accused of infringement is that their work is a ‘parody’ and thus qualifies as fair use. Putting aside the ‘for-sale’ issue (which, as I say, can be outweighed, and often is in parody cases), parody is an often-confused issue. For a work to qualify as parody, it must directly satirize the very thing that it is copying. Otherwise, it will only qualify as satire, generally speaking, and will most certainly fall outside the range of fair use. For example, then, if I create a design using the Smurfs, and depict them as a communist regime or as engaged in a Dionysian orgy, I might get away with it, as I am making a comment on how the Smurf’s society was always being depicted as idyllic despite the male-to-female ratio. However, if I create a design depicting the Smurfs, say, working at Starbucks, I’m probably not making any such comment, and thus, at best, will have created a satiric work.

Although not the most common argument made in copyright cases, what I see a lot of on Threadless are arguments along the lines of “But I redrew it/turned it into a new work/…” This won’t save you. What you will have created is known in copyright law as a “derivative work” and is every bit as much an infringement as copying a DVD. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t take the whole work, or that you redrew it, or that you made it into something new. It’s just as illegal, and you’ll be just as liable for damages.

Given that even if your use is ‘fair’, you can get sued, the best advice I can offer is this: If you don’t know you way around copyright law (and I mean in detail), do not use anything that pictorially references anything anyone else has created in the last century. You are asking for trouble. Your t-shirt of ‘Spider-Granny’ wearing Spider-man’s costume is hilarious, but you’re basically daring Marvel Comics to sue you. Likewise, your simple drawing of a classic Corvette likely infringes Chevrolet’s copyright on the design (yes, they have a copyright on the design of the ’Vette), and Chevy’s lawyers are bigger than yours. I know you drew it yourself; it doesn’t matter.

I hope this helps.

Darren (a.k.a. Fourcolours)
Page:
1 2 3 4

namE.
namE. on Nov 24 '07 at 3:31pm
It's called a parody...
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:33pm
lol @ this guy
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:33pm
What's called a parody? Did you even read what I wrote?
namE.
namE. on Nov 24 '07 at 3:33pm
no
xiv
   xiv on Nov 24 '07 at 3:34pm
lol @ maltz lol'ing @ this guy
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:34pm
lol @ this guy
Stevethegreat
Stevethegreat on Nov 24 '07 at 3:38pm
lol @ the other guy.
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:38pm
A very nice and succinct summary, thank you.
spires
   spires on Nov 24 '07 at 3:39pm
read stephen kinsella and reevaluate your views
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:40pm
lol @ PSYCHE!
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:43pm
Kinsella is a libertarian and IP-theory revisionist. I'm familiar with his views. However, what he and his cohorts are arguing for is a re-evaluation of intellectual property per se. What I'm discussing is the current fact of the matter. When one is sued for infringement, the issue is not what the law should be, but what the law in fact is. Hey, I'm just trying to help, here.
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:44pm
lol @ this guy "helping"
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:44pm
And behind our snide comments, we really do thank you for bringing the issue up!
namE.
namE. on Nov 24 '07 at 3:45pm
Don't worry, we're just messing about. Post the printed designs you consider to be copyright infringement.
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:45pm
Dark Side of the Garden - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever

??
Bramish
   Bramish on Nov 24 '07 at 3:46pm
You might want to post some examples of printed designs that have infringed copyright.
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:47pm
Yeah, the death star topiary one really bothers me because, frankly, it's a gorgeous shirt, and I'd love to wear it. There's some chance this will qualify as parody given that tending a garden seems very much against Darth Vader's personality archetype. So I'd like to think it's fair use, but, as I say, the only way to be sure is to be sued.

Generally speaking, where I see a potential issue of infringement, I make a comment to that effect on the design itself.
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:48pm
lol @
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:48pm
X-Ray Goggles Work - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever

??
olie!
   olie! on Nov 24 '07 at 3:49pm
How is X-Ray Goggles Work copyright infringement?
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:50pm
Dad? - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever

??
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:50pm
I'm not sure about the X-Ray goggles shirt because I don't know if the image copies from those old ads in the backs of comic books or not. It's not like there's an issue of copying a "character" in this one.

As for Warhol's soup cans, yes, actually, they're blatant infringements. It's a wonder that he and Roy Lichtenstein didn't get their asses handed to them. (Copyright law, incidentally, makes no allowance for aesthetic merit or artistic license.)
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:51pm
man you shoulda totally sued them fourcolors!
Bramish
   Bramish on Nov 24 '07 at 3:51pm
So even though you love Dark Side... you won't wear it because...um... why won't you wear it? Do you work for George Lucas or something?
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:51pm
As for "Dad?", it's probably an illegal infringement. I can't see any great argument for parody there.
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:52pm
olie, that one had a bit of controversy surrounding it so I thought I'd post it to see what Fourcolours has to say.
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:52pm
maybe?Miss Scarlet in the Hall with a Revolver - Threadless, Best T-shirts EverWhat Would Macgyver Do? - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever
Operation Needed - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever
Maltzmania
Maltzmania on Nov 24 '07 at 3:53pm
lol i'm leaving this blog now

good luck Fourcoulours, Esq.
tesco
   tesco on Nov 24 '07 at 3:53pm
what about my username?
Melikochan
Melikochan on Nov 24 '07 at 3:53pm
"Parody" is open to so much interpretation.
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:53pm
or, we can call it satire and say the whole thing doesn't really matter.
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:54pm
Bramish -- well, like I said, my concerns regarding copyright are largely ethical. And, frankly, I see infringement as ethically wrong. As I say, in that case, it would probably fall under 'parody'. In any event, I don't want to get into the underlying ethics of it all. I just wanted to raise the legal (and thus financial) concerns.
xiv
   xiv on Nov 24 '07 at 3:54pm
The Killing Tree - Threadless, Best T-shirts Ever
lol
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:55pm
Killing Tree ftw
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 3:56pm
You can sue anyone for anything.
d3d
   d3d on Nov 24 '07 at 3:56pm
don't most companies offer you a "cease and desist" before going right to financially ruining you? there's a little grey area there where you can have some fun and sling mud at the big guys. there's no point being a pussy until they actually threaten you.
littlem
littlem on Nov 24 '07 at 3:56pm
needs more pictures!
namE.
namE. on Nov 24 '07 at 3:57pm
In all fairness Fourcolours do you really think these large corporate companies actually care?

To campaign against something as trivial as a t-shirt design would be an embarrassing ordeal, and not to mention would probably promote the design.
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 3:57pm
Fourcolours, I think it's fine to reference things. People love pop culture and they like to "get it". Just look at the overwhelming popularity of Spoilt.

Also, does anybody remember the plethora of parody shirts that came out in the nineties? You know, all the shirts that looked like Tide, FedEx, etc. but had one of the words changed. Do you think those are wrong as well?
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 3:57pm
Pizazz and Tesco -- Names can't be copyrighted, so the Miss Scarlet and Macgyver shirts (and your name, Tesco) aren't really copyright issues. They may be trademark issues, but to infringe trademark, one has to use the trademarked name to refer to some other product or service than what is trademarked.

And yes, Melikochan (and Pizzazz), parody is widely open to interpretation. And in this case, the interpretation that matters is the court's. And you have to get sued to find out what their interpretation is. Like I say in my little missive, given the cost of being sued (not to mention the cost of losing a suit), it's probably not worth trying.
olie!
   olie! on Nov 24 '07 at 4:00pm
The one thing I don't get is how you make a case for the Smurfs that it would be OK to depict them having a massive orgy because it references that the "Smurf’s society was always being depicted as idyllic despite the male-to-female ratio" but to make them working at a Starbucks is NOT ok. Since the orgy reference is totally opinionated and interpretational, I don't see why someone can't come up with some crazy reasoning behind why making the Smurfs work at a Starbucks relates to some deeper philolosophical or metaphorical underworking or parallel of the Smurf society. I just fail to see the difference between the two examples.
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 4:00pm
d3d -- they certainly can send a cease-and-desist letter, but they're by no means obligated to.

namE -- Take a look at what record companies are currently doing to the little guy who sends a few files over P2P networks.

valorandvellum -- I understand your concerns about referencing things. The legal issue isn't referencing; it's copying.

Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 4:01pm
Olie! -- That's a fair point. And, okay, there may be some slim chance in the 'Smurfbucks' case that it will qualify as parody. Again, you don't have to convince me; you have to convince the courts. Oh, and of course, in that case, Starbucks can sue, too.
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 4:02pm
xiv -- I'm not aware of what's being referenced in the 'Killing Tree' design, so I can't really comment on that one.
spires
   spires on Nov 24 '07 at 4:02pm
we all own billions to the inventor of cloth
spires
   spires on Nov 24 '07 at 4:03pm
owe*
valorandvellum
   valorandvellum on Nov 24 '07 at 4:03pm
Then how do you define the difference between "referencing" and "copying"?
spires
   spires on Nov 24 '07 at 4:03pm
fourcolors, you are such a bore. Copyright is so indefensible that your arguments are making me laugh.
Pizazz
Pizazz on Nov 24 '07 at 4:04pm
I know. All these really are are pop culture references. You could make a design with a monstrously fat Garfield, but Jim Davis would probably laugh.
Fourcolours
Fourcolours on Nov 24 '07 at 4:04pm
Pizzazz -- Yes, you can sue anyone for anything. In frivolous cases, though, the matter will be thrown out of court. Where there's some chance of actual infringement, it won't.

Page:
1 2 3 4
(192 comments!)


You must be logged in to leave a comment.
My gallery photos
I haven't submitted any photos. I guess I don't want free money.

My designs