This is not a tree, it's not even a plant! It's a Calcareous Sponge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcareous_sponge).

The drawing is by Ernst Haeckel; endless craziness at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kunstformen_der_Natur

All I did was process it into 4 colors. I think it looks sweet on black. Don't hate me for that.

I clicked on that link...page loads real slow but looks like this artist published a book of illustrations in 1904...don't know if that is any kind of copyright issue to rework something (I always wonder myself where the line is)...that being said, I LOVE the look of this!! Really cool, nice job. $5

i like it on brown...

Hm. From that link it doesn't look like you did anything but put it on a t-shirt...

found art i suppose. anywho i like it best on brown.

Wow - I like this a lot.

i do believe that copyright when associated with artistic development (that is if you don't sell it) is (or was o.O) the lifetime of the creator plus seventy years. 5

I think you're pretty safe on the copy right thing. If I remember correctly... copyrights are only for ... 7yrs? or was it 6. That is unless the owner renewed it. $5 though. I'm a sucker for trees... even ones that are actually coral.

I love it

I don't mean to be offensive, but... even if you're safe on the copyright, it always feels kind of unfair to me to see this kind of thing. Why should you be given a $2000 prize for copying someone else's artwork, even if you did so legally? I don't really understand that mindset.

vixyish, raises a good question.
tulrich, do you have a good answer ?

vix, he found a good piece of art and made no lies. He came clean(before anyone accused him) and said he didn't make it and it seems legal. Good find IMO.

I agree with vix...all he did was change the original picture's colors and slapped it on the center of a shirt. These are supposed to be "designs", and that word means to me that the person took time to think of their own original concept, draw it out themselves and create it, sometimes taking days. Copying and pasting in 2 seconds doesn't work.

i won't hate you for anything. this shirt rocks.

have the fungi (or whatever...) in gold foil!! ker-ching!

As cool as it looks, taking someone else's work and modifying it is not cool at all.

poop 0.

i'd really like it if it was submitted by the guy who drew it

to all the people who are up in arms abt this being copied, any artist who uses collage in their work is "taking someone else's work and modifying it" and that's definitely art. think max ernst. besides, this guy isn't trying to pass someone else's work off as his own. he came clean about it, and i think it'd be really sad if threadless couldn't have shirts with old art reinterpreted on them. but i get where you're coming from, b/c it is literal cut and paste. i think putting this design on a shirt is creative enough that it is original.
as original as any of the other subs, anyway.

argument aside-- I like it on black, but I think it would look better bigger

I'll admit that it does look pretty cool, but copyright issues or not, it doesn't do anything for me in terms of a shirt design.

By the way, there's a difference between collage and cutting and pasting a single image. But as far as this as a shirt design, I would feel the same way even if he had drawn it by hand. Cool to look at, but seems out of place on a shirt.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

The artwork is Public Domain, the original artist died over 80 years ago, and copyright has long since expired -- legally there is no problem at all.

Morally, I agree it's appropriate to credit the original guy, which is why I put the link up there and made it clear that the original drawing is not my work.

As far as putting it on a T-shirt, I did do some work to try to posterize it nicely (I even wrote some custom image-processing code since I don't have pro design software) and tint it etc. But I agree I didn't do anything special other than pick a nice image.

vixyish & helo: I don't totally agree with your criticism, but you do have a point. I'm in this for fun, not for the small chance of getting $2k. So, I hereby declare that in the event this T-shirt wins and I'm awarded some money by Threadless, I'll donate 100% of my winnings to the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports the preservation of the kind of art I borrowed here and which I consider a great cause.

I like the image quite a lot. I would buy this, it is very appealing. As for time spent, well, good art (and a nice shirt) comes from more than just effort. Sometimes a good eye is the most important element. There are designs I've scored here that I'm sure took ages to complete, yet were completely awful. Other people can sketch out a fabulous design in seconds, it comes so easily to them. In the end, the result is what matters. So for my two cents, I'll say good eye, good find, $5 on brown.

One more comment...as for copyright, if it's expired or permission is granted, then no harm, no foul. Personally I'd bet the original artist would be delighted to see his work live on, even if it's in an unexpected medium. The true tragedy occurs when art disappears from public consciousness--then we all lose. Outside of t-shirts and posters, what better means exist in today's society for making historic art known?

I dig it

I'm a bit of a Haekel fan, and have seen his art reproduced for everything from wall art to towels (from Martha Stewart, even). Good design lives forever.

I'd buy this and wear it. I really like your idea of what to do with the money if you did manage to get it. Shows that there are people out there who are having fun ~_^

I love it on brown..

I'm a sucker for brown.