Don't let his BIG "please don't eat me" eyes fool you. This 'lil guy's a bad seed and up to nothing but trouble.

This is seriously creepy. I love it!

I'm not big on the colors you picked, cool skull thu

hey! check it out. it's just the head of one of these. commonly sold everywhere every halloween.
any slight difference in the face is probably subject to year/model/issue of it.

http://www.frightcatalog.com/images/morris/200B/PM7580.jpg

if you are going to use source images, at least combine stuff into something new.

So, I'm the artist of this piece. The design IS based on a Halloween doll, not this one but one like it, but more specifically on a drawing I did of the doll in the position I was going for. This was actually my first submission (although Honey Bear went up first - which by the way people said looked like various bears but was a completely original drawing) and I was messing with a) an visage that I wanted to see on a shirt b) the process to make it happen in line, color, and shape c) getting started on Threadless. Seems the same to me as the repurposing of clip art and photos which is the norm here. I'm not tracing a Street Fighter character and calling it my own, but, if this doesn't work for people than I can see your point and wouldn't think to do it in the future.

totally agree, it's not a blatently ripped off enouph to warrent critisism for plagerism. using source imagery is fine enouph in my book; especially at a site like threadless. as long as the final image is different enouph, why should i care.

oh and by the way, i give it a 4...
5 if you change the background color to something id wear

"Seems the same to me as the repurposing of clip art and photos which is the norm here. "

while a lot of people seem to get away with submitting barely (if at all) modified clip art and "borrowed" photos - and some even score (in my opinion) way too high - that should not be "the norm" here - it really shouldn't be tolerated at all. the submission sorting staff can apparently only catch so much. but if you actually have the talent to draw something yourself - that's what you should be doing.

using objacts and your own photos as source material is fine - but do something with it that makes it your own.

i love the eyes.

and i don't consider this plagiarized.

Call it what you like, but this is a literal transalation of a copyrighted novelty product. To use the artist's own example, just because this character isn't as internationally known as Street Fighter doesn't change the fact that you're drawing someone else's character. Even if you get $5 from everyone, threadless won't print it because they know that.

The image that travis76 is the paper mache character: the one this is drawn from looks like the latex version that came on the market a year later.

Not only am I a professional artist but I also collect Halloween decorations. So please just believe me. I'm typing this to help you, not myself.

aaw! i love it! $5

i disagree with all of the crits about source...

professional doesn't mean well informed...

threadless printed EMO BEAR which doesn't hid it's reference...also printed Hipster Doll which has an IPOD depicted, and teh beatles love me hairdo was taken from an old colouring book and slightly modified with bows and make up...and the scrabble shirt, and "chance" is nearly exactly a monopoly card but with a zombie twist. Miss Scarlet in the Hall with a Revolver...CLUE REFERENCE! Dark Side of the Garden (DARTH VADER), Calling Home (E.T.), Dad? (KFC...a small black bar over an existing logo to maki it "original", yeh right), You Sank My Battleship (DUH!), Neon Monkey (planet of the apes)...so eff the source crits...

i like this design just fine...would like it to be a bit smaller on teh shirt...but other than that, it's a-ok.

hide

i have one of those guys! his name is sloopy buster irvine!

a little smaller and you got a winner!!!
$4

hey! that's the dead baby they sell at target!

gimetzco may be passionate but that doesn't make him right.

None of the exampls that he mentioned are the same as this piece. All of them are a parody or at least an alteration of the original source material. This design isn't. It's that simple. You're comparing apples and oranges. Professional artists alter existing objects in their art and parody trademarks all day long. But that's not what's happening here.

I don't care if you like it. I like it too. That doesn't change the fact that it's a literal, unaltered, un-parodied rendition of a product that you can buy at Target. Unless hamgravy is the designer of that product, he doesn't deserve to be praised or rewarded for it. It's that "effing" simple, gimetzco.

Hamgravy, the comment you made above is spot on. I respect the fact that you don't see how this is different than clip art but trust me, it is. You're obviously talented so next time pull it from inside you instead of off the shelf. You're gonna do great.

I would love to see this as one of
those gel filled rubber balls
where squeezing it caused its
eyes to bulge out.

i am not talking about parody here...i'm talking about a human hand crafting what the human eyes see...and thats' what's been done here, so what ifr it's not throwing the skull image up on a poofy "thought cloud" with the word neon under it...so what? how does neon monkey = parody, when the image of the monkey is clearly a vectored copyrighted image from the film planet of the apes?

this passes. no question about it. none...and i am not only "passionate" but here...i am right. and if you don't like that i'm right...well...you'll have to deal with that your own way.

(yaaaaaawn)

You know, you'd think I'd just walk away and not care but here's the deal. I'm also an art teacher and I think leaving this very important issue open like this is irresponsible. I know that it's easy to come across as being self-important and smug via posting but I'm really only trying to clear this issue up.

It's obvious that gimetzco won't believe me no matter what I say, so I wrote to the company that distributes the Buster skeleton and here's what they had to say.

Dear [bonaparte],

I want to thank you very much for your letter. I would agree that the image
is essentially the same as the PMG Buster image and we do take the
protection of intellectual property very serious. One thing that many young or amateur artist don't appreciate is that most large companies purchase specific rights from independent artists. The artists may sell the same image to different companies for different product categories. Someone coping the image are not only diluting the trade value of the companies product but also infringing on the right and livelihood of independent artists and studios. In this case we may have the Buster rights for our specific product and another company might have purchased it for T-Shirts.

I am glad to see that a discussion of copyright and trademark is taking
place at [this] level. My experience working with numerous free
lance artists is there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the community
and a little knowledge goes a long way - both keeping one out of trouble and allowing the artist to intelligently negotiate with companies.

Sincerely,

Don French
Vice President Marketing
Paper Magic Group


So nobody's in trouble here, but the legal fact of the matter is that it's not okay to copy another artist's imagery and sell it as your own. As for gimetzco's Neon Monkey comparison, I can't say. Maybe the stylization of it is enough to put it in the clear: maybe threadless knows that by the time that the cease and desist order comes from 20th Century Fox that they will have sold them already. That's not the issue here and not what I care about. I just want hamgravy to get some sound advice to help him become more professional. We can always use that.

And the news keeps coming. This woman REALLY puts the last nail in the coffin of this discussion.

Dear [bonaparte]:

My name is Michelle Love and I am legal counsel for Paper Magic Group, Inc. ... Paper Magic will do everything it can to protect its intellectual property. As you may or may not know, Paper Magic has a registered copyright for Buster (#VA 1-270-011 effective June 9, 2004). When someone owns a copyright, the unauthorized copying, creation of a
derivative work, etc. is infringement. Furthermore, when someone registers a copyright (as Paper Magic has done), then permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages may be sought. That means Paper Magic could seek statutory damages against [the artist] as high as $150,000 (see 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)(2)). In some jurisdictions, criminal penalties may be imposed against a copyright infringer.

The elements that need to be shown to prove copyright infringement are the following: (1) Ownership of a valid copyright; (2)Copying by the Defendant. Proven by (a) access and (b) "probative similarity" which means there is a minimal level of similarity between the two works that might imply the defendant had copied plaintiff's work; and (3) Their copying created a "substantially similar" work. In making this determination the court will evaluate how much of the protected elements of your work the defendant has taken and how much of the defendant's work those elements represent.

To respond to [gimetzco's] argument claiming that artists have a right to
depict what they see, that is true to some extent. Independent creation is
a defense that is a available to a defendant who has been sued for copyright infringement. However, there was nothing independent or original about [hamgravy's] design. It was an exact copy of Buster and Paper Magic would be able to prove all of the elements shown above...

Some advice I would give ..."If you want to be a successful artist in this world, make sure your work is original and independently created." However, if [anyone] wanted to use Buster on a t-shirt, then they should contact Paper Magic and ask permission to use the design. Paper Magic may grant permission through a license agreement or some other contract. ..

Best regards,

Michelle J. Love
Corporate Attorney

Again, hamgravy, I'm not trying to be a douche about this or anything, but you were getting some very irresponsible advice from some of the other posters here and if this design had gone on to get big votes, it could have caused a lot fo trouble down the line. I hope you see where you went wrong and that your next design will kick ass. Good luck!

For what it's worth, it's actually not B uster but a similar design from another company. I do not own nor am I in league with Buster, although the point is well taken. I wrongfully assumed the design was public domain because of its prevalence during the holiday. Thanks all for the spirited discussion, Paper Magic for their love of related fetal skeletons, and to bonaparte for the follow through.

I guess the name of this piece said it all.