Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheGoalNet

Attack of the Clones

Recommended Posts

Attack of the Clones 

Image result for red potvin mask

Back in January, we touched on the concept of trends in goaltending. One of the trends I highlighted was the growth of the “Wright Clone”. It seems like in the past 12 months more companies are more boldly copying and advertising their copies of the Wright style mask; more commonly known as the Bauer 960 XPM. In the interim, an innocent post on here has become a side fascination of mine… 

Related image

To paraphrase the post in question; after looking at a Potvin replica mask, a #GoalieCrowd member commented something to the effect of “Harrison would be furious if he saw that”. In the moment, I thought the poster was nuts. It’s a 25 year old design that has been replicated on probably 1000 masks since then. It’s been done by NHL guys, AHL guys, NCAA guys, CHL guys, and beer leaguers alike. But then I really started to consider this. This is Harrison’s creative property and no one is paying him a dime for its use.

So that got me thinking, what is a trend? What is plagiarism? And how do the people involved feel?

According to the international expert on everything, Google, a trend is “a general direction in which something is developing or changing”, “a fashion”, or “changes or develop in a general direction”. In the context of goaltending, I would call trends things like taller thigh rises, squarer pads, enhanced sliding materials, ghosted paint on masks, the use of composite sticks, or skates without cowlings. Nowhere in the definition does it mention replication or copying of an original design or idea.

Image result for scott battram

When we Google plagiarism, the definitions is “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own”. This seems to describe the scenario of buying a Wright / Itech / Bauer style mask from someone other than Bauer or getting Jonathan Quick’s paint job done by someone other than Eye Candy Air. However… there is one part of the definition that makes me uncomfortable here. I don’t know that anyone is “passing them off as one’s own”. If we purchase a late model Belfour paint job from a painter other than Miska, but don’t pretend it’s a Miska, does that mean its okay?

To put this into proper context, a copyright infringement probably best describes the issue at play. A copyright is “the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same”. This feels better. Did Bauer give anyone the right to reproduce the 960 Wright design? Did Harrison greenlight anyone ever to make a Potivin replica? My gut say no…

Image result for brodeur mask

So if you wear a Simmons branded anything or have a Brodeur paint job on your mask, you should probably stop reading here. This topic clearly does not matter to you or you simply don’t care. I may not agree with your ethics, you may now think I’m an idiot, and you certainly are not alone. It’s sad when you think about it, but there’s clearly a big market for clones, replicas, etc.

Back to the lecture at hand, Jerry Wright (Itech) and Don Straus (Armadilla) were both nice enough to be interviewed on this topic and share their point of view. Jerry is fascinating because his Wright mask has been the most popular mask in the NHL for decades and the design has changed ownership. Don’s story is interesting because he designed his own shell and also painted the masks. His Hayward shark mask was voted the best paint job of all time and the Vanbiesbrouck Panther mask is a legend. In fact, it’s so legendary; it has been replicated by goalies at every level… without his permission.

Image result for fleury itech

Jerry was my first interview on this subject. Starting with him only made sense because his mask has a direct tie in to “The Trends” article. In corresponding with Jerry Wright, it seems his opinion may have evolved overtime. When asking his overall opinion on the clones, he replied “I suppose at this late stage- honored. However, when Wright Design was operational another set of choice words would have been my reaction every time I discovered another clone on the market”He went on to highlight the main reason the authentic article is so crucial, especially when it involves protecting your head. “A clone cannot, accurately enough, replicate the integrity of the fine details that went into the original shell. I understand you pay more for the finer details, but buying a less expensive clone does not fully replicate the original 960/ 961 function and fit.   Aesthetically, this is more subjective.  I have never seen an improvement with any clone over the original and I think that this has also has influenced how everything played out. I have not yet witnessed widespread clone use in the professional ranks, let alone in the NHL”.

Related image

 “The amount of work that goes into the development of a successful model requires extensive tooling, design development, financial investment, stops and starts, and alterations before the functional whole of a concept can come together. If a clone is developed that has only copied the end of a long project, took no risks,  or lacked personal investment, they are really conceding they have nothing of their own. Looking for financial revenue through my design-work is something I cannot really respect”.  

The other interesting avenue Jerry discussed pertains to evolution of design. “When [961] came out in 1993, the look of this mask was a radical departure from the Harrison design. Though it became the dominate NHL mask, with 50-60% use, I was always afraid that someone would come up with something better. Now that was 25 years ago and my mask is basically still being copied...

Image result for cujo itech

The irony for me is that the original 961 was not even, in the end, one of my better masks. In my opinion, custom designs for Hextall, Fuhr, Joseph, Fleury, which began in 1995, were all better. They do look similar but the fit was much improved with the later iterations. These are the masks that should have been cloned if people knew about them! In all, I have developed about two dozen molded designs during my association with Itech and four since Bauer has taken over my original work. I never stopped developing new product. I am not sure why other manufactures didn’t undertake to eclipse my early model.”

Jerry’s last point raises a great question. When you think about it, all the copycat masks out there have probably held back the evolution of goalie mask. If smaller companies, with the freedom to try unique ideas, set out to beat the Wright mask, instead of copy it, would a safer or more beautiful helmet exist?

The other mask pioneer who spoke with us was Don Straus. To my knowledge, Don is the only other mask maker besides Harrison who built his own masks and painted them. It gives Don an incredibly unique perspective because he has an opinion on copying the helmet design and copying the art.

Image result for hrudey mask

Aside from the unique mask maker and painter combo, the Armadilla also has a unique background that shapes the aesthetic. Don’s expertise is art, engineering, and a lifetime involved motorsport.  ”I strongly feel that not being immersed neck deep in the game gave me a clear view of the task at hand, and allowed me to approach the design of the Armadilla without any preconceived notions or bias. As I became more involved, I saw - and continue to see - that the vast majority of manufacturers continue to draw very heavily on the style and construction of the mask Greg Harrison developed during the 90s. I have a defect that always keeps me striving to improve. To improve something, you need to change it. Rehashing someone else’s design didn’t cut it for me.”  

Image result for brian hayward

When asking Don if he would be honored or flattered if anyone copied his legendary shell design, he said that it has happened before. I actually was not aware of the referenced issue(s) and have always been surprised there has not been a widely known Armadilla clone. Maybe the reason is Don’s understandable passion behind protecting his design. He has a “zero acceptance” for the copycats and will never “let that slide”.

On the artistic side of thing, Don has seen some of his coveted Armadilla masks pop up on resale and then get repainted by someone else with the Vanbiesbrouck Panther. It makes him cringe. “The art end of the business has been the source of some of my most satisfying moments, and the arena that has exposed some of the most retched, soulless, ass sucking rat-bastards you could think of. During my time actively creating images, an unhealthily high percentage of my time was spent trying to educate a public that didn’t seem to want to know (or care to), and protect my craft/work/livelyhood/heart/soul from those who figured that my (and all other artists’) created images were ripe for free picking. Yes, it’s flattering that much of my work is held in high regard, but a ‘compliment’ does not allow you to take whatever you desire.”

Image result for vanbiesbrouck mask

Don actually had a mask design copied by another NHL painter while he was active and had his mask design published in print without his permission or compensation. In the case of the printed material, Don actually protected his designs via the legal system and it changed how mask copyrights were handled moving forward.

The opinions above of Jerry and Don are amazingly candid. They are both out of the business, on to other endeavors, and are basically removed from hockey. This status gave them  the freedom to share their real thoughts. That’s often really hard for anyone whose livelihood still depends on the business of hockey.

In full disclosure, I have always wanted a Potvin mask. I will now never get one. I previously wore a 960 clone for a year and will never do so again. I fully agree with Don and Jerry’s opinions. Some of the practices widely accepted around goalie masks, mask art, or pad graphics are straight up copying.

SIMMONS-Professional-LegPads-SimmonsUltraLight7ProSeries-1

I will respect their intellectual property and everyone else who has created anything. I will be doing everything I can moving forward to not personally support the plagiarism in hockey. As was seen with TGN Spec X Optik graphic, I took inspiration from multiple places, but do not directly copy anyone’s design. My pads will never be as loved as the OG’s Potvins, but I can proudly wear them with integrity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I had my Potvin mask when I was younger I never thought of it as a clone or plagiarism.  I had an Eddy mask and the shell was very much like a Harrison.  When my dad gave me the opportunity to get it painted it wasn't even a second thought to get my favourite goalie's paint job and again it was more of homage to Potvin then to the guy who painted it.  

As I got older however, I did crave more original work.  Right now I just have plain white but always think of what i would get that would better symbolize myself then who I cheer for.  Any vinyl work I have done that may have been Potvin inspired would always have my own personal twist on it so it wouldn't be an exact copy.

Availability would be an issue as well.  For a random guy in Northern Ontario playing at local rinks it's not like I would have the connections to contact these guys to have them do the work but for other pros or college guys, I do think its unacceptable they wouldn't try that route as I'm sure it was available to them.

I've always been more bothered by the copying of designs by the pad manufacturers.  And I don't mean the one offs like when someone gets the Potvin Koho design or Brodeur Heaton design.  I mean when places like Simmons and Battram straight out copy stock graphics from places like Vaughn, CCM or Brian's.  That to me is like they are trying to fool the customer that their product is the same as the other manufacturers.

 Maybe that makes me a hypocrite that I believe one is okay and other not but that's okay, thats how I see it.FB_IMG_1507294724058.jpg.223038e25b3aa030d819613dcdf6fd93.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read. Really opened my eyes in this particular topic; does this look familiar to you? ?

What’s sickening is battram actually does amazing custom designs. Cheaper gear or not it’s pretty immature to do.

BDCEF3EF-5E80-4B43-8F08-EEB7136ACF63.png

4430DF7E-80C7-46A5-9D66-FE6B2A5EA400.png

62CAA332-B65D-4C5C-9A93-51A3A0A04BE1.png

06F75840-208F-4D0B-8C52-38326AB998FB.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Drew37 said:

When I had my Potvin mask when I was younger I never thought of it as a clone or plagiarism.  I had an Eddy mask and the shell was very much like a Harrison.  When my dad gave me the opportunity to get it painted it wasn't even a second thought to get my favourite goalie's paint job and again it was more of homage to Potvin then to the guy who painted it.  

As I got older however, I did crave more original work.  Right now I just have plain white but always think of what i would get that would better symbolize myself then who I cheer for.  Any vinyl work I have done that may have been Potvin inspired would always have my own personal twist on it so it wouldn't be an exact copy.

Availability would be an issue as well.  For a random guy in Northern Ontario playing at local rinks it's not like I would have the connections to contact these guys to have them do the work but for other pros or college guys, I do think its unacceptable they wouldn't try that route as I'm sure it was available to them.

I've always been more bothered by the copying of designs by the pad manufacturers.  And I don't mean the one offs like when someone gets the Potvin Koho design or Brodeur Heaton design.  I mean when places like Simmons and Battram straight out copy stock graphics from places like Vaughn, CCM or Brian's.  That to me is like they are trying to fool the customer that their product is the same as the other manufacturers.

 Maybe that makes me a hypocrite that I believe one is okay and other not but that's okay, thats how I see it.FB_IMG_1507294724058.jpg.223038e25b3aa030d819613dcdf6fd93.jpg

As I mentioned in the article, until I spent too much time thinking about this, I was a mild offender. Speaking with the people involved swayed me. I always thought what Simmons and Battram do was cheesy, but I didn't think about the plagiarism side of it. Designers and artists come up with the pad graphics and mask art and most don't want to see it copied, especially for someone else's profit. 

I don't blame people wanting to look like their heroes. I think if the OG Potvin graphic out today it'd be the best in stores. There's also a whole other conundrum here about getting a Potvin mask or  Hayward shark now that Harrison and Straus are retired. Should the world be void of them now? 

I also understand many people are on budgets or can't justify a Bauer mask price point. I just hope this article is understood the right way. I am not knocking Battram or OTNY's price point or quality, just pointing out that they should stand alone in their shell designs or graphics. Just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Passau ( @GoalieTimmy33 ) is a great example of how a small company should operate. 

@GoalieCustomizer Do you have any thoughts on this topic? 

@Don Straus Now that you are retired, does that mean that the Shark should be RIP or this there an appropriate for a fan of that paint job to request one or something similar? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, southpawtendy48 said:

Good read. Really opened my eyes in this particular topic; does this look familiar to you? ?

What’s sickening is battram actually does amazing custom designs. Cheaper gear or not it’s pretty immature to do.

BDCEF3EF-5E80-4B43-8F08-EEB7136ACF63.png

4430DF7E-80C7-46A5-9D66-FE6B2A5EA400.png

62CAA332-B65D-4C5C-9A93-51A3A0A04BE1.png

06F75840-208F-4D0B-8C52-38326AB998FB.png

Yes, not knocking Battram's quality or price point. I just wish they would push their own graphics or tell customers they are not copying other's graphics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

As I mentioned in the article, until I spent too much time thinking about this, I was a mild offender. Speaking with the people involved swayed me. I always thought what Simmons and Battram do was cheesy, but I didn't think about the plagiarism side of it. Designers and artists come up with the pad graphics and mask art and most don't want to see it copied, especially for someone else's profit. 

I don't blame people wanting to look like their heroes. I think if the OG Potvin graphic out today it'd be the best in stores. There's also a whole other conundrum here about getting a Potvin mask or  Hayward shark now that Harrison and Straus are retired. Should the world be void of them now? 

I also understand many people are on budgets or can't justify a Bauer mask price point. I just hope this article is understood the right way. I am not knocking Battram or OTNY's price point or quality, just pointing out that they should stand alone in their shell designs or graphics. Just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Passau ( @GoalieTimmy33 ) is a great example of how a small company should operate. 

@GoalieCustomizer Do you have any thoughts on this topic? 

@Don Straus Now that you are retired, does that mean that the Shark should be RIP or this there an appropriate for a fan of that paint job to request one or something similar? 

Regardless of my involvement in the industry, the copyright remains in effect. Unless signed away/sold off, it is something I (and all artists)  - and subsequently my/our estates, will maintain ownership of, until 70 years after my/our passing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Don Straus said:

Regardless of my involvement in the industry, the copyright remains in effect. Unless signed away/sold off, it is something I (and all artists)  - and subsequently my/our estates, will maintain ownership of, until 70 years after my/our passing. 

Thanks 

Please realize I took business law 101 and that was it, haha 

If someone played for the sharks, loved your concept of the shark eating the cage, but made sure the shark was completely different... Does that make it passable or would you would still feel that's in violation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

If someone played for the sharks, loved your concept of the shark eating the cage, but made sure the shark was completely different... Does that make it passable or would you would still feel that's in violation? 

At that point wouldn't copyright law not take effect?

See, I remember the post in question that sparked this whole discussion from TGN. I also remember posting about it too. I also remain in the same camp as I was before.

I feel like the Potvin design, the Shark design, the Brodeur design should be more than fair game for any Joe blow playing at their rink and shouldn't feel like they're betraying the original artists or players by using their designs. I feel there is a line where an artist/manufacturer should make a stand and protect their product and that line is crossed once the average consumer becomes vilified for wanting to replicate their favourite design and/or athlete. (Especially if the designer and athlete are retired)

I get why one would cross that line as copyright law and law in general can be a slippery slope and setting precedent is extremely important. Doesn't meant that I have to agree with it and the users that utilize it.

I also want to cherry pick one quote here too:

Quote

It’s sad when you think about it, but there’s clearly a big market for clones, replicas, etc.

Pick any industry and it would be very easy to see a pattern of copying designs for not only a quick buck but as well for pushing technology forward. The me-too's and copycats are everywhere, video games, cars, bikes, food, beer, etc etc.

It's not unheard of and is generally kind of part of any market.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit more ambivalent.  I think that there are two levels.  1) the copyright level.  By all means, copyrights should be enforced.  All in favor of that.  2) the morality of it.  This requires a little more nuance.  I fully agree that it's sleazy for companies to copy other companies' designs or logos, so kudos to companies like Passau.

Where I'm more on the fence is if I, as a rec league goalie, want to use a goalie's mask that I like and get it painted.  I think that if I wanted to do so, it's more of an homage than a ripoff.  And if I had to pay a licensing fee, I'd make just enough changes to avoid that.  But that's just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@coopaloop1234 This is definitively a polarizing topic. Although I have made a commitment not to copy anything, it does not mean I don't understand why people do it. I understand this is a very polarizing topic.

In a perfect world, the mask painters would license wraps of their classic designs. This would be like buying a print or poster of a famous work. The original artist could get paid and the fans could have an affordable reproduction. 

In my complicated views, I don't have a problem if someone used Pad Skinz or Vinyl to create a tribute mask or pad graphic on their own. They are NOT paying someone else to copy a famous work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jeff da goalie said:

I'm a bit more ambivalent.  I think that there are two levels.  1) the copyright level.  By all means, copyrights should be enforced.  All in favor of that.  2) the morality of it.  This requires a little more nuance.  I fully agree that it's sleazy for companies to copy other companies' designs or logos, so kudos to companies like Passau.

Where I'm more on the fence is if I, as a rec league goalie, want to use a goalie's mask that I like and get it painted.  I think that if I wanted to do so, it's more of an homage than a ripoff.  And if I had to pay a licensing fee, I'd make just enough changes to avoid that.  But that's just my two cents.

I don't disagree. It's a very complicated one to wrap your head around. Morality vs law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

In my complicated views, I don't have a problem if someone used Pad Skinz or Vinyl to create a tribute mask or pad graphic on their own. They are NOT paying someone else to copy a famous work. 

Just to stir the pot here, is a large portion of your uneasiness related to someone else getting paid for an artists original work?

If i were to get a local artist to copy a well known design (exact replica), for free, would that make it OK in your books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Just to stir the pot here, is a large portion of your uneasiness related to someone else getting paid for an artists original work?

If i were to get a local artist to copy a well known design (exact replica), for free, would that make it OK in your books?

No, you are asking another Artist to copy someone's work. If you were to try and make your own Potvin tribute out of Vinyl or to learn how to airbrush for your own consumption and never got anyone else involved, I can handle it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheGoalNetGlad something like this was finally posted.

This was probably all fueled by how I lost my temper way back when. Most people are genuinely ticked off when they see something happen to a friend by someone else. In this case it was my buddy Steve Nash at Eye Candy Air and seeing several other artists taking his Battle Armor Quick paint design and painting as their own, not asking for permission to do it and simply doing it anyway and pocketing the cash. That's someone else taking your buddy's work, taking credit for it and getting paid for it. It's stealing - to me. And that's a copyrighted design. It's an eye-opener and until it hits home or affects you or someone close.  Pretty easy to sit there and say "I don't give a f***". And in my opinion you're a scumbag if you think that way. We could talk about morality, we could talk about the law and that's all and well too. But it comes down to respect for me.

In January I asked Guy Lafrance if he would paint a Jocelyn Thibault Canadiens replica for me (he is the original painter). He said he no longer paints masks and hasn't for a long time. I did stress that it was for a display collection, not to be used. I personally don't think using other goalie's paintjobs on the ice is neat or cool or whatever, seems kinna pathetic like you're trying to be someone you're not. Anyway he said he wouldn't do it. Then I asked if it would be okay if i were to get someone else to do it. His exact were "I'd prefer you didn't...". That's not exactly a no. But it's definitely not a yes, either.  So, I stopped myself right there and didn't take it any further. I wasn't happy with the answer but I gotta respect it. Sure, someone else will take my money and do the job quietly. But that's just not me. I wouldn't feel right knowing I made a conscious decision to disregard what he said and get his work painted by someone else as I look at that mask. Maybe I have too much respect but I have respect nonetheless.

Edited by ULTIMA
error
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ULTIMA said:

@TheGoalNetGlad something like this was finally posted.

This was probably all fueled by how I lost my temper way back when. Most people are genuinely ticked off when they see something happen to a friend by someone else. In this case it was my buddy Steve Nash at Eye Candy Air and seeing several other artists taking his Battle Armor Quick paint design and painting as their own, not asking for permission to do it and simply doing it anyway and pocketing the cash. That's someone else taking your buddy's work, taking credit for it and getting paid for it. It's stealing - to me. And that's a copyrighted design. It's an eye-opener until it hits home or affects you or someone close.  Pretty easy to sit there and say "I don't give a f***". And in my opinion you're a scumbag if you think that way. We could talk about morality, we could talk about the law and that's all and well too. But it comes down to respect for me.

In January I asked Guy Lafrance if he would paint a Jocelyn Thibault Canadiens replica for me (he is the original painter). He said he no longer paints masks and hasn't for a long time. I did stress that it was for a display collection, not to be used. I personally don't think using other goalie's paintjobs on the ice is neat or cool or whatever, seems kinna pathetic like you're trying to be someone you're not. Anyway he said he wouldn't do it. Then I asked if it would be okay if i were to get someone else to do it. His exact were "I'd prefer you didn't...". That's not exactly a no. But it's definitely not a yes, either.  So, I stopped myself right there and didn't take it any further. I wasn't happy with the answer but I gotta respect it. Sure, someone else will take my money and do the job quietly. But that's just not me. I wouldn't feel right knowing I made a conscious decision to disregard what he said and get his work painted by someone else as I look at that mask. Maybe I have too much respect but I have respect nonetheless.

It's refreshing to hear this from someone that isn't effected - first hand. You are correct in your assessment that it is stealing. Fluff it up/justify however you like, it is 100% theft. Whether it is visual art, music, etc. It all falls under the same tent. Music theft/sampling may have gotten a bit more press, but as it turned out, it was frowned upon, settled in favour of the original artists, and heavy fines were levied. 

Yes, it's a bit of a 'wake up' when it happens to someone you know/care about/respect. I know that Steve and his wife at Eye Candy are aware of the parameters - let alone the previously mentioned morality of it. They were decent enough a few years ago, and reached out to me when one of their customers wanted a Panther replica. After a courtesy phone call, they (very easily) came to the conclusion that that client would have to choose something else. A very rare, highly appreciated exhibition of class. 

A big part of this whole topic is the attitude - or lack thereof of the 'fans'. Those who have said '!@#$ you' and have just stolen what they think they are entitled to, get an instant 'fail'. Those who have had the decency to reach out and ask and discuss, have had a much better chance at a pleasant outcome.

Edited by Don Straus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ULTIMA said:

@TheGoalNetGlad something like this was finally posted.

This was probably all fueled by how I lost my temper way back when. Most people are genuinely ticked off when they see something happen to a friend by someone else. In this case it was my buddy Steve Nash at Eye Candy Air and seeing several other artists taking his Battle Armor Quick paint design and painting as their own, not asking for permission to do it and simply doing it anyway and pocketing the cash. That's someone else taking your buddy's work, taking credit for it and getting paid for it. It's stealing - to me. And that's a copyrighted design. It's an eye-opener until it hits home or affects you or someone close.  Pretty easy to sit there and say "I don't give a f***". And in my opinion you're a scumbag if you think that way. We could talk about morality, we could talk about the law and that's all and well too. But it comes down to respect for me.

In January I asked Guy Lafrance if he would paint a Jocelyn Thibault Canadiens replica for me (he is the original painter). He said he no longer paints masks and hasn't for a long time. I did stress that it was for a display collection, not to be used. I personally don't think using other goalie's paintjobs on the ice is neat or cool or whatever, seems kinna pathetic like you're trying to be someone you're not. Anyway he said he wouldn't do it. Then I asked if it would be okay if i were to get someone else to do it. His exact were "I'd prefer you didn't...". That's not exactly a no. But it's definitely not a yes, either.  So, I stopped myself right there and didn't take it any further. I wasn't happy with the answer but I gotta respect it. Sure, someone else will take my money and do the job quietly. But that's just not me. I wouldn't feel right knowing I made a conscious decision to disregard what he said and get his work painted by someone else as I look at that mask. Maybe I have too much respect but I have respect nonetheless.

I respect your honesty and it changed my views. Congrats for speaking up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

No, you are asking another Artist to copy someone's work. If you were to try and make your own Potvin tribute out of Vinyl or to learn how to airbrush for your own consumption and never got anyone else involved, I can handle it. 

What's the difference between me doing it for free and someone else doing it for free?

1 hour ago, Don Straus said:

It's refreshing to hear this from someone that isn't effected - first hand. You are correct in your assessment that it is stealing. Fluff it up/justify however you like, it is 100% theft. Whether it is visual art, music, etc. It all falls under the same tent. Music theft/sampling may have gotten a bit more press, but as it turned out, it was frowned upon, settled in favour of the original artists, and heavy fines were levied.

See, while you're completely right about how copyright law operates and your rights as the proprietary owner of the work, would you honestly exercise your legal right and chase me down if I were to copy your artwork on my own helmet by doing it myself?

I'm also curious as to how many users on here rabidly defending copyright law would go up to a cover band and shame them for covering songs?

I have a feeling not many and I think that's solely due to subject matter. We obviously take goalie gear more seriously than most goalies, let alone any one else, so we can be a bit protective/touchy about making sure our clan is happy. Ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently wear a Potvin King's replica paint job.  I never thought of it as stealing the artists' work, it was certainly not my intention to do.  That being said, I have no shame in wearing it.  As I see it, it's my way to pay tribute to the artist and Potvin who is the reason I play goal.  Whenever I get asked about it, I always say it's a tribute to Potvin, not plugging a random person who painted it on the side for me.  For the record a GSBB member did it for me on the side back in like 2010 and I felt like I was helping out a fellow 'tender.  All that being said, blatant ripping off of other's work is not okay in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sebastiancp1 - My concern with writing this article was alienating people. That's not my intention! I get it and I don't blame you for having one. It's easy for me to buy a Phillies cap and support my team, but you can't "ethically" buy a mask to support your favorite tendy. 

However, after getting to know people who design the gear or make the art, there is a frustration over the topic and that's why I raise it. It's just to make people aware of the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheGoalNet Hope I didn't come off combative, certainly didn't mean too.  Just meant to say I wear it with pride and hopefully people can understand that.  That's a lot more succinct and clear than my first post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it the same way when people buy a certain equipment that their favorite goalie wears? Same thing (sorta), sure some might see it as "stealing" an art work by a creator, but that's up to the painter discretion when he takes such a job.  Some are not per-say "artists" but are there to grab a dollar.  While others won't do it.

Take at as you want, people are not there stealing I don't think (the ones who wear it).

Plus everyone is entitles to there own opinions on this topic....people been stealing for hundreds of years, if it's an issue put a patent on it and sue.  That's their problem not ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sebastiancp1 said:

@TheGoalNet Hope I didn't come off combative, certainly didn't mean too.  Just meant to say I wear it with pride and hopefully people can understand that.  That's a lot more succinct and clear than my first post!

Not at all! I struggled a bit with how to write this. Really want to want to make anyone feel bad, but it's a topic worth discussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mr_shifty1982 said:

Isn't it the same way when people buy a certain equipment that their favorite goalie wears? Same thing (sorta), sure some might see it as "stealing" an art work by a creator, but that's up to the painter discretion when he takes such a job.  Some are not per-say "artists" but are there to grab a dollar.  While others won't do it.

Take at as you want, people are not there stealing I don't think (the ones who wear it).

Plus everyone is entitles to there own opinions on this topic....people been stealing for hundreds of years, if it's an issue put a patent on it and sue.  That's their problem not ours.

If Brian's creates a custom graphic for Scott Darling and I order it from Brian's, there no issue there. It's a Brian's graphic and I am ordering it from them. 

And yes, I agree, that the Painter's should work together to respect each other ideas 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had music published, I can weigh in on this topic.

We musicians tend to rip bits off from each other all the time. Whether it goes from a thread that was what we heard in a chorus or whatever; as long as it becomes an entirely original song, it’s not theft. For example- there was some 70s tune where the guy sings about walking through the wet grass, in the 90s, someone made that into their hook. The tunes don’t resemble each other AT ALL. Chord structures are nothing to sue over. Now- George Harrison BLATANTLY ripped off “He’s So Fine” with his song “My Sweet Lord”.

How many bar owners actually pay the BMI or ASCAP fees for songs a lowly bar band plays? Probably not many, knowing how many bar owners are scheming, smarmy WANKERS!

I had a handlebar idea get ripped off when I asked a buddy of mine to show it around at Interbike. That taught me to be careful who sees my stuff in the development stages... That design ended up not making it into production, but the fact that my concept became someone else’s concept irked me plenty...

Is my “Trixie the Darling Devil Bunny” a rip off of the Lalime paint job? Considering that it was my Trix standing in for Marvin the Martian, no. Compositions are not exactly copywriteable. 

When (and I do mean “when”) I build my first helmet, am I going to take cues and inspirations from the best, like Wright, Harrison or @Don Straus? Of course! But I want to throw in my own twist and make it a bunny devil dude ORIGINAL! 

I would not directly rip off an artist or designer; however- if a thread comes along and inspires something entirely original, it’s fair game. 

Edited by bunnyman666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bunnyman666 said:

Having had music published, I can weigh in on this topic.

We musicians tend to rip bits off from each other all the time. Whether it goes from a thread that was what we heard in a chorus or whatever; as long as it becomes an entirely original song, it’s not theft. For example- there was some 70s tune where the guy sings about walking through the wet grass, in the 90s, someone made that into their hook. The tunes don’t resemble each other AT ALL. Chord structures are the same. Now- George Harrison BLATANTLY ripped off “He’s So Fine” with his song “My Sweet Lord”.

How many bar owners actually pay the BMI or ASCAP fees for songs a lowly bar band plays? Probably not many, knowing how many bar owners are scheming, smarmy WANKERS!

So as most rational people seem to admit, it is wrong/illegal/lacking in moral fibre, but seem to put forth the challenge to 'catch them'. One big reason why BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN have agents that police the live and/or broadcasted  music issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 0 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    987
    Total Members
    2,646
    Most Online
    Jbarrow31
    Newest Member
    Jbarrow31
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...