The Future of Graphics

[IPv6Freely]

5 minutes ago, Murray said:

For those interested, I've tracked down the original artists whom Scott has ripped off:

John Gallagher (www.uncannyknack.com) was responsible for the Galactus and Silver Surfer pieces, while the Gambit belongs to Felipe Massafera (https://felipemassafera.deviantart.com/). Here are the originals, too.

I genuinely don't care.

[Murray]

3 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

I genuinely don't care.

That's fine and dandy, I do.

[SaveByRichter35]

2 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

I genuinely don't care.

Same.  This kinda falls in line with the argument that painters shouldn't paint replica paint jobs.

[IPv6Freely]

4 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Same.  This kinda falls in line with the argument that painters shouldn't paint replica paint jobs.

Yup. Now of course very different if you're painting it (or using somebody's art) to make money, but I don't have a problem at all with using something you like for your personal property. 

[TheGoalNet]

Sure, but Battram committed the act you you have an issue with. He created something with someone's else design to make money for himself.  

[SaveByRichter35]

6 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

Yup. Now of course very different if you're painting it (or using somebody's art) to make money, but I don't have a problem at all with using something you like for your personal property. 

Isn't that what mask painters do with replica designs though?  They paint other people's designs on masks with the intent to make money of off said paint jobs?

[TheGoalNet]

@SaveByRichter35 - Yes, correct. Some people will have an issue with this and some people will not. It's a fascinating subject that most people will have an opinion on. I honestly had never considered it before it was brought on this board. I have been researching the topic heavily since then... If people get mad at Simmons or Battram for ripping off major OEMs, they should have issues with the paint themes being copied. Legality aside, it's all the same. Taking a design someone else created, making a less expensive version of it to to reach a wider audience, and then selling it. 

I am not fully immune to this topic at all.  I wore an MMX mask for a year while I was between permanent masks and I have an "Arco style" lamp  and "Sava style" stools at home. I actually didn't know they were "knock offs" when I purchased them, I just thought they were cool and got salty when I learned they were copies! 

[IPv6Freely]

24 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Sure, but Battram committed the act you you have an issue with. He created something with someone's else design to make money for himself.  

20 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Isn't that what mask painters do with replica designs though?  They paint other people's designs on masks with the intent to make money of off said paint jobs?

I don’t see it that way for either case. The painter (or pad maker) gave the customer what they asked for. Now if the customer turned around and sold that replica for a profit, that’s not cool.

I think there is a massive difference between making a copy and selling it (meaning, unknown buyer at time of creation) and doing something a specific customer requests.

[Murray]

Just now, IPv6Freely said:

I don’t see it that way for either case. The painter (or pad maker) gave the customer what they asked for. Now if the customer turned around and sold that replica for a profit, that’s not cool.

Scott replied to me on a Facebook post - he's apparently purchased a print from the artists, likely at FanExpo, scanned it, altered it, and then applied it to his gear and sold it.

So, he sold a replica of original work purchased from the artist, for profit.

[IPv6Freely]

1 minute ago, Murray said:

Scott replied to me on a Facebook post - he's apparently purchased a print from the artists, likely at FanExpo, scanned it, altered it, and then applied it to his gear and sold it.

So, he sold a replica of original work purchased from the artist, for profit.

Then that’s different if it wasn’t for a specific customer. 

Either way I don’t care enough to do anything about it. 

[ULTIMA]

Printing, whether it be on pads or printing on masks for me is a no-no.

[SaveByRichter35]

16 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

I don’t see it that way for either case. The painter (or pad maker) gave the customer what they asked for. Now if the customer turned around and sold that replica for a profit, that’s not cool.

I think there is a massive difference between making a copy and selling it (meaning, unknown buyer at time of creation) and doing something a specific customer requests.

Ok I see what you're getting at now.

[IPv6Freely]

4 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Ok I see what you're getting at now.

Yea basically I’m not going to pin the copying of stuff on the vendor. Theres a reason so many T-shirt makers and such have a disclaimer/waiver that the customer has to sign saying they have permission.

I know all about it because I’ve had numerous places reject our logo saying I need permission from Disney. Very silly. You go to their site and search “Darth Vader” and there is literally 2000 results. WTF? Falls under parody, asshats! (I’m also not selling them)

Going to put it back up with the name “generic Native American space creature” instead...

[coopaloop1234]

8 minutes ago, ULTIMA said:

Printing, whether it be on pads or printing on masks for me is a no-no.

Even with these beauties out there? You're crazy man.

[TheGoalNet]

@IPv6Freely - had similar issues getting T-shirts made online and Jerseys 

Some places are strick, like custom ink, and others ask for minor tweak to save them legally. 

[bunnyman666]

No Bea Arthur pads?!?!?

[IPv6Freely]

48 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

@IPv6Freely - had similar issues getting T-shirts made online and Jerseys 

Some places are strick, like custom ink, and others ask for minor tweak to save them legally. 

Customink was one of the ones that rejected mine. It’s really silly... it’s parody. Like nobody else has ever made a Star Wars shirt before...

[Hills]

I'm okay with companies doing indirect copies. For example I have a bunch of IIHF jerseys I had custom made since you couldn't buy them from Nike.

I had to change the copyrighted logos to my own design, which I understand and am okay with.

The Battram pads took an artists work and directly copied it (stretching is copying) for profit. I'm not okay with that. Even if he slightly changed the design of that set it is still too much in my opinion. Copying jersey stripes with a different logo is not as bad in my opinion. 

[Chenner29]

8 hours ago, Murray said:

Scott replied to me on a Facebook post - he's apparently purchased a print from the artists, likely at FanExpo, scanned it, altered it, and then applied it to his gear and sold it.

So, he sold a replica of original work purchased from the artist, for profit.

To me, this reads like "Bought a DVD copy of (insert movie here), ripped it to hard drive, and burned copies to sell."

He made a gel collar with the COOPER logo on it in place of his own name and posted it up on Facebook a couple weeks ago as well.

[bunnyman666]

Defending your intellectual property all comes down to whether or not you can afford the lawyers and court fees...

I know why print shoppes won’t touch Star Wars/anything Disney: Disney has enough cash and legal power to destroy you.

When I was slinging vintage guitars, there was always somebody different every year at the guitar shows who tried making waterslide decals of the Fender head stock decal. The early original Fender guitars used a water slide decal that would crack and was sometimes missing. Other guys would also use those on “parts casters” (building a guitar with parts).  And it always seemed that you would not see the same guy selling waterslides at the guitar show ever again. I ended up knowing one of those guys, and by the time Fender got done with them, they had to go into a completely different business and could have nothing to do with guitars by the time Fender was through!  These decal makers were small, small potatoes, but Fender goes after them just to have examples made of them  to scare off others wanting to do the same. It cost Fender MORE than what they got out of these small vendors, but the reputation keeps bigger entities from going anywhere near copying a Fender too closely...

Why would you risk going into battle with such a behemoth in the case of Disney for $1200 worth of jerseys? Disney’s lawyers see no distinction between a custom jersey order and someone selling T-shirts for $10 a pop on the side of the road without licensing.  Companies pay BIG money for that license and are also none too pleased that someone got around paying the huge license fee. The reason it is so big is that ANYTHING with Star Wars characters on it will sell big. Yes- even a cake decorator is supposed to pay Disney licensing for the use of Mickey and Darth (and every character in between).

Don’t even get me started on how Eddie Van Halen defends his striped guitars design. Of course, he now has the power of Fender behind him...

In the case of the illustrator whose print was possibly ripped off, he may not even care as it may end up making more aware of his work. But he might be a bit peeved that Mr. Battram did not at least ask for permission. Unless the illustrator has enough cash, it is likely that such a concern does not go after Mr. Battram. And it could be that the illustrator is a hockey guy and was happy to let Mr. Battram use the illustration to highlight his digital printing abilities.

In the case of logos and trademarks from defunct brands, I would be careful, as there are big concerns that collect intellectual properties like logos and trademarks that have the financial ability to go after people using those logos and trademarks for fun. For example, there is a group of drummers who want to revive the Rogers brand of drums. These blokes don’t really want to make huge money; they just want to bring back a brand that was ahead of its time, being that some hardware has been in service since the 1960s with no signs of failing. Great drums; wish I still had mine! Well- a (now) former behemoth music store bought the brand’s name, trademarks, and some designs. The music store chain failed, and Yamaha ended up owning the Rogers name, logo, trademark, etc. through receivership of the said store chain, most likely due to financial obligations of merchandise.  Of course they don’t want ANY more competitors. Don’t you think they’d sue the pants off of anyone making so much as repro’d logos?

[bunnyman666]

4 hours ago, Chenner29 said:

To me, this reads like "Bought a DVD copy of (insert movie here), ripped it to hard drive, and burned copies to sell."

He made a gel collar with the COOPER logo on it in place of his own name and posted it up on Facebook a couple weeks ago as well.

That is playing with fire, right there.

[bunnyman666]

9 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

Customink was one of the ones that rejected mine. It’s really silly... it’s parody. Like nobody else has ever made a Star Wars shirt before...

But Bauer did pay the licensing fee for those Star Wars helmets they did a few years back, so hockey is obviously now on Disney’s radar.

You may not be selling those sweaters, but the shoppe printing them is. 

They are probably a big enough concern with enough of an internet presence that they don’t want the unwanted attention.

[Murray]

4 hours ago, bunnyman666 said:

In the case of the illustrator whose print was possibly ripped off, he may not even care as it may end up making more aware of his work. But he might be a bit peeved that Mr. Battram did not at least ask for permission. Unless the illustrator has enough cash, it is likely that such a concern does not go after Mr. Battram. And it could be that the illustrator is a hockey guy and was happy to let Mr. Battram use the illustration to highlight his digital printing abilities.

I think both illustrators involved would likely care a great deal. The concept of offering one's work for "exposure" simply doesn't work. "Exposure" doesn't pay bills, or purchase food. On top of that, he (or his graphics guy) has altered each image, and then stretched them out so they look awful on the pads. No illustrator in their right mind would be happy with that. Adding Scott's already questionable business practices on top of that...oof.

If I ever found that Scott had ripped off any work of mine, I would do everything in my power to throw him into a legal woodchipper.

Anyways. Let's get back to talking about graphics, yes?

[bunnyman666]

11 minutes ago, Murray said:

I think both illustrators involved would likely care a great deal. The concept of offering one's work for "exposure" simply doesn't work. "Exposure" doesn't pay bills, or purchase food. On top of that, he (or his graphics guy) has altered each image, and then stretched them out so they look awful on the pads. No illustrator in their right mind would be happy with that. Adding Scott's already questionable business practices on top of that...oof.

If I ever found that Scott had ripped off any work of mine, I would do everything in my power to throw him into a legal woodchipper.

Anyways. Let's get back to talking about graphics, yes?

I figured that would actually be the answer; but some attitudes are different, no? Just offered a different perspective is all...

Yeah- just give me plain jane, no graphics, myself!

[coopaloop1234]

8 minutes ago, bunnyman666 said:

Yeah- just give me plain jane, no graphics, myself!

Well that makes sense, you do need the space to put on your glitter lettered advertisements.

I'm a sucker for the "Classic" look of pads. Sock Graphic, classic graphic, those are my favourites.

Though I have nothing against most modern graphics anyways. It's just that for me, who gets all of his gear off the shelf (for now), the classic looking options generally look better than any of the stock graphics most manufacturers supply.

Even so, when I do inevitably get a custom set, it'll probably be in a classic format anyways. It's just too clean and offers a decent set of colours.