so I have been wondering about this for a LONG time... I see shirts that use images, that were found on the internet, screen caputred from a movie, ect. What is the copyright on all of this stuff, how can you take an image...for example this http://www.solarnavigator.net/mythology/mythology_images/Frankenstein_monster_Boris_Karloff.jpg and just use it, i don't understand how this works. (if this has already been discussed I'm sorry and please point me in the right direction) 2008-09-08T00:05:44-04:00 11 2008-09-07T22:39:59-04:00 true 0 7261 false false 2552 6102 1 2009-11-21T04:00:13-05:00 505 well, you halftone the image, and say that its in homage of the original artist. thats how. also make sure to add some other small elements, but make sure not to inadvertently remove focus from the stolen, erm, borrowed for homage image, otherwise the coolness by association to the original work of art will be lost. also consider adding a more than two color gradient to it. its in this year. hopefully in 2008, and out in 2009. maybe some bright colored overlay layers that give it a rainbow appearance, and make sure to add small zingers of white to make it bling. sure its reminiscent of a noobs use of lens flare filter, but like gradients ittts burning hot despite its totally crappy translation when put into apparel print. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T22:51:02-04:00 189006 2865 2008-09-07T22:52:57-04:00 <blockquote><cite>jimiyo said:</cite> well, you halftone the image, and say that its in homage of the original artist. thats how. also make sure to add some other small elements, but make sure not to inadvertently remove focus from the stolen, erm, borrowed for homage image, otherwise the coolness by association to the original work of art will be lost. also consider adding a more than two color gradient to it. its in this year. hopefully in 2008, and out in 2009.</blockquote> i dont know if that was being a smartass or telling the truth man lol 7261 Post 2008-09-07T22:53:15-04:00 189008 785 2008-09-07T22:53:15-04:00 <blockquote><cite>Simply Complicated said:</cite> i dont know if that was being a smartass or telling the truth man lol</blockquote> both. the red pill you keep going down the rabbit hole... the blue pill, you go to sleep, wake up and never know that you were an uncreative, talentless dirty whore and thief. and by you, im not saying you as in simply complicated or ithew or anyone specific. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T22:55:26-04:00 189009 2865 2008-09-07T22:57:46-04:00 i think it was both 7261 Post 2008-09-07T22:55:29-04:00 189010 6102 2008-09-07T22:55:29-04:00 <blockquote><cite>jimiyo said:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Simply Complicated said:</cite> i dont know if that was being a smartass or telling the truth man lol</blockquote> both. the red pill you keep going down the rabbit hole... the blue pill, you go to sleep, wake up and never know that you were an uncreative, talentless dirty whore and thief. and by you, im not saying you as in simply complicated or ithew or anyone specific.</blockquote> thats understandable..with my target demographic there tends to be a lot more photos in the tees..which doesn't make it ok but it well sell. If you look at my first 3 shirts for sc 2 are illustrated and one involves a photo..its stock so i can get away with it haha... But I totally agree with what you are saying, there is a perfect photo of andy warhol that I want to use for a design but I can't make myself steal the picture and put it on a tee because it was taken by an amazing photographer that I have mucho respect for. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:04:13-04:00 189019 785 2008-09-07T23:04:13-04:00 <blockquote><cite>Simply Complicated said:</cite> <blockquote><cite>jimiyo said:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Simply Complicated said:</cite> i dont know if that was being a smartass or telling the truth man lol</blockquote> both. the red pill you keep going down the rabbit hole... the blue pill, you go to sleep, wake up and never know that you were an uncreative, talentless dirty whore and thief. and by you, im not saying you as in simply complicated or ithew or anyone specific.</blockquote> thats understandable..with my target demographic there tends to be a lot more photos in the tees..which doesn't make it ok but it well sell. If you look at my first 3 shirts for sc 2 are illustrated and one involves a photo..its stock so i can get away with it haha... But I totally agree with what you are saying, there is a perfect photo of andy warhol that I want to use for a design but I can't make myself steal the picture and put it on a tee because it was taken by an amazing photographer that I have mucho respect for.</blockquote> I feel like its gets very shady when using photographs that are not your own, That's why I stay away from that and just do some good ol vectors. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:07:56-04:00 189025 4835 2008-09-07T23:07:56-04:00 http://www.gomediazine.com/industry-insights/opinion-stock-artwork/ from the design gods 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:09:26-04:00 189027 785 2008-09-07T23:09:26-04:00 stock. different from copyright protected images from movies and such. i have similar opinion to dave when it comes to stock vector, etc. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:13:48-04:00 189030 2865 2008-09-07T23:13:48-04:00 <img src="http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/800px-hippo_skull_dark.jpg" /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2574986919_38b7609a66_o.jpg" /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2638361237_c5b8cf70ee_o.jpg" /> Guilty. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:46:01-04:00 189054 506 2008-09-07T23:46:01-04:00 i think what you did would be a little bit more excuseable. 1. you redrew the object instead of some automated copying. 2. its a naturally occurring thing that didn't take specialized skill to take a picture of 3. not an absolute focal point of you image when it comes to creating a new vision, we all dont have a photographic memory, so referencing is a necessary action. sourcing of an object non occuring in the natural world, created by the mind of another artist directly from an image, is taking another artists vision. i would propose theres degree of plagiarism. there are also other shady areas of creating art. if by referencing and duplicating most of a photo, is a person who engages in photo realistic portraiture a less able artist than one who creates a portrait by stylization? no. because those who create photo realistic portraiture or imagery are creating art with a strong emphasis and exhibition of rendering skill. etc etc. blha blah. i should do something productive than blather. 7261 Post 2008-09-07T23:55:33-04:00 189064 2865 2008-09-07T23:59:32-04:00 when it comes down to photos if you can contact the owner of the image do it and ask. Many people brake the copyright law which I don't think is a good way to go cause you may be the lucky one that gets sued out of the many who get away 7261 Post 2008-09-08T00:05:44-04:00 189074 2552 2008-09-08T00:05:44-04:00