Why Aren't These Designers Afraid Of Gettin Sued?

October 14, 2006 @ 03:01 AM

J Mizzle

Post: 75

Join Date: Jun 2006

Like the people who did the Paris Hilton tee? Or any of the other brands that have pictures of people on it?

October 14, 2006 @ 03:11 AM

innovazn

Post: 1135

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: SOCAL 909

because they are a small brand
the majority of heads that know about these types of shirts are probably us hypebeast
using DIAMOND as an example, when he came out w/ the misfits tee, he was just told to stop making them

October 14, 2006 @ 03:15 AM

modernART

Post: 2584

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Anywhere, LTD

because they are a small brand
the majority of heads that know about these types of shirts are probably us hypebeast
using DIAMOND as an example, when he came out w/ the misfits tee, he was just told to stop making them

EXACTLY, these brands aren't as big as you think unless you're in the "HYPEBEAST" market.

And besides, that DIAMOND MISFITS tee was out for so long and they just barely got caught a few months ago, and mind you, DIAMOND is pretty big in this game.

October 14, 2006 @ 03:24 AM

freshsteez

Post: 181

Join Date: Sep 2006

It's the same reason why local and underground rappers can sample stuff to death without getting sued. It's because they are not a threat or competition out in the mainstream market, so the bigger industry heads could care less about them being out there.

Visit Karmaloopdeal.net for deals on Karmaloop & PLNDR. Use Rep Code neogeoz11 to save on your orders. Follow me on Twitter @NeoGeoz11

October 14, 2006 @ 10:33 AM

Inactive

no its not, but that artistic representation of the crimson ghost has been used by them for so long, a court will probably rule in their favor.

October 14, 2006 @ 10:58 AM

Diamond

Post: 3314

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Fairfax Village/Fill...

Yes it is

October 14, 2006 @ 11:37 AM

DaVinci

Post: 1840

Join Date: Aug 2006

Like the people who did the Paris Hilton tee? Or any of the other brands that have pictures of people on it?

who would sue them though? that video wasnt released by paris, it was rick solomans, paris hilton cant even do anything about the sale of that video and shes the only reason why people buy it

October 14, 2006 @ 11:59 AM

Inactive

Yes it is

damn i dont see how they could copywrite it! i mean did THEY pay off the studio that put out the crimson ghost?

October 14, 2006 @ 12:08 PM

Diamond

Post: 3314

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Fairfax Village/Fill...

Just because they didn't make it up doesn't mean they can't copywrite it.
The Misfits own the logo..... I have documentation of it.

I thought the same thing and found out the hard way that they actually did.

October 14, 2006 @ 12:18 PM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

they cant sue because its not an actual picture..if u see the texture on it it was redone in photoshop/illustrator therefore its considered as someone elses work.

like a vector image..if u take a picture and vector it..it is now YOUR work.

October 14, 2006 @ 12:20 PM

Diamond

Post: 3314

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Fairfax Village/Fill...

they cant sue because its not an actual picture..if u see the texture on it it was redone in photoshop/illustrator therefore its considered as someone elses work.

like a vector image..if u take a picture and vector it..it is now YOUR work.

Um........ no

October 14, 2006 @ 12:26 PM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

im a graphic artist..u cant get sued for a vector image..if u vector a picture, its considered your work.

October 14, 2006 @ 12:28 PM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

for example...
lets pretend this kid is famous and u wanna put him on a shirt..

GETTING SUED
VVVVVVVVVVVV

^^^^^^^^^^
NOT GETTING SUED

October 14, 2006 @ 01:02 PM

JoJo

Post: 149

Join Date: Mar 2006

time cost benefit. It's going to waste more time, and cost a lot more to bring a lawsuit then what they'll win in restitution from any of these small time labels.

October 14, 2006 @ 01:03 PM

modernART

Post: 2584

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Anywhere, LTD

I think you could be right. Matter of fact, if I recall correctly, Diamond didn't get sued, it was just a "CEASE AND DESIST." Aren't the two different? I bet their first reactions were to sue, but prob. found out they couldn't, so they just told him to stop. Makes sense

October 14, 2006 @ 01:09 PM

Inactive

no, a cease and desist is the first step towards a lawsuit when it comes to intellectual property. if you dont comply with a cease and desist or an agreement cannot be worked out, then you will get a lawsuit.

October 14, 2006 @ 01:17 PM

drifter

Post: 1269

Join Date: Aug 2006

for example...
lets pretend this kid is famous and u wanna put him on a shirt..

GETTING SUED
VVVVVVVVVVVV

^^^^^^^^^^
NOT GETTING SUED

Where is your evidence behind this? Where is it stated? not stating your wrong or anything. But many believe just because you change a little bit it is now able to bypass all laws. Which is wrong if someone took an image i made and just because they vectored it or anything along those lines and then made millions is that fair? No. not if i copyrighted it.

October 14, 2006 @ 01:33 PM

J Mizzle

Post: 75

Join Date: Jun 2006

You know, people can be sued for using someone's likeness without their permission, which is really what I was getting at.

But if these companies aren't making as much money as I thought, then okay, that makes sense.

October 14, 2006 @ 04:23 PM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

Where is your evidence behind this? Where is it stated? not stating your wrong or anything. But many believe just because you change a little bit it is now able to bypass all laws. Which is wrong if someone took an image i made and just because they vectored it or anything along those lines and then made millions is that fair? No. not if i copyrighted it.

welcome to america..

anyone can sue anyone..doesnt mean they will win.

October 14, 2006 @ 05:34 PM

1978S

Post: 650

Join Date: Feb 2006

Wow, an interesting thread.

October 14, 2006 @ 05:38 PM

mmorales

Post: 238

Join Date: Mar 2006

I had mf doom tees, depicting the helmet he was wearing,. It was no secret I wanetd to depict MF DOOM and not Maximus from Gladiator, but I was asked by someone in their camp to take it down.

The main idea behind a tee creation for me is to respect the concept. If MF DOOM did not want me to make a tee I am not going to risk a lawsuit for a small chunk of change, and more importantly he is one of my favorite rappers, I dont need ot be on his bad side for a little $.

October 14, 2006 @ 06:06 PM

Beez

Post: 3718

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: Bay Area, CA

if you think about it, nothings really original when it comes down to it.

San Francisco, CA findme.

October 14, 2006 @ 07:01 PM

nextup85

Post: 174

Join Date: Feb 2006

best thread on hypebeast in a minute
Let me throw in my 2 cents:
First of all if your a relatively small line you will not get sued, even if your shit is on major blogs. You would need to be on yahoo.com or shit like that to actually be taken seriously as a money maker.
Second of all you could face vector somebody famous and maybe even freehand draw some shit to it and you really cant get sued for it since its kinda your own creation. Unless you make a shirt and put the person's name on it and shit , then they might have a case against you....

October 14, 2006 @ 07:38 PM

Inactive

i just wanna point out that thing says face vecotring.

October 14, 2006 @ 07:45 PM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

^so?? lol

October 14, 2006 @ 07:47 PM

Inactive

so it threw me off.

lol.

October 14, 2006 @ 11:52 PM

muhfuhkuh

Post: 46

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: North Cakalaka, USA

I responded to this question in the New Designers forum, but I'll link it up here too.

This artist painted tiger woods and got sued by Tiger's corporation (ETW, Inc.) for "right of publicity" violation. The judge ruled that it is protected speech because his image was "an artistic creation seeking to express a message."

detritus.net/contact/rumori/200211/0122.html

Hey, art is art. Transform a photograph of biggie without saying "biggie", and you have art. Simple as that.

The Misfits one is different. The image is copyrighted, so even transformative works (like painted or vector recreations) are not protected by free speech. Now, if you did a parody of it (like turning the misfits image to David Hasselhoff or something like that) THEN it's free speech because that's a parody.

Twisted yet?

It's mad subtle, and I don't even understand it a little, but I know that the Tiger Woods case keeps artists protected somewhat :D

October 15, 2006 @ 02:14 AM

p2theda

Post: 1085

Join Date: Mar 2006

I responded to this question in the New Designers forum, but I'll link it up here too.

This artist painted tiger woods and got sued by Tiger's corporation (ETW, Inc.) for "right of publicity" violation. The judge ruled that it is protected speech because his image was "an artistic creation seeking to express a message."

detritus.net/contact/rumori/200211/0122.html

Hey, art is art. Transform a photograph of biggie without saying "biggie", and you have art. Simple as that.

The Misfits one is different. The image is copyrighted, so even transformative works (like painted or vector recreations) are not protected by free speech. Now, if you did a parody of it (like turning the misfits image to David Hasselhoff or something like that) THEN it's free speech because that's a parody.

Twisted yet? It's mad subtle, and I don't even understand it a little, but I know that the Tiger Woods case keeps artists protected somewhat :D

thank you.

nick, i would think u would know that

October 15, 2006 @ 12:08 PM

sygyzy

Post: 253

Join Date: May 2006

I don't see how intelluctual law is confusing to anyone. I think you guys have been hypebeasts for so long that you make up excuses for stealing work. I support these brands, but when I see a crimson ghost or a Ramones shirt, I think "thief" immediately. I don't care if you buy, sell, or wear the clothing, but don't be so naive as to believe that these brands are somehow legally or morally correct because they "vectorized" the image or they changed a cool font.

October 15, 2006 @ 02:59 PM

muhfuhkuh

Post: 46

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: North Cakalaka, USA

So, I'm guessing that you don't like hip-hop music, either? Because the whole movement was started from sampling and straight biting instrumentals, beats, breaks, and bridges/riffs of older songs. Yeah, it's more strict now b/c all these publishers and catalog owners can make money selling essentially deadstock songs in their catalogs to hip-hop producers. But, you can create a new song based of another like "Chain Hang Low" is based off that old southern song "Turkey in the Straw". Art reflects culture, and jacks it to make new hits

The shirt stuff is sampling taken to visual level, dude. It's art, and art is supposed to reflect the culture and the times. It's more than just put Biggie on a shirt that says "Biggie" on it or whatever. It's cultural statement about his effect on our culture. That's protected by the first amendment, dude.