ops, GAP did it again
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- Dodecahedron0
You guys should brush up on your copyright law. Original photos aren't supposed to be altered and used for profit in any form. The fact that it's the same photo could be proven with a simple over lay, the wires are completely unique as a finger print as stated. It is infringement... but no gap is not going to lose sleep over it.
- Agreed that famous Hope poster settled out of court as wiki says http://en.wikipedia.… it's not legit.Iggyboo
- they worked a nice profitable deal out. its pretty common but just not always as high profile and I doubt big deals are worked out after all the timeDodecahedron
- ...not always worked out like Fairey's case.Dodecahedron
- abettertomorrow0
For me, the deciding question is this, is there anything special about the photo that adds to the value of the shirt? In this case no, its just a generic car silhouette. Replace it with any other car and the shirt would be equally non-exciting. So in this case I vote, "not the father," I mean "not guilty."
- Iggyboo0
I am agreeing with the many of you who think that this case imperticular is not a big deal. One the photograph of the car is not similar enough, note the lack of symbols in the grill, so forget about the photographer and photograph that the designer may have sourced the car's look and feel would be something needed to be licensed if it looked similar enough to a certain car model and make. And it is impossible to tell what the car really is which in this case I think it is too hard to tell based upon that illustration than its in the gray area. I'd be surprised if Gap loses sleep over this.
- oops: I meant to write in the last line and it is impossible to tell what the make of the car is based upon the illustration imo.Iggyboo
- its not about the car its about the original photoDodecahedron
- My point is that if you were to make this shirt your first threat would be the car maker, and it is generic imo.Iggyboo
- It's clearly a Jaguar. Not impossible to tell what the make is. Plus the pics too small to tell whether the badges are there.JerseyRaindog
- I think they are, just toned out if you look closer.JerseyRaindog
- abettertomorrow0
Down with the man!
- jetSkii0
No one gives a shit when a poor person steals from another person. (At least, I couldn't give a shit). But when a big company does it, that means there's money to be made bitches!!! Sure it sounds kinda like a double standard, but trying to get money from someone who is just broke is just useless, or you should go pick on someone not your own size but someone bigger. Intellectual theft is a Robin Hood's game.
- formed0
This is ridiculous.
1. A photo of a front of a car! There are billions of these, guessing you have a 30% you'll get some reflections like that
2. It is a front of a car!!
3. Clearly not the same image, there aren't two badges on the grill.
Really, people don't have been things to do?! Clearly I don't, but just saying.
- its the reflection of the wires that proves it, its not a generic photo nor is altered significatly is the pointDodecahedron
- oh yeah and gap is making money from it tooDodecahedron
- Still ridiculous, imho. It is not the photograph, barely resembles is at allformed
- pr20
The dude took a picture of Jaguar. then posted it for everyone to see free on the net.
The company took the image (still no harm done), then printed it on thousands and thousands of shirts then made $ of the t-shirts. IF the photo in question wasn't valuable to the company then why put it on the tshirt in the first place?
Ultimately it's the question of $. The company is making $ with teh dude's work, so they owe him $ or it's STEALING.
- Amicus0
Further to my half arsed question above...
I'm not saying it's right. Just that I have questions about where exactly the line is drawn. The car is clearly still a Jaguar, even though it's been photographed and then had a PS filter run over it. (pardon the extremely weak pun)
If someone had painted the same image (as the gap art) and then had it silk-screened would it still be a rip? Is it the work itself, or the amount of work that goes into it that makes it original, or is the idea to use the art in that way what makes it original?
- abettertomorrow0
No need to reinvent the wheel
- randommail0
If it was a fashion brand that purported to be about uniqueness and originality, then I'd probably feel cheated.
But it's the Gap. So who cares.
- abettertomorrow0
LIFE IS A RIP OFF
- Amicus0
I'm not really sure how I feel about this.
If the t-shirt artwork is a rip-off, then couldn't the car designer also claim the photo is a rip off?
The line isn't so thin or black and white, is it?
- fooler0
My step grandfather collected antique cars and someone in the 80's took a picture of his STUTZ and made a poster and greetings cards out of a picture he published of it.
He ended up suing them for royalties but I'm not sure how much he collected.this is for visual references only but his car did look exactly like this.
- Miguex0
- vectorising with precision takes a lot more thought and skill then using a photoshop filter though.Amicus
- but the photo used on the tshirt has maintained some recognizable features of its uniquenessDodecahedron
- HEY! those are my speakers I tried to sell on EBay! I'm suing!fooler
- hahaha, well to be honest I only traced one, the other one is just a mirrored image hahaMiguex
- return my TR-909. NOW! lol.akrok
- Brett?Ancillary
- Dodecahedron0
a Sheppard Fairy piece?
- akrok0
oohgap!
- betelgeuse0
as the article states, chances are GAP weren't the ones who created the artwork
- i meant "created the design"betelgeuse
- of course not. they need to protect them self.akrok
- time to hire an indonesian intern for a week, just to fire him tomorrow morning!Miguex