ops, GAP did it again
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- abettertomorrow0
Down with the man!
- 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
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."
- 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
- instrmntl0
i love that car
- pr20
of course Gap is not loosing sleep over it. How much is it gonna really cost them to license the pic from the guy... $5-10k?
Case closed.
- He would possibly be looking for a revenue share which would be in additionDodecahedron
- abettertomorrow0
I'm not sure this kind of case is so clear cut as you make it sound. The vector version is different enough that it would be hard to prove it was a copy of the photo.
- its the wires...proofDodecahedron
- Its not really proof though is it?abettertomorrow
- yes.Dodecahedron
- no. it could have been an illustration of the photo.mydo
- No proof.formed
- abettertomorrow0
Basically, I don't think there's ever been a case like this decided in court. There's no real legal precedent to point to.
- like every successful infringed photo case ever is the precedentDodecahedron
- There haven't been any though. Not in the digital age dealing with vector image that resembles a photo.abettertomorrow
- as mentioned the Fairey Obama poster case is a perfect precedentDodecahedron
- case settled out of court doesn't amount to any kind of precedentabettertomorrow
- well out of court means they made a profitable deal. the court didn't need to tell them to do that, it was in fact infringement anywayDodecahedron
- ...infringement and they both knew it.Dodecahedron
- If it wasn't real copyright infringement why would they make a deal? Fairey would tell them to f themselves its his money and posterDodecahedron
- akrok0
that car was parked on private property. now, you fucking photographer...trespassing. lol.
- moldero0
they could blame their designer all day long, its still on them for bad management.
- abettertomorrow0
I think in general copyright law should be less strict. Take a site like Soundcloud. Currently they allow people to post remixes and DJ sets that use pieces of other peoples tracks. This, like the photo to vector issue has never really been decided in court - apparently no one cares enough to sue - but you could apply the same arguments against it as against this vector illustration.
Basically, there's a huge amount of creativity that would be killed off if everyone is intent on enforcing this super strict version of copyright. There is a line somewhere, but its not very clear where it is and I don't think any judge would be able to tell you either.
- fooler0
Why didn't the design clone out the overhead wires. It looks dumb and adds nothing to the graphic.
- formed0
- you can not in anyway have two photos with no relation that have the exact same wires reflecting in the same wayDodecahedron
- unpossible as they sayDodecahedron
- The car in question is a Jaguar E-type, V12 by the looks of it (special 5.3 litre for the US market)... jesus, I've just bored myself with that!goldieboy
- with that!goldieboy
- abettertomorrow0
Anyway, Dodecahedron, how can you start this thread http://www.qbn.com/topics/649915… at the same time you argue to penalize the guy who may have copied a single photo??
Think about it for a sec...
- chucknorrisfacekick...Miguex
- i thought about it and both cases are clear copyright infringement.Dodecahedron
- but I don't think creative copyright infringement is the same as distribution of copyrighted materialDodecahedron
- randommail0
No copyright infringement risk at all in terms of the photo. What the heck is this person blogging about?
It's an original Photoshop painting or whatever you want to call it. It has no resemblance to the original work. The photographer can't claim ownership of the car, which was the only thing used as a image reference. Any claim would go nowhere, fast. Gap could easily produce an original photo that looked exactly like the one on Flickr, windshield reflections and all.
The only party that has any claim to infringement is Jaguar. If the image is identifiable distinctly as a Jaguar, and not any other car, then the Gap needs to pull it off the shelves asap.