ops, GAP did it again
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- sebastianfrench0
it's sucks with copyrights laws.
They can argue, it's on a different medium (t-shirt) not a photo print.
- Atkinson0
no rip off, just very lazy
- randommail0
Clearly it's the same image.
The yellow circle is in the photo AND the t-shirt!
- PonyBoy0
He needs to give money to the electric company for running the wires just as they did... and then he needs to give God a few bux for making the light just right to reflect the wires in such a fashion against the crapuar... and then he should give me a few dollars for wasting my time by not slightly adjusting the wire's reflection ever-so-much so you and I wouldn't waste the time discussing dumb crap such as this online.
fuck gap
fuck faguar
fuck flickr
fuck gap
fuck the artist
fuck gap
- freshdude0
if the photographer gets money, he needs to give money to jaguar.
he didn't do anything.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- fooler0
Why didn't the design clone out the overhead wires. It looks dumb and adds nothing to the graphic.
- 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.
- moldero0
they could blame their designer all day long, its still on them for bad management.
- akrok0
that car was parked on private property. now, you fucking photographer...trespassing. lol.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- instrmntl0
i love that car