E30 e36 e46 M3 Shirt Designs, thoughts?

[justculture]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ST1G]

I think you should start with images that you have a right to.

[Stanley Rockafella]

I think you should start with images that you have a right to.

[justculture]

The images have been edited far beyond the copyright zone.

If anything removing the plates would take it even further.

There is nothing unique from the cars used to the next.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ST1G]

The images have been edited far beyond the copyright zone.

If anything removing the plates would take it even further.

There is nothing unique from the cars used to the next.

No, you obviously don't get it.

If I take a photo, I own the rights to that photo, you can't just edit it and then say you 'changed it' enough to make my copy right on the photo invalid.

It doesn't matter what the subject matter of the photo is, it's copy righted.

[justculture]

I think the one that doesn't get it is you.


1) Any copyrighted material can be used under fair use if the intentions are for criticism/commenting. Which is what this is.

2) When ever it goes to production of it ever does, then the copyright discussion could even Start.

3) Using an image is much like using a music sample. If you're able to distort the sound sample enough you can get away without clearing it because the sound is no longer the same sound.

In this case, I have removed melodies, pitches, tone etc (the color, scenario, exposure, format, style). the only thing left is the original word (the car) which the person doesn't own the copyright to. All the cars are oem. No noticeable mods therefore unable to be identified from the original image used or any other image.

The only thing tying this images to the originals are the plates. If the artwork gets reEdited and the plates removed I'm free to do as I please because the piece can no longer be pinpointed to one original source. Simple as that.




"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Source: 17 USC Section 107."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUKBMER]

[slammin.e28]

Actually that E30 is far from OEM....

[wannaBMthree]

Thoughts?

The first one rocks, the second two suck.

[ST1G]

I think the one that doesn't get it is you.


1) Any copyrighted material can be used under fair use if the intentions are for criticism/commenting. Which is what this is.

2) When ever it goes to production of it ever does, then the copyright discussion could even Start.

3) Using an image is much like using a music sample. If you're able to distort the sound sample enough you can get away without clearing it because the sound is no longer the same sound.

In this case, I have removed melodies, pitches, tone etc (the color, scenario, exposure, format, style). the only thing left is the original word (the car) which the person doesn't own the copyright to. All the cars are oem. No noticeable mods therefore unable to be identified from the original image used or any other image.

The only thing tying this images to the originals are the plates. If the artwork gets reEdited and the plates removed I'm free to do as I please because the piece can no longer be pinpointed to one original source. Simple as that.




"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Source: 17 USC Section 107."

The Kinkos tried the fair use doctrine defense once too when they were found to be photo coping chapters of text books to sell to students. Guess how well that defense worked? It didn't, they ended up paying a shit ton of money.

1) Any copyrighted material can be used under fair use if the intentions are for criticism/commenting. Which is what this is.

Oh, what are you criticizing or commenting on? it seems to me you're just trying to make money.


Fair use doctrine does not apply if you are trying to make a profit. Fair use doctrine is around so that news papers, critics, and teachers, and students can reference copy righted material without getting in trouble. A teacher can't photo copy an entire text book and pass it out to the class and claim it's 'fair use'. There are many common law boundaries to the fair use doctrine.

Without that copy righted base image you would just have some red and blue thrown on a white tee shirt. It's the original image that gives it any value. It's also a fact that the owner of the copy right work can refuse to give you permission to modify it in any way.

Even if it's not illegal (which it is), it's totally unethical.

Here is some light reading so you can better understand copy right law.

Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Co.

Title 17 USC Chapter 11 § 104, 103

http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/files/2009/10/fairusechecklist.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[agent]

3) Using an image is much like using a music sample. If you're able to distort the sound sample enough you can get away without clearing it because the sound is no longer the same sound.

Ask Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke how that worked out for them.

Also, "Dirty 30" is played out to the point of being nauseating.

[justculture]

"Photo copying text books to sell to students"

Sounds like what I'm doing...

"Oh what are you criticizing or commenting on?"

It clearly says on the title "thoughts?" Meaning, what are your comments or criticism about the design itself.

"Fair use doctrine does not apply of you are tying to make profit"

"Seems to me you're just trying to make money"

First, stop assuming. Two, Don't see a link to a selling thread of any kind.

Unethical behavior is not illegal.


Moral of the story is quoting irrelevant cases that have nothing to do with what I did is just ignorant plus I haven't broken the law yet.

It's like a rapper making a song with a sample and showing people and the people bitching about the song having a sample before he even tries to do anything with the song.



"When somebody talks in circles and you follow the words, it is you who gets dizzy."

With that said I'm done talking to your ignorant (by every sense of the word) ass.

P.S.

I'm a graphic design mayor and took full semester classes on copyright and law alone.

At least one of us wasn't talking out of his ass.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[agent]

Unethical behavior is not illegal.

No, but it still makes one look like a jerk.

It's like a rapper making a song with a sample and showing people and the people bitching about the song having a sample before he even tries to do anything with the song.

How did he "show people" the song without publishing it?

[QUKBMER]

[justculture]

Publishing is not the problem. Is publishing it for profit that is... 😒

Another moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk