Get advice to help you create your t-shirt graphics. Discuss t-shirt design software, special effect techniques, or other topics related to creating a t-shirt design on your computer. If you'd rather hire a graphic designer to do the work for you, please post in our Referrals and Recommendations section here.
If say I saw a cool PLA, communist party propoganda poster of say, chairman Mao doing the hokey-pokey could I use the image without worry of copyright infringment?
*if it's a foreign made state poster
*they're in China-I'm not
*if it was made for public consumption in the first place
*I'm only getting the message a bigger audience
would the commies attempt to sue me? Do ya think?
I don't think the Chinese would even pay attention -who has insights on the matter?
If say I saw a cool PLA, communist party propoganda poster of say, chairman Mao doing the hokey-pokey could I use the image without worry of copyright infringment?
Short answer: No, you can not use the image "without worry".
Long answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
*if it's a foreign made state poster
Does that mean a company in another country can print the US flag or Uncle Sam on a bunch of shirts and nobody over here will do anything about it? I think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
*they're in China-I'm not
That never stops anyone from sueing anyone else. Far from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
*if it was made for public consumption in the first place
Yeah, so was the McDonald's billboard on the street corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
*I'm only getting the message a bigger audience
Via capitalism? A little ironic, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
would the commies attempt to sue me? Do ya think?
I don't think the Chinese would even pay attention -who has insights on the matter?
What you (or I) *think* will happen has absolutely no influence over what will *actually* happen. Better talk to a lawyer if you are seriously considering it.
Oh, come on! Chill out a little here! The Chinese are NOTORIOUS for blithely ignoring copyright. While I am not an advocate of infringing copyright, I think there's a tendency for some folk to get a little over-earnest about copyright issues - I really don't think some little Tshirt operation in the States doing a few Ts with a Chinese Communist party poster is going to register on the Chinese copyright infringement radar screen!
One proviso: it sounds like this poster is not actually a Communist Party propaganda poster, since it appears to be sending up Mao (not known for his hokey pokey, I venture). Are you sure, lousentdreem, it is a party poster?
If it IS, then I would not give a moment's thought about copyright - I mean, ain't copyright a capitalist thang?! What gripe is it to the Maoist Commos in China (didn't know there were any left!) if someone in the States thinks their propaganda is cool enough to spread the word via a Tshirt? It would be a bit rich for them to turn all cappy-piggy to prosecute a little US Tshirt firm for printing their propaganda. BUT...
Isn't it more likely that this poster is a contemporary effort from a Chinese (or other) artist? That being the case, please discard everything I've written above - if this were the case, I'm right with Jasonda!
Crucial, then, to check the origin/creator of said poster in the first instance.
the " hokey-pokey" was literary license. I have seen however many that would translate well to marketable shirt. the original artwork on many soviet
and PLA posters is outstanding.
and I think Jasonda may be over-estimating the likelyness of of negative response, or any response for that matter given the nature and source of the images.
But the irony is not lost on me
-I think it's at the heart of the capitolist beast to grow stronger marketing
communism as a cheap design trend.
I do think it's likely that I could use those images unscathed- if I got them from the source and not someone's website. I'm just NOT 100% sure.
think about this: there are seven million tees that have a picture of the Dubya on them (that say something stupid) that was originally shot by a professional photographer at some news conference or rose garden speech.
I seriously doubt that would be the case if every news photographer sued these t-shirt makers for their cut. Bear in mind that those photos of Bush are the direct source of their income and they have legal right to over every aspect of pics they took- not to mention their subject may have legal recourse.
I'm not saying I'm gonna do it -but, I am entertaining the idea yes.
I wanna explore the idea of what's falls under public domain.
I've heard that our WWII posters are just that "public domain" and free to use or, at least any copyright is not enforced. I need to research this topic a bit more-
"Does that mean a company in another country can print the US flag or Uncle Sam on a bunch of shirts and nobody over here will do anything about it? I think not."
I think they do it everyday without incident....bill waterson the artist behind calvin and hobbes would never license them to anyone. when I was in thailand I bought 4 high quality calvin and hobbes t-shirts. ( he really should license tees-mine were sweet) then you see those stickers of calvin urinating on different items that are everywhere and they keep coming. If anyone would sue it would be waterson and he would win without exception. why are they still present?
hollywood and music companies are the only ones I know trying to bust folks in third-world countries.
and I think Jasonda may be over-estimating the likelyness of of negative response, or any response for that matter given the nature and source of the images.
You asked what your rights are/if you could use it without worry, and that's what Jasonda responded to. Not the statistical probability of getting caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
Bear in mind that those photos of Bush are the direct source of their income and they have legal right to over every aspect of pics they took- not to mention their subject may have legal recourse.
As an elected US politician Bush has no resourse (well, except to label the person an enemy combatant and make them disappear... but he can't sue). As you said the photographer does - although proving it was your photo and not one of the thousands of others taken of the man would probably be difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
I wanna explore the idea of what's falls under public domain.
I think there's an extremely good chance this would, but I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lousentdreem
I've heard that our WWII posters are just that "public domain" and free to use or, at least any copyright is not enforced.
Most US WWII posters would be produced by the government. Works produced by the US government are not protected by copyright (but can sometimes be protected by other laws).
then you see those stickers of calvin urinating on different items that are everywhere and they keep coming. If anyone would sue it would be waterson and he would win without exception. why are they still present?
I believe that his representitives often sue (and win), but the stickers are so bizarrely popular that they just keep on coming.
Since you've now clarified that this poster you're referring to is a Communist Party poster in the time of Mao, I wouldn't even think about copyright. Party propaganda posters - especially communist ones - are messages from the State, not works of art "owned" by an artist or individual. If you think it would go well on a T, I wouldn't give copyright another moment's thought.
"the photographer does - although proving it was your photo and not one of the thousands of others taken of the man would probably be difficult."
let's say that I'm one of 15 photographers that gets to snap pics of the dubya flexin' his tongue muscles next to an f-18 on a carrier. I jockey for position amonst the others and get the one clean shot of his face as a jet runs over his tow.
I'm gonna remember the shot because I took it-sold it- and ensured they spell my name right giving me poper credit when they printed it in the post.
Then I see some goober wearing my pic on a tee that says "George is the devil." and find that I'm upset my image was stolen. All i'd have to do is produce the negatives to establish that the image is mine.Maybe bring in a copy of the post giving credit to me for that image.
Since you've now clarified that this poster you're referring to is a Communist Party poster in the time of Mao, I wouldn't even think about copyright. Party propaganda posters - especially communist ones - are messages from the State, not works of art "owned" by an artist or individual. If you think it would go well on a T, I wouldn't give copyright another moment's thought.
Down with Mao and all dictators.
They are works of some artist and I have always liked that style of graphic. From the Soviet, Chi-Comms and Nazi propaganda artists some very cool images and styles were created. If it was produced by government I would think probably public domain but thats just a guess.
Does that mean a company in another country can print the US flag or Uncle Sam on a bunch of shirts and nobody over here will do anything about it? I think not.
Actually, you are wrong. Companies over seas often times even manufacture american flags. They are just considered un-official american flags, and therefore the government collects sales tax on them, unlike real american flags.
I think they do it everyday without incident....bill waterson the artist behind calvin and hobbes would never license them to anyone. when I was in thailand I bought 4 high quality calvin and hobbes t-shirts. ( he really should license tees-mine were sweet) then you see those stickers of calvin urinating on different items that are everywhere and they keep coming. If anyone would sue it would be waterson and he would win without exception. why are they still present?
hollywood and music companies are the only ones I know trying to bust folks in third-world countries.[/quote]
Bill Watterson of Calvin fame is a special case in regards to actively pursuing copywrite problems. He is for the most part a recluse. He has pursued it timidly at best and generally has been totally ignored or companies have just changed that boy figure to someone else. The figure change didnt stop anything as most people refer to it as Calvin peeing on something. I have seen at least 40 variations of the boy figure alone not to mention how many different ways he can shoot the bird or pee on something.
In the real world this would have ended long ago...in Mr. Watterson's world it has continued fairly unobstructed. Is it wrong to steal his art?....no doubt. Is it being done on a regular basis?...no doubt. Is using another boy figure to solve the problem ok?....I think probably so.
You asked what your rights are/if you could use it without worry, and that's what Jasonda responded to. Not the statistical probability of getting caught.
Yes, exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdr8271
Actually, you are wrong. Companies over seas often times even manufacture american flags. They are just considered un-official american flags, and therefore the government collects sales tax on them, unlike real american flags.
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the manufacture of the actual US flag. I was talking about the printing the image of a US flag or other symbols on a t-shirt.
let's say that I'm one of 15 photographers that gets to snap pics of [...]
I don't see that as especially difficult.
No, in the event of those extremely unusual circumstances you just described it would probably be extremely easy. There would only be so many photos of the event, and none others from the same precise moment and angle as yours.
On the other hand there is the reality in which we actually reside. Where someone takes a generic press photo of Bush waving as he gets off the plane, or holding the podium making a speech, etc. sticks it in a graphics program and simplifies it down to a one colour print of Bush without context (i.e. no banners or state signs, etc. in the background). That is what is making up the vast majority of those "seven million tees that have a picture of the Dubya on them [...] shot by a professional photographer at some news conference or rose garden speech", and proving you are the photographer for one of those shirts would be a lot more difficult (though not necessarily impossible).
The reason people get away with copyright infringement is a question of practicality, not legality. It's not even necessarily an indicator that people are reluctant to do anything about it - sometimes it's just too hard to justify the effort.
If say I saw a cool PLA, communist party propoganda poster of say, chairman Mao doing the hokey-pokey could I use the image without worry of copyright infringment?
Since we aren't lawyers here, and since there doesn't seem to be a consensus, I think the best answer for this question is "you should ask a lawyer if seriously considering it".
I prefer that for the puproses of the forum, we fall on the "over cautious" side of intellectual property right issues, and the legal stuff can be left to laywer forums
you know what I'd like to know? 
