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.
after many posts from people in the past asking about how their "new obama designs" were going to hit the streets during the campaign and after, and how many of us said you are ripping somebody off if you take an image off the internet, well check this out:
after many posts from people in the past asking about how their "new obama designs" were going to hit the streets during the campaign and after, and how many of us said you are ripping somebody off if you take an image off the internet, well check this out:
We had a similar situation happen to us years ago regarding the Wright Brother's second plane. We actually contacted the grandson of Wilbur Wright and gave him some of our products. The only way we were able to do this was, it was our understanding of copyright law that if an artist uses a photo to render an illustration, the illustration becomes the artist's creation. It's their interpretation of that photo and is not bound by copyright law towards the original photo.
I don't think much has changed in the lines of copyright law but this was about 5 years ago. We never had a cease and desist letter from the Wright Museum. Shortly thereafter, there was some clarification in the use of their photos and name for products, but nothing was ever mentioned of art. Copyright law can be tricky and complying with it isn't always the easiest. In this case, I would think AP doesn't have a legitimate case. But then again, I'm no lawyer.
__________________
BelQuette Inc, 877.202.0886 & Screener's Choice, 330-345-5877
Mod1 Direct to Garment Printer, Made in the USA www.belquette.com
i'm 99% of the time with the artist in these cases. but i also have been a paid photographer in the past. the way people just grabbed this image and made money with it, even though it's not theirs and received no permission, astounds me.
it's obvious to me that the artist in this case, took the photo and imported it into photoshop and basically applied some filters to the image (beyond doing the red/white/blue bkgd). to me that does not do enough to the original image to claim it now as his.
i'm 99% of the time with the artist in these cases. but i also have been a paid photographer in the past. the way people just grabbed this image and made money with it, even though it's not theirs and received no permission, astounds me.
it's obvious to me that the artist in this case, took the photo and imported it into photoshop and basically applied some filters to the image (beyond doing the red/white/blue bkgd). to me that does not do enough to the original image to claim it now as his.
The definition of art is "anything that provokes an emotion". Now that being said, I don't necessarily agree with it because there are those who have really gone overboard with this. Photoshop, if if they did use it, is an art form in itself.
Now if you ask whether the artist has a case against all of those who took his image, then I would agree and say yes. But again, I simply don't believe AP has a case. This would be the artists interpretation of that photo regardless of how he came about doing it. Taking the photo and using it in photo form is using it against the permission of the AP. Taking the photo and creating an artistic rendition of that photo I simply don't believe merits a case.
Like I said though, it's my understanding of the law, but not being a lawyer, I could be wrong.
__________________
BelQuette Inc, 877.202.0886 & Screener's Choice, 330-345-5877
Mod1 Direct to Garment Printer, Made in the USA www.belquette.com
obama design: see what happened 
