are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
This will prob turn into a legal thread discussing the intellectual property rights behing certain images
Basically came accross shotdeadinthehead.com and it appears (from my opinion) that their artwork has been inspired by other comapnies logos, celebrities, bands etc
The usual way to get around this is to buy a licence from the celeb, company etc like how Joystick Junkies, CHUNK clothing, Truffle Shuffle, Amplfied Clothing do
However I highly doubt that this site has obtained licenses since the tees produced are derogary albeit in a mocking/satirical manner
Examples:
Simon Cowell Tee:
shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/HM0165m.jpg
Victoria Beckham Tee:
shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/HM0149m.jpg
Legalities in the UK:
TRADEMARK - basically my research is that unless you own the photo or logo then you cannot reproduce withour permission unless you substantially alter the image. This is a v grey area
PASSING OFF - this common law is going to be v tricky for a t shirt company to get around since it basically says that a company cannot use the identity of another to sell their product (unless without permission). This would include the celebs, bands and tv shows etc. My opinion is that shotdeadinthehead is treading a v fine line in that their t shirts do not even state that they are unofficial merchandise so if this went to court they cannot really sufficienly rely on that arguement. In the case of the shirts that are satirising the celebs, the celebs can actaully use this as proof their goodwill has been damaged
Last edited by Rodney; November 16th, 2009 at 09:38 AM.
Reason: delinked hotlinked images hosted on another site - removed offensive image
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
sorry but just found this one as well. There is NO WAY that KFC would sell a license to a company for that company to produce a shirt like this:
shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/SD0523m.jpg
Last edited by Rodney; November 16th, 2009 at 09:43 AM.
Reason: delinked URL of hotlinked image
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
You'll never know if they have a license or not because that tends to be privileged information. Nor will anyone here know.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If you don't think they do, report them, if you have the time to do such things. In the meantime, better to concentrate on doing your thing legally and not worry about others who you have no control over.
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotmale4yu
This will prob turn into a legal thread discussing the intellectual property rights behing certain images
Basically came accross shotdeadinthehead.com and it appears (from my opinion) that their artwork has been inspired by other comapnies logos, celebrities, bands etc
The usual way to get around this is to buy a licence from the celeb, company etc like how Joystick Junkies, CHUNK clothing, Truffle Shuffle, Amplfied Clothing do
However I highly doubt that this site has obtained licenses since the tees produced are derogary albeit in a mocking/satirical manner
Examples:
Simon Cowell Tee:
shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/HM0165m.jpg
Victoria Beckham Tee:
shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/HM0149m.jpg
Legalities in the UK:
TRADEMARK - basically my research is that unless you own the photo or logo then you cannot reproduce withour permission unless you substantially alter the image. This is a v grey area
PASSING OFF - this common law is going to be v tricky for a t shirt company to get around since it basically says that a company cannot use the identity of another to sell their product (unless without permission). This would include the celebs, bands and tv shows etc. My opinion is that shotdeadinthehead is treading a v fine line in that their t shirts do not even state that they are unofficial merchandise so if this went to court they cannot really sufficienly rely on that arguement. In the case of the shirts that are satirising the celebs, the celebs can actaully use this as proof their goodwill has been damaged
and you care!!.... why
Last edited by Rodney; November 16th, 2009 at 09:44 AM.
Reason: cleanup
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
I don't care what other people do, i think most printers have copied/used some thing they should not at some time its what happens in reality. If some one wanted me to print anything for them to sell i would not turn the work away i can't afford to lol
Customer : can i have this well known image on 2000 shirts
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
I doubt if the creators of the Simpsons seek permission to ridicule the vast amount of people that they do, nor do stand up comedians when they draw celebrities or companies into their stage acts. You can go onto any tv channel and see merciless character assassinations by impressionists.
Which part of humour, or amusing is it that you don't understand?
Live and let live eh?
Last edited by CUSTOM UK; October 21st, 2009 at 07:31 AM.
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
Quote:
Originally Posted by robo029
I don't care what other people do, i think most printers have copied/used some thing they should not at some time its what happens in reality. If some one wanted me to print anything for them to sell i would not turn the work away i can't afford to lol
Customer : can i have this well known image on 2000 shirts
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
hi,
i dont think design 1 or 3 are illegal providing the first on is hand drawn, the second one assuming they stole the photo of victoria beckham would be illegal as the photographer has the copyright.
but as everyone says more to the point WHO GIVES A
if you need to see real breaking the law go on ebay ( no offence to ebay sellers it must piss you off )
nearly everything on theres ripped off!
It is your duty to go out there and produce better original designs and blow the no imaginative crude rip offs out of the water (not to say that these are rip offs as we have not established if they have rights to that photo)
I have turned down contracts to produce borderline stuff before and in reply to the other bloke i also need the money, but its not worth it. but for me its not about that its the fact that someone does own the copyright to it and its wrong for someone else to make money out of it, its about realising how much money and effort and time someone has spent creating something your just going to rip off. When you could actually make something unique and be be proud that you produced it!
Re: shotdeadinthehead.com - Are they producing designs without a license? (illegal)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invent Clothing
hi,
i dont think design 1 or 3 are illegal providing the first on is hand drawn, the second one assuming they stole the photo of victoria beckham would be illegal as the photographer has the copyright.
but as everyone says more to the point WHO GIVES A SH*T!
if you need to see real T*TS breaking the law go on ebay ( no offence to ebay sellers it must piss you off )
nearly everything on theres ripped off!
It is your duty to go out there and produce better original designs and blow the no imaginative crude rip offs out of the water (not to say that these are rip offs as we have not established if they have rights to that photo)
I have turned down contracts to produce borderline stuff before and in reply to the other bloke i also need the money, but its not worth it. but for me its not about that its the fact that someone does own the copyright to it and its wrong for someone else to make money out of it, its about realising how much money and effort and time someone has spent creating something your just going to rip off. When you could actually make something unique and be be proud that you produced it!
sorry for the rant
great rant man one thing tho aftr all that rant not very sure as to why youd rekn the 1st one was acceptible, simply as its may have been handrawn,,,handrawn/ footdrawn wotever,,,surely this is simon cowles face id have thot he have the copyright to his own mug and the 3rd one clearly says kate moss name,,,so surely thats profiting on someones name,,,and im pretty sure that trademark infringmnt at least would apply theyre
are they producing designs without a license? (illegal) 
and the 3rd one clearly says kate moss name,,,so surely thats profiting on someones name,,,and im pretty sure that trademark infringmnt at least would apply theyre
