moral dilema

[seripop]

this band here in montreal got me to print 2 runs of tshirts for them. the other day i noticed that their tshirt design(wich was getting lots of positive buzz in town) is ripped off from art chantry.. it's basically a composit of 2 of his designs..
i THEN noticed that quite a few posters this band had were a.c. desgns with the names and dates changed..
i added a anonymous post about it on a local music msg board and their response was basically "fuck u, punk is theft, art is elitist , there is notting that is new'
my feeling is that if you appropriate images you don't take them from people doing the same type of stuff as you, and maybe take them from more public domain type stuff..
anyone else got any feelings about this?
also, i know they will want more shirts when their batch runs out... should i refuse to print them... maybe offer to do a design myself?
the whole thing just has me feeling really dirty.

[philaarts.com]

technically, all the printers i have paid, i had to sign a release, that protects the printer from copyright problems and puts the responsibility on me as the "producer"

but since you know of a copyright issue, i would think morally you know its wrong..

but if you never knew chantry, the norm would be a blind printer not knowing and the legal problems are absorbed by the person paying for the job... ive seen that happen

but since you know.. i wouldnt do it.. you have knowlegde of theft and would go with it... as much as some people might not like a particular artist.. we are responsible as a community not to let an artist get ripped off HOPEING THAT THE SAME WOULD BE DONE FOR US

just one persons opinion

see you in the welfare lines

[Nolen Strals]

fuck those dudes. Dont' print anything else they've ripped off.

It's just not right...since you're having the slightest bit of doubts then dont' do it. I didn't print a record cover once for moral reasons, some people gave me crap for it, but I stand by my decision still.

If you support them in their ripping off of someone else... well, you can just see how this could escalate.

Wash your hands of it.

[JGex]

I wouldn't have printed it in my shop.... not if I knew where the art came from.

[gooch]

I second Nolen on that one. That's just wrong. Offensive mostly because it seems so obvious and these guys are probably blind to the fact that they would be totally pissed off if someone pulled the same shit on their "music". Don't give in. And let people know just where they got their "look" from. Perhaps a guerilla counter attack of anti-propaganda posters. Better yet, call Chantry and see what his take is! He's been know to have an opinion or two...heh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: gooch on 2002-03-01 06:42 ]</font>

[David Michael Miller]

Not to stick my meck on the chopping block or nothing, but don't we all wander around in that moral gray area? This week's featured poster depicts characters from the ol' Rudolph Xmas special, which I am sure are copyrighted. And what about photos lifted from the media? I'm sure this topic has been covered ad nauseum here, but I would guess that the unauthorized selling of anything with copyrighted work or a band's name on it is some sort of petty theft. I'm still a little skittish about using all those unlicensed fonts. Silly, I know, but somewhere along the line somebody created the original work, whether it be a typeface or a famous photo, and essentially it's a ripoff. Flame away.

[JGex]

some folks tread the moral grey area more than others.....

[Nolen Strals]

yeah, I try not to use unlicensed fonts on posters and stuff that I'm making money on...but that's why photocopiers were invented (to stress them enough that they become more than they started as)...and I'll just use this as another opportunity/reason to endorse hand lettering and letraset (aka rub-down type).

Whoever said it, I agree...contact Mr. Chantry...I'd be interested to see what he has to say on this...

[JGex]

There is also a difference in doing a "parody" and directly using a piece of art unaltered.

Example: http://www.gigposters.com/posters.php?poster=5416

This Horsemen of the Apocolypse piece is exactly as Albrecht Durer created it.... unaltered. Of course, since this flyer was probably never made to be sold, there probably not be a copyright issue over the use of the art.

Not all the posters on this site are for sale. Of course, the owner of the art could still come after the "borrower" for defaming his art or using without permission, but what are the chances of that actually happening if 50 were zeroxed and hung on telephone poles in downtown (city of your choice)to promote a one nite show?

The Rudolph piece, IMO, falls under "parody," which is allowed under copyright law. Like Garbage Pail Kids...

MOST of the artists who are selling posters here are using original artwork.... and found art and other art from collections that they have purchased the rights (licensed) to use on their posters.



_________________
The Poster Mistress

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Poster Mistress on 2002-03-01 07:49 ]</font>

[seripop]

just to clarify... i didn't notice the rip off when i printed the firt 2 batches..only latter, when showing a friend 'some people can't surf'.
is there any one on here who knows chantry email address?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: seripop on 2002-03-01 08:45 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: seripop on 2002-03-01 094 ]</font>