Shirt.Woot

I thought the socks were black/white striped...

kevlar51 wrote:The typical voters vote for designs they like, not designs they think follow the rules.

I'm OK with that.

It's Woot's job to play judge and make the hard decisions.

I have to agree with Adder on this one. Why bother having rules if you aren't going to enforce them? An obvious violation shouldn't be a "hard decision."

Good thing it wasn't "Ho ho, the witch is dead". Otherwise, things could have got awkward.

miren78 wrote:I have to agree with Adder on this one. Why bother having rules if you aren't going to enforce them? An obvious violation shouldn't be a "hard decision."

This comment from Joel about the enforcement of the rules for derbies might interest you guys:

"The short answer is we give a set of rules each and every week for artists to follow. Dancing along the edge of those rules invites rejection for reasons you may not understand or even like. My recommendation; don't spend a lot of time and energy on a design that skirts the rules if you can't stand to see it get rejected. If you can stand it, the pay off may be huge."

Sure it is clever. I get it. I just don't really care for the design...

I was really hoping some other shirts would even get into the top 9, but they didn't. I don't think I would wear any of the top 9. I'm disappointed with the results of this derby. Maybe I'm the only one...

I think I'd like this more if the design were bigger. It seems like a sea of green.

bluejester wrote:It looks like the witch got creamed.

:Drum Riff:

http://instantrimshot.com

Wow, printing on only your second entry in a derby. Great design too. Congratulations puppetsmith!

AdderXYU wrote:"No use of the actual characters from the movie. That should be obvious, we hope."
WOO RULES!

You know what this says to me? 'Don't make any likeness so close we have to worry about rights infringement.'

Everyone who knows the iconic Witch of the East will have no trouble thinking this is her, and yet there's no face, no explicit tie-in to the movie, etc. There's more than enough ambiguity here to pass the lawyers. Are you even positive the stockings in the movie were green and white, (Googling shows a lot of black and white striped ones) or is that your mind making an inference based on the strength of the visual pun?

Maybe the "obvious" part needs clarification next time, but calm down. Take your pickle-faces off. It's a visual pun, with legs.


P.S. Don't Google Ding-Dongs.

markzero wrote:You know what this says to me? 'Don't make any likeness so close we have to worry about rights infringement.'

Everyone who knows the iconic Witch of the East will have no trouble thinking this is her, and yet there's no face, no explicit tie-in to the movie, etc. There's more than enough ambiguity here to pass the lawyers. Are you even positive the stockings in the movie were green and white, (Googling shows a lot of black and white striped ones) or is that your mind making an inference based on the strength of the visual pun?

Maybe the "obvious" part needs clarification next time, but calm down. Take your pickle-faces off. It's a visual pun, with legs.


P.S. Don't Google Ding-Dongs.

You are the voice of reason. Thank you.

We loved the visual pun, but the grass color was a deal-killer for hubby and I. Sorry.

AdderXYU wrote:That you know it's the wicked witch, and not nanny from muppet babies, or the goth girl who didn't shower and wanted to marry jack skellington who sat behind you in creative writing, or a slightly senile granny, is why this shirt shouldn't have been printed.

There was a rule in place where no characters from the movie itself was supposed to be included in the design. This is obviously THAT WITCH.

Or the fact that you immediately think of the character from the movie, although the character from the movie isn't actually shown, means that the rule was followed and the designer did a great job.

This would still be better than death by Twinkie.

And thus, the little people of the Land of Chewandswallow were freed of her tyranny.

(Wizard of Oz meets Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)

midgerock wrote:that's what she said... literally!
---------------------------------------

also out of all the designs from this derby, rules aside, this was my favorite. I'm glad it won!
Congrats puppetsmith!!

There are a handful of you designer's whose blind praise for each other is becoming quite sickening.


"..rules aside.... I'm glad it won!."

Seriously?

Yo! Ding Dong, man, Ding Dong! Yo! Ding Dong!

Good thing she wasn't a ho...ho.

I thought it went like this, "Twinkie, the witch is dead!" Guess I am mistaken.

Look at how few sales you're getting from the East Coast. That may be because, at least in New York, there are no Ding Dongs. Instead, they're known as Ring Dings.

And "Ring Ding, the Witch is Dead!" just doesn't have the same, well, ring to it . . .

Sam, play our song, just.. one more time.

Oh look, another woot shirt with food on it.
Well no wonder, look at the editor!

http://gbgm-umc.org/umcor/photos/ethiopia/pauljeffrey/eyatanidalayo2.jpg

AdderXYU wrote:"No use of the actual characters from the movie. That should be obvious, we hope."

WOO RULES!

THANK YOU!

I'm really running out of interest in shirt.woot. How did this win? It doesn't even follow the rules, much less stack up against Danced With the Devil, Destroy Something Beautiful, or Rosebud. Seems like the winners lately are always cheap puns, memes, or some chibi junk. Someone must have told the soccer moms about this site, because it's getting really socks.

markzero wrote:You know what this says to me? 'Don't make any likeness so close we have to worry about rights infringement.'

It says to me, follow the spirit of the theme, stated as "The point is you're not showing us famous movie scenes, but literally visualizing the quote text as if you didn't know the sentence was from a movie."

And if you didn't know the sentence was from a movie, literally vizualizing the quote wouldn't reasonably lead you to a scene just like the one from the movie with the same character in the same situation as quoted.

Everyone who knows the iconic Witch of the East will have no trouble thinking this is her, and yet there's no face, no explicit tie-in to the movie, etc.

There never was a face. Bright red shoes with striped stockings? Really? No tie in?

Maybe the "obvious" part needs clarification next time,

can't agree with you more!

blue_94_trooper wrote:It's a great shirt and I love it. I always miss the derby voting (and the associated rules) and really don't care. Apparently 707 people did see the rules and voted for it anyway.

90% of the voters don't pay attention to the rules, because they are not the ones whom have to submit to them. It's Woot's job to enforce the rules they have imposed, and even then they can't be bothered to do it all the time. No wonder voting numbers are so low.

In the interest of fairness, I nominate Adder to be a moderator on here.

Do not wear this shirt: During a zombie invasion. You won't know the difference between friend and foe.

trunkwontopen wrote:Sam, play our song, just.. one more time.

Ahh, you have awoken my East LA born and raised musical memory.

In for 1. This is a great shirt, a visual pun, and parody. Also, it will drive my mom nuts =D

Also, while I LOVE "Destroy Something Beautiful" that shirt only makes sense when you are told what it's in reference to. Same thing with "Rosebud". This shirt as least does visualize the quote.

PS - The striped stockings in WoO were black and white. Not a huge difference mind you, but someone asked.

And apparently the rule about tracing copyrighted photos is no longer in place either.
http://muggphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000SNd95tnIRac
And the legs look like a vector trace as well. Anyone have a link to where those came from?

Johndis5 wrote:There are a handful of you designer's whose blind praise for each other is becoming quite sickening.


"..rules aside.... I'm glad it won!."

Seriously?

No more sickening than non-designers constant bellyaching and lack of civility.

This design is well within the rules, as I tried to explain in it's actual thread. No depiction of a likeness of a character. There are legs with stockings. Welcome to parody.

sTyLeS wrote:And apparently the rule about tracing copyrighted photos is no longer in place either.
http://muggphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000SNd95tnIRac
And the legs look like a vector trace as well. Anyone have a link to where those came from?

Wow, styles, looks like an exact trace. Even the frosting lines are the same. One "snuck" by woot apparently.

sTyLeS wrote:And apparently the rule about tracing copyrighted photos is no longer in place either.
http://muggphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000SNd95tnIRac
And the legs look like a vector trace as well. Anyone have a link to where those came from?

Now, this is a real issue. It does appear to be the exact photograph used, and what I would guess is auto-trace. The details are exact, especially in the white areas.

So basically what we're seeing here is

1) There are those that can be happy for anothers creativity being rewarded and

2) There are those that can't.

Geez people... get over it! It's done!

jxchen wrote:Now, this is a real issue. It does appear to be the exact photograph used, and what I would guess is auto-trace. The details are exact, especially in the white areas.

The white areas are pretty exact but the rest of it does not match the photo. Putting them directly on top of each other, they don't line up at all and the shapes and shadows are different.

So while they used that photo for reference and took the shape for the frosting they don't seem to have traced the rest directly.

Hmm, up to woot.

DianaSprinkle wrote:The white areas are pretty exact but the rest of it does not match the photo. Putting them directly on top of each other, they don't line up at all and the shapes and shadows are different.

So while they used that photo for reference and took the shape for the frosting they don't seem to have traced the rest directly.

Hmm, up to woot.

Nope, then something got messed up when you tried. I just did the same thing and they match up perfectly. Looks like a complete trace.

And here is the big ding dong:

http://muggphoto.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJwLTE8rc_H2ywjMD40oTAtyyTQwjXBNdS7O9DWwMrUyMrUyNAACK894l2Bn25TMvHTtlPy8dDUwP97Rz8W2BMgODXYNivd0sQ0FqXW0LChKKs8uc_YoV4t3dA6xLU5NLErOAAC5VCDH&GI_ID=

hahahaha clever

"No use of the actual characters from the movie. That should be obvious, we hope."


I WOULD *LOVE* FOR A WOOT STAFF TO COMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS DID NOT BREAK THEIR OWN RULES FOR THIS DERBY.

jxchen wrote:Now, this is a real issue. It does appear to be the exact photograph used, and what I would guess is auto-trace. The details are exact, especially in the white areas.

Yeah, the thing is if someone would have posted it in the Derby forum Woot would have rejected it immediately. I have yet to see evidence of photo tracing that wasn't rejected. However, we're no longer in the Derber and it already made it to print.

I've trying not to buy more t-shirts, yet this is my 3rd in 2 weeks. I love the wizard of oz and thought this was very clever.

Johndis5 wrote:There are a handful of you designer's whose blind praise for each other is becoming quite sickening.


"..rules aside.... I'm glad it won!."

Seriously?

Blind praise? seriously? I really do like this design. Its clever and very wearable and was my favorite of the derby. when it came to really reinterpreting the quote as the theme outlined, I think this design was the most readable of any in the derby, IMO. When I said "rules aside", I said it because I didn't want to go into a semantical argument and dissect the rules and the interpretation of them. I'll leave that up to the powers that be. So in the end, yes, seriously.

EDIT: after reading prior comments if this was a photo trace... argh!!! I hate lookin' like a jerk when supporting a design which was clever and was under the impression made genuinely. I would hope the designer would chime in to review their methods of making the design.

cantstopthesignal wrote:"No use of the actual characters from the movie. That should be obvious, we hope."


I WOULD *LOVE* FOR A WOOT STAFF TO COMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS DID NOT BREAK THEIR OWN RULES FOR THIS DERBY.

^Really?