Shirt.Woot

Not having viewed the Derby, i was for sure that was the end of Peppermint Patty...

thumperchick wrote:^Really?

You don't see how this neither reinterprets the quote (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film) nor doesn't use characters from the film, as they say not to do (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film)

Oh, and to Johndis... it is saddening to me that people are JUST NOW beginning to notice the sycophantic cylons that have invaded this site. May more of you crop up and fast.

AdderXYU wrote:You don't see how this neither reinterprets the quote (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film) nor doesn't use characters from the film, as they say not to do (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film)

Oh, and to Johndis... it is saddening to me that people are JUST NOW beginning to notice the sycophantic cylons that have invaded this site. May more of you crop up and fast.

While I believe that this shirt did represent the ideal of the Derby; everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The "Really?" was in reference to the multiple obnoxious postings... That have since been removed...

nicole is that you honey?

faultylogic83 wrote: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.

That wouldn't work for a few reasons:

1) I can't probate myself every time I say something true but slightly mean.

2) Moderators have zero bearing on the derby or the site. They are basically the brain police, so unless you just want to see certain people who make inane comments on everything to boost their own exposure deleted, there's no meaningful change I could make. I'd still be powerless on proper rejections. I'd still be powerless on choosing designs. We'd still have live-traced poorly done referential cashgrabs like this entered, and they'd still print despite going against the very first part of the rules for this derby.

3) Do you really think woot would bring me, or anyone, in to fix them? This scenario is little more than a pipe dream because, simply put, I wouldn't change for woot, and woot has proven to put zero respect behind me wishing to see them become fair, just, and better quality, even despite the scads of users and more importantly, majorities of artists who would and do agree. I'd either be fired immediately, or silenced effectively.

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

But they explicitly stated the copyright issue in the rule regarding video game characters, so if they meant the same for the movie characters, why wasn't it stated in that section as well?

It comes down to an argument of letter versus spirit of the "law." Obviously it's woot's prerogative to interpret their own rules, but it doesn't really seem fair to the designers who worked hard to stay within the rules.

Now THAT'S fun size!

Suddenly... ding dongs.

.

AdderXYU for CEO
AdderXYU for President
My dad always told me that a liar is worse than a thief because you can lock stuff from a thief but not from a liar.
AdderXYU I like seeing a good deal of truth spreading you are doing, hope it's contagious.
Please read quickly, this post may be deleted in ......

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

It should have been rejected anyway. They deserve any lost money.

This said, SHOW IT. Don't just show me the pictures. Show irrefutable proof that the two are the same, and this WILL GET TAKEN DOWN. If not, woot have lost even more ethics and quality control than even last week's ECs would imply.

miren78 wrote:But they explicitly stated the copyright issue in the rule regarding video game characters, so if they meant the same for the movie characters, why wasn't it stated in that section as well?

It comes down to an argument of letter versus spirit of the "law." Obviously it's woot's prerogative to interpret their own rules, but it doesn't really seem fair to the designers who worked hard to stay within the rules.

Based on the discussions, it's obviously debatable about the interpretation of the first rule of not using the movie characters here.
But I really don't think it's debatable at all that this was traced from a photo. That seems to be more of the issue to me.

sTyLeS wrote:Based on the discussions, it's obviously debatable about the interpretation of the first rule of not using the movie characters here.
But I really don't think it's debatable at all that this was traced from a photo. That seems to be more of the issue to me.

It's also debatable that the Grand Canyon is proof of the Great Flood of Noah. However, facts-and-evidence prove otherwise.

"King Don, the Witch is Dead!"

AdderXYU wrote:You don't see how this neither reinterprets the quote (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film) nor doesn't use characters from the film, as they say not to do (because it uses REAL IMAGERY from the film)

Oh, and to Johndis... it is saddening to me that people are JUST NOW beginning to notice the sycophantic cylons that have invaded this site. May more of you crop up and fast.

I've noticed. I think if we compared lists, they'd be quite similar.

brilliant

AdderXYU wrote:It's also debatable that the Grand Canyon is proof of the Great Flood of Noah. However, facts-and-evidence prove otherwise.

No, I agree with you that it's probably violating that rule. It's just that woot would have been less likely to reject for that than for the obvious tracing.

DianaSprinkle wrote: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."

I don't really see this as "dancing along the edge of the rules." The rules say no use of the actual character. I'm pretty sure that the only image of the actual character in the movie is her legs sticking out from under the house...so that's really all we have to go by as far as comparison. And, aside from the color change on the stockings, this looks a whole lot like the actual character.

The designer could have easily used a generic witch instead of one wearing almost identical clothing as the actual character, and avoided positioning her in a similiar manner as the scene in the movie. It would still have gotten the point across...without breaking the rules outright.

myob1776 wrote: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 . . .

We call them Ding Dongs here in SC

Auto tracing makes illustrators sad =[

What the heck is a Ding Dong?? I thought it was a peppermint patty at first.

as for characters go was the dead witch in the credits of the movie?

We're well past the point of the last derby's rules being enforced or not. It's annoying when we don't have consistency and I understand people voicing that here, but that was Woot's call. It shouldn't reflect badly on puppetsmith today.

Kudos for a good and very popular (bouncing button!) design.

MathUhhhSaurus wrote:We call them Ding Dongs here in SC

I grew up in Boston and know them as Ding Dongs also. I also have a Ding Dong shirt I found at a thrift store for $1!

NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo. The shirt has melted away.

ITS SOLD OUT!!!

noo!!

anybody know how I could still get one??

I entered a caption contest one time that said to keep your submission under 120 characters.

I struggled to make sure it fit the bill and had to toss aside many ideas that were just too long.

In the end, the winner's entry was 608 characters.

I, along with many others, raged, so I can understand the emotions about this win.

midgerock wrote:as for characters go was the dead witch in the credits of the movie?

A character does not have to be credited at the end to be a character.

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?

That's an even bigger issue than the broken Derby rules. Is Woot really going to let this slide????

Great shirt - sorry it is sold out. Please offer a 2nd run!

sTyLeS wrote:No, I agree with you that it's probably violating that rule. It's just that woot would have been less likely to reject for that than for the obvious tracing.

Why so serious?

Really, everyone. This is parody, and is not the actual "character", if there even is a character. Just like the Cookie Monster in "The Binge". The witch in Wizard of oz had black and white stockings, the shoes were sparkly. This is the epitome of this derby, hence the win and sell out.

As far as the "trace" goes, REALLY? I mean, you are claiming this artist traced a photo of an actual Ding Dong. Yes I saw the photo.

Hmm, couldn't the artist use the exact same reference in real life by getting an actual Ding Dong? Considering the "trace" is of a picture of the exact object, not a mockup or edited version of an actual Ding Dong. I mean the actual Ding Dong being pictured is a better reference and exactly the same thing, no? Not like the artist couldn't go to a store and buy a ding dong, set it next to him/her and draw one... Maybe even take a picture of the one he/she just bought and use that as a reference...

This shirt sold out... Didn't get rejected, and there is no way Woot is going to cancel this shirt. There is honestly no legitimate argument that could claim copyrighting or trademark issues. It's gonna be here awhile, deal with it.

renegadetim wrote:
Hmm, couldn't the artist use the exact same reference in real life by getting an actual Ding Dong? Considering the "trace" is of a picture of the exact object, not a mockup or edited version of an actual Ding Dong. I mean the actual Ding Dong being pictured is a better reference and exactly the same thing, no? Not like the artist couldn't go to a store and buy a ding dong, set it next to him/her and draw one... Maybe even take a picture of the one he/she just bought and use that as a reference...

Of course the artist could have bought a Ding Dong and used that as a reference. But they didn't.
They traced a copyrighted photo.
Believe it or not, woot actually does have rules regarding that. It's just that nobody mentioned it in the derby so it slipped by.
But you're right, it's already printing so nothing can be undone at this point.

sTyLeS wrote:Of course the artist could have bought a Ding Dong and used that as a reference. But they didn't.
They traced a copyrighted photo.
Believe it or not, woot actually does have rules regarding that. It's just that nobody mentioned it in the derby so it slipped by.
But you're right, it's already printing so nothing can be undone at this point.

That's your personal opinion. I looked at the photo, it doesn't look traced to me. And your argument is based on a picture of an actual thing. So the artist could have gotten the same exact reference by just having an actual ding dong.

How are you going to legitimately prove that this has been traced? Can you? I didn't think so.

sTyLeS wrote:Of course the artist could have bought a Ding Dong and used that as a reference. But they didn't.
They traced a copyrighted photo.
Believe it or not, woot actually does have rules regarding that. It's just that nobody mentioned it in the derby so it slipped by.
But you're right, it's already printing so nothing can be undone at this point.

I have to agree. After looking at the images for a little while though, yeah, the split ding dong looks traced.

It's especially noticable in the cream filling. The way that the cream turns is the exact same direction, and for me, having halved these tastey treats before, it falls under the snowflake principle. No two flakes (or cuts in this case) are alike.

renegadetim wrote:
How are you going to legitimately prove that this has been traced? Can you? I didn't think so.

Sure I can.

Will there be more shirts made?

sTyLeS wrote:Sure I can.

Um, those aren't identical... Close, but not identical... So, thanks for proving that point...

thumperchick wrote:Um, those aren't identical... Close, but not identical... So, thanks for proving that point...

I never said identical. I said traced. And this obviously shows a tracing, which if it would have been pointed out in the derby would have been rejected because woot doesn't allow traced photos...especially copyrighted ones.