Derby #31: Water
+150

Sea Monster

Sea Monster
add a comment

Comments

narkus


quality posts: 0 Private Messages narkus
Re: Sea Monster


BADASS!!!!!!!


nardobolo


quality posts: 0 Private Messages nardobolo
Re: Sea Monster


As a marine biologist, a man with a squid tattoo, and someone who has an odd fascination with monsters, I MUST have this shirt!

But then again, I think there have been five others so far I want to buy...

narkus


quality posts: 0 Private Messages narkus
nardobolo wrote:As a marine biologist, a man with a squid tattoo, and someone who has an odd fascination with monsters, I MUST have this shirt!

But then again, I think there have been five others so far I want to buy...


I know!!!! This is killing me! I would easily drop $ 50-100--though it would hurt--to get a number of these designs. It's so going to suck not to get all the ones I want. DAMN!


DawnOctopus


quality posts: 0 Private Messages DawnOctopus
Re: Sea Monster


Absolutely squid-a-licious!

cdncarlie


quality posts: 0 Private Messages cdncarlie
Re: Sea Monster


haahaah i like it, it looks a little trippy. Great job!

My shirt.woots: When Doughnuts Fly, Kawaii, Random Shirt x3 (Dino Wino, Killer Bees, Unfriendly Locals),Do the Math, Zombie Season, What Dreams are Made of, Random Shirt x3 (Ghosts!, Dramatic Jackalope, Man-Boy)

lintbox


quality posts: 0 Private Messages lintbox

id buy this in an instant. good luck!!

coldseawater


quality posts: 0 Private Messages coldseawater

Yow! I hope this one climbs fast. This would instantly become the greatest shirt I own.

MikeHoncho


quality posts: 0 Private Messages MikeHoncho
Re: Sea Monster


This shirt might give Mike Honcho bad dreams, but Mike Honcho still likes it.

gruppchef


quality posts: 0 Private Messages gruppchef
nardobolo wrote:As a marine biologist, a man with a squid tattoo, and someone who has an odd fascination with monsters, I MUST have this shirt!

But then again, I think there have been five others so far I want to buy...


This quote led to my vote for this shirt

narkus


quality posts: 0 Private Messages narkus
Re: Sea Monster


i'm so bummed, so disappointed! this is the EXACT same squid, even the exact same shadings as on google images under squid woodcut the second page. here i thought it was so awesome, and it was someone else's drawing to the letter!!!! i feel stupid. guess you can't be trusted.


sayah


quality posts: 5 Private Messages sayah
Re: Sea Monster




to be fair he did flip it and make the eyes green.

narkus


quality posts: 0 Private Messages narkus
sayah wrote:

to be fair he did flip it and make the eyes green.


hee-hee! i loved (past tense) this! I'm so disappointed!! ugh!


mjc613


quality posts: 48 Private Messages mjc613
sayah wrote:

to be fair he did flip it and make the eyes green.

Faith and Begorrah. I voted for this because DH wanted a red shirt, and I know he likes sea monsters.

LMV RobG

brizz


quality posts: 0 Private Messages brizz

for the search lazy:





And of course it is. that's what Robglenn does. he copies other shirts and uses other people's works to make his own. it's all he's ever done. and he's profited handsomely from doing so - thus he keeps doing it.

mjc613


quality posts: 48 Private Messages mjc613
narkus wrote:i'm so bummed, so disappointed! this is the EXACT same squid, even the exact same shadings as on google images under squid woodcut the second page. here i thought it was so awesome, and it was someone else's drawing to the letter!!!! i feel stupid. guess you can't be trusted.


Narkus, you have every right to be disappointed. It is clearly stated in the Terms and Conditions checked by the designer when submitting an entry that using other people's material is not permissible.

"11. Artist Representations. Artist represents and warrants that he/she has the right to enter into this Agreement, that the Artwork is original and has not been previously used commercially, and shall not infringe upon or violate any copyright, or any other personal or proprietary right of any kind of any third party. Artist indemnifies Woot, its officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, against any and all losses, expenses (including attorney’s reasonable fees), or damages arising out of any breach of Artist’s warranties, representations, and obligations hereunder. This paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason."

This picture came from this website:
www.tomlytle.com/Resources/SQUID.gif
While I have not found the original source of this woodcut, the bottom of that page clearly states: "Copyright © 2007, 2008 Thomas Lytle. All rights reserved."

This pic may not get rejected because Joel may not have enough time to get to it before the end of the derby. But the damage has been done. No one who reads these forums will be voting for this. And EVERY RobGlenn entry will get extra scrutiny from now on, and not just from Adder and brizz. In fact, they already have.

joelterrific


quality posts: 21 Private Messages joelterrific
Re: Sea Monster


Rob should weigh in here. I know we've had discussions before about wood cuts that are considered public domain images. I don't know if this is one, but I will say the the copyright on the page probably doesn't mean much. I suspect the web site is using this for the same reason Rob might. That said, without any confirmation this is within public domain, it should be rejected.

geekfactor12


quality posts: 11 Private Messages geekfactor12
joelterrific wrote:Rob should weigh in here. I know we've had discussions before about wood cuts that are considered public domain images. I don't know if this is one, but I will say the the copyright on the page probably doesn't mean much. I suspect the web site is using this for the same reason Rob might. That said, without any confirmation this is within public domain, it should be rejected.


For future reference: Is changing the eye color of the squid enough to make this an original piece? Or is it considered original because there is a background graphic added?

I'm curious about the rules governing use of clip art, given that past submissions (derek's davinci, for example) were rejected for not containing enough original material.

thatrobert


quality posts: 49 Private Messages thatrobert
geekfactor12 wrote:For future reference: Is changing the eye color of the squid enough to make this an original piece? Or is it considered original because there is a background graphic added?

I'm curious about the rules governing use of clip art, given that past submissions (derek's davinci, for example) were rejected for not containing enough original material.


I think it's dangerous to start trying to measure how much is original. I think in Derek's case you have millions of Davinci shirts already -- Woot has always looked for the shirt to not be for sale somewhere else. Since this is a more obscure graphic, there's much less chance of that. If the image is public domain, I see nothing wrong with this. Knowing how little effort was involved to make it makes it less likely that I'll vote for it though.

geekfactor12


quality posts: 11 Private Messages geekfactor12
thatrobert wrote:I think it's dangerous to start trying to measure how much is original. I think in Derek's case you have millions of Davinci shirts already -- Woot has always looked for the shirt to not be for sale somewhere else. Since this is a more obscure graphic, there's much less chance of that. If the image is public domain, I see nothing wrong with this. Knowing how little effort was involved to make it makes it less likely that I'll vote for it though.


Right, but at the same time there are even more octopus and squid shirts on the net than there are davinci ones. To me, it's the same situation- the major graphic element was not created by the design's author, except perhaps for a slight color change.

Davinci was public domain, too. I'd rather not see this contest become even more of a race for who can find the best (or even most obscure) clip art- especially since most voters who have commented seem to have believed they were voting for original art.

If its clipart, I can put the same squid on cafepress tomorrow. Regardless of whether or not it wins here. To me, that's a big part of the issue. It's not an "exclusive, original design that you can’t get anywhere else" if I can print it up tomorrow. (I'm not enough of a jerk to do that, but it's a valid possibility)

mjc613


quality posts: 48 Private Messages mjc613
joelterrific wrote:Rob should weigh in here. I know we've had discussions before about wood cuts that are considered public domain images. I don't know if this is one, but I will say the the copyright on the page probably doesn't mean much. I suspect the web site is using this for the same reason Rob might. That said, without any confirmation this is within public domain, it should be rejected.


Joel, you may be correct about the copyright. On closer inspection, I suspect that Tom Lytle was copywriting the words on that site, since he was presenting the "account of Captain Jason Seabury, young master of New Bedford whaleship Monongahela, reported to have captured and killed a sea serpent in the Pacific Ocean on January 13, 1851." (http://www.tomlytle.com/index.htm) But if you check his extensive bibliography, I suspect the woodcut came from one of these books:
http://www.tomlytle.com/Bibliography.htm
Mr/Dr Lytle seems like the thorough type of person who would have at least tried to get permission to post the squid.

Keep in mind that you have rejected other entries because they, to paraphrase your own language, looked like a trace of a google image. In this case, you have the exact place the image came from.

Gumiho


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Gumiho
mjc613 wrote:Joel, you may be correct about the copyright. On closer inspection, I suspect that Tom Lytle was copywriting the words on that site, since he was presenting the "account of Captain Jason Seabury, young master of New Bedford whaleship Monongahela, reported to have captured and killed a sea serpent in the Pacific Ocean on January 13, 1851." (http://www.tomlytle.com/index.htm) But if you check his extensive bibliography, I suspect the woodcut came from one of these books:
http://www.tomlytle.com/Bibliography.htm
Mr/Dr Lytle seems like the thorough type of person who would have at least tried to get permission to post the squid.

Keep in mind that you have rejected other entries because they, to paraphrase your own language, looked like a trace of a google image. In this case, you have the exact place the image came from.


The key about these copyright/public domain clipart images, is that the designer only has the right to use the images if it comes from an explicit public domain site which allows their images to be used, or if the designer has scanned the art by his or herself. A work that is in the public domain generally, but has been scanned and placed on the web by another person (unless that person specifically allows it) has a minor scanners copyright alloted to the person who scanned and uploaded it and that specific image is not to be used without serious alteration.

Gumiho


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Gumiho
Gumiho wrote:......


tl;dr version.
Public Domain isn't PD unless strictly noted. Hey Woot, just stop letting clipart through. We'll get better designs and weed out the talentless copiers.


More Derby Entries

By date:

By rank:

Thumbnail

Whoa there buckaroo!

If you wanna vote, you need to first. Be sure to using an account with at least one purchase, otherwise you won't be able to participate. Sorry we called you buckaroo.