Derby #41: Alphabet
+52

Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts

Thing A and Thing B  cut out shirts
add a comment

Comments

llonvent


quality posts: 0 Private Messages llonvent

heimdallshorn


quality posts: 0 Private Messages heimdallshorn
Re: Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts


Smart fix... well done

superspryte


quality posts: 21 Private Messages superspryte

Volunteer Moderator

Re: Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts

I still think the A is suspect. (And I'm saying that to be helpful, not just annoying.)

w: 7 | t.w: 1 | h.w: 1 | tg.w: 0 | sp.w: 0 | a.w: 0 | k.w: 0 | s.w: 15 | w.w: 15 | so.w: 2

eyeslikesugar


quality posts: 2 Private Messages eyeslikesugar
superspryte wrote:I still think the A is suspect.


I agree.

It's as much an A as this is a Q

-James Cho -EdgarRMcherly Shirt.Woot.Com - Ye Oldest Sucker - 2009

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
superspryte wrote:
I still think the A is suspect.


eyeslikesugar wrote:I agree.

It's as much an A as this is a Q


I guess I'm safe then. ;^)

You see an A that isn't there, frankly. Your mind is connecting lines and making a pattern that you're familiar with out of incomplete parts. It's what our brains do with the incomplete patterns we look at all the time.

When I look at that Q I see all the parts of the Q except a pretty small part of the circle at the top right.

When I look at the alleged 'A', I see pieces of lines, none of which are complete. I don't see more than a suggestion of a crossbar. This is what it would look like without the stuff that overlaps where you think there's an A:


See?

and this is what it could actually look like:


This is certainly a viable alternative from the lines that are visible. All of my letters are not ambiguous at all- if I meant it to be a letter, you can see every portion of that letter- you don't have to fill in any parts that aren't actually there, as in this 'A' (which isn't).

superspryte


quality posts: 21 Private Messages superspryte

Volunteer Moderator

Josephus wrote:I guess I'm safe then. ;^)

You see an A that isn't there, frankly. Your mind is connecting lines and making a pattern that you're familiar with out of incomplete parts. It's what our brains do with the incomplete patterns we look at all the time.

When I look at that Q I see all the parts of the Q except a pretty small part of the circle at the top right.

When I look at the alleged 'A', I see pieces of lines, none of which are complete. I don't see more than a suggestion of a crossbar. This is what it would look like without the stuff that overlaps where you think there's an A:


See?

and this is what it could actually look like:


This is certainly a viable alternative from the lines that are visible. All of my letters are not ambiguous at all- if I meant it to be a letter, you can see every portion of that letter- you don't have to fill in any parts that aren't actually there, as in this 'A' (which isn't).


Yeah, but the fox one that got rejected twice didn't have multiples either; they were obscured behind branches and such yet it was still rejected. I agree that it's not an actual 'A' as much as there were no duplicate letters in the second version of the fox entry, but I think it might still catch the hammer because of precedent.

w: 7 | t.w: 1 | h.w: 1 | tg.w: 0 | sp.w: 0 | a.w: 0 | k.w: 0 | s.w: 15 | w.w: 15 | so.w: 2

iddnthearu


quality posts: 0 Private Messages iddnthearu
Re: Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts


I love this - however, there are two "A"s. One "A" on the shirt and the other at the beginning of the string of letters. I would remove the "A" on the string of letters.

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
superspryte wrote:Yeah, but the fox one that got rejected twice didn't have multiples either; they were obscured behind branches and such yet it was still rejected. I agree that it's not an actual 'A' as much as there were no duplicate letters in the second version of the fox entry, but I think it might still catch the hammer because of precedent.


A bad precedent is no valid reason to reject a design, frankly. Had they stated in the theme that "abstract lines obstructed in some way that covers large adjacent areas, yet, because of the context and placement, one can guess that it might be a letter, will count as a letter.", then I wouldn't have drawn it this way. But they didn't. Whether they reject mine or not, the designer of the fox shirt probably has a valid complaint, so not rejecting mine would just strengthen their case. and that is good, right?

edit:
You really ought to look at the fox shirt. It has 2 'e's completely visible, the second fox shirt. That is a completely valid rejection. After I realized I had duplicate 'g's on my first submission, I fixed it and resubmitted. so, I think mine ought to be fine.

eyeslikesugar


quality posts: 2 Private Messages eyeslikesugar
Josephus wrote:words



Yeah.. I get that you're trying to be clever and all; but it's still an A.

It's a moot point that I don't really care about, so I'm done looking at this design's thread.

-James Cho -EdgarRMcherly Shirt.Woot.Com - Ye Oldest Sucker - 2009

superspryte


quality posts: 21 Private Messages superspryte

Volunteer Moderator

Josephus wrote:A bad precedent is no valid reason to reject a design, frankly. Had they stated in the theme that "abstract lines obstructed in some way that covers large adjacent areas, yet, because of the context and placement, one can guess that it might be a letter, will count as a letter.", then I wouldn't have drawn it this way. But they didn't. Whether they reject mine or not, the designer of the fox shirt probably has a valid complaint, so not rejecting mine would just strengthen their case. and that is good, right?

edit:
You really ought to look at the fox shirt. It has 2 'e's completely visible, the second fox shirt. That is a completely valid rejection. After I realized I had duplicate 'g's on my first submission, I fixed it and resubmitted. so, I think mine ought to be fine.

The resub only had one.

w: 7 | t.w: 1 | h.w: 1 | tg.w: 0 | sp.w: 0 | a.w: 0 | k.w: 0 | s.w: 15 | w.w: 15 | so.w: 2

tjflashman77


quality posts: 0 Private Messages tjflashman77
Re: Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts


I've said it before and I'll say it again; so... does this pass copyright infringement? The lines are very, very unclear to me. No Chuck Norris but Mario and Luigi are not celebrity likenesses? Those two spaghetti and meatball eating plumbers are known worldwide whereas I voted for the "My mom can beat up your mom" shirt without even realizing it was Chuck Norris in drag (I actually liked it more before I found out). The poorly rendered "are you my mother?" red shirt from the last derby got the axe whereas it only had a badly drawn bird on it, and these Dr.Suess characters are far more recognizable and marketable, despite having a not-so-severe name change. I wish shirt.woot wasn't run like such a dictatorship. When all we have to guide us are the rules and how far we can bend them, I, for one, would just like to see those rules enforced with a more even hand. I do love the slug on the shirt. You'll probably need to copyright that some day. Le Slug. Trademark.

Greatest song ever written about JFK here. NSFW... or children... or anyone who's offended by the idea that JFK might have been a robot... fair warning.

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
tjflashman77 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again; so... does this pass copyright infringement? The lines are very, very unclear to me. No Chuck Norris but Mario and Luigi are not celebrity likenesses? Those two spaghetti and meatball eating plumbers are known worldwide whereas I voted for the "My mom can beat up your mom" shirt without even realizing it was Chuck Norris in drag (I actually liked it more before I found out). The poorly rendered "are you my mother?" red shirt from the last derby got the axe whereas it only had a badly drawn bird on it, and these Dr.Suess characters are far more recognizable and marketable, despite having a not-so-severe name change. I wish shirt.woot wasn't run like such a dictatorship. When all we have to guide us are the rules and how far we can bend them, I, for one, would just like to see those rules enforced with a more even hand. I do love the slug on the shirt. You'll probably need to copyright that some day. Le Slug. Trademark.


So, my take on it is that, while they do remind one of the Suess Thing 1 and Thing 2,
they are not doing anything that Things 1 and 2 ever did in the books, that I found, at least. They are wearing T-shirts, which the Things didn't do, there is no context that puts them into a Suessian environment- the slug is not at all Suess-ish. I didn't trace them, or in fact, closely try to copy another image. I may have looked at an image of the Things, but I purposely tried to make mine different. Parody is a beautiful thing, and as broad of a definition as it has, they can certainly be argued to fit that- the design is in a T-shirt competition, and they have cut out T-shirts, NOT dolls, which is the usual cutout kids make when they do one of those folded paper cutouts. I believe they are safe as parody, even if there is some way to argue that they look too much like the numbered things. If they aren't safe, woot can decide not to print them- AS IF they are going to have to make that decision!

I can't speak to the precedents you referred to, except that the Chuck Norris thing was probably rejectable just because they don't do celebrities- they have rejected a zillion celebrity shirts before, and will probably reject a zillion more.

Jemmacakes


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Jemmacakes
Re: Thing A and Thing B cut out shirts


total Dr. Seuss rip off.

You guys are worried 'bout multiple letters? Hello? Here's some coffee. Take a whiff.

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
Jemmacakes wrote:total Dr. Seuss rip off.

You guys are worried 'bout multiple letters? Hello? Here's some coffee. Take a whiff.

Awesome!

er, I mean, hey! It's a parody!

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
Jemmacakes wrote:total Dr. Seuss rip off.

You guys are worried 'bout multiple letters? Hello? Here's some coffee. Take a whiff.


When you have multiple accounts and are buddy buddy with staff and mods, you can afford to believe an entry like this isn't a blatant copyright infringement. After all, dr. seuss called them "thing one and thing two", and indeed, they are doing nothing that they did in the book (except being whitefaced, bluehaired imp-creatures)

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
AdderXYU wrote:When you have multiple accounts and are buddy buddy with staff and mods, you can afford to believe an entry like this isn't a blatant copyright infringement. After all, dr. seuss called them "thing one and thing two", and indeed, they are doing nothing that they did in the book (except being whitefaced, bluehaired imp-creatures)

run out of targets, did ya?

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
Josephus wrote:run out of targets, did ya?


I have never leveled my weapon at a target which did not hang itself in my sight. nothing I said is uncommon knowledge. I find it more odd that you'd suddenly find things you've put in the open to be akin to targeting.

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
AdderXYU wrote:I have never leveled my weapon at a target which did not hang itself in my sight. nothing I said is uncommon knowledge. I find it more odd that you'd suddenly find things you've put in the open to be akin to targeting.

oh, that. that's really old news, and I did all I could to remove it, months ago. Gatzby told me it couldn't be fixed. I'm not sure why you'd bring it up again, other than just because you think I'd get mad.
as far as me having friends at woot, it's not hard to do- just be friendly, and don't go out of your way to be mean.

anyway, none of those things have any relation to your critical comment about my design.

as far as a target goes, I was talking about my design; you know, the Dr. Suess parody?

The trouble with criticizing it because it looks like the Suess Things is that parody is hard to disprove (as it should be). any decision that takes my shirt out as not being parody would also have to take out a number of other shirt designs which have less of a parody defense, truly, than this one does.

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
Josephus wrote:
The trouble with criticizing it because it looks like the Suess Things is that parody is hard to disprove (as it should be). any decision that takes my shirt out as not being parody would also have to take out a number of other shirt designs which have less of a parody defense, truly, than this one does.


Parody is indeed hard to disprove, so it helps that this isn't parody. There's no statement, no pun, no reason that the element is required in the design. It could have had two elephants in place of the things and it would get across the exact same thing, except without dr. seuss to help bolster the vote. Parody is all about the statement and intent. What statement or intent is there in using thing 1 and thing 2?

emcee2k


quality posts: 1 Private Messages emcee2k
Josephus wrote:edit:
You really ought to look at the fox shirt. It has 2 'e's completely visible, the second fox shirt. That is a completely valid rejection. After I realized I had duplicate 'g's on my first submission, I fixed it and resubmitted. so, I think mine ought to be fine.


No, there are no duplicate letters visible in the second shirt.

More Derby Entries

By date:

By rank:

Thumbnail