thumperchick wrote:Ok guys, I don't get the hate. It is because OH MY ██████ ███ another tardis? Or because instead of drawing this by hand, they rendered it? If that's the case - why is that a problem?
No, I'm not trolling. I really don't get why there is a hate wagon on this. (I don't even like the design, I just don't understand.)
TL;DR at bottom, but since someone asked…
Did the artist create the renders themselves? I think that was the main question. If not it would be a stock element, which Woot has consistently rejected in the past. Assuming they did make it, the elements are still largely unaltered, which brings us to the main issue about renders in general.
Renders often all have the same “photorealistic” style. This means the designs often end up looking very generic, and using obvious photoshop filters does not change this. In fact, they almost always end up looking exactly like what you would get if you ran a photo through a photoshop filter (which is consistently rejected).
Because they are generic, it is impossible to tell from a glance if the artist made the image themselves or has the rights to the image. They will always be more heavily scrutinized, which they rightfully should be.
It’s a grey area, and a slippery slope. How much alteration is necessary for their usage to be allowed? Since some of these designs have printed recently, there must be some sort of cut-off point, and only Woot knows it for certain. Compare tbolt’s entry to this one. Both make obvious use of renders and photoshop filters. But for whatever reason tbolt has none of the drama on his page. Is it because the concept is unique enough? More effort was taken in altering the elements with filters? It doesn't have enough votes to print anyway, so Woot will let it take care of itself?
For the record, I’m not trying to get on a high horse. My top seller is visually little more than 2 preexisting images mashed together. But there was an obvious alteration of each and an obvious parody. I would have expected no less scrutiny had I submitted it as a derby entry, and would have been no less surprised at a rejection due to Woot’s weariness at designs involving preexisting design elements.
I personally don’t blame the Tardis use as that’s just the nature of the pop-culture beast. Artists are tired of it, voters are not. The problem I think most have with the Tardis is that it can garner votes for otherwise “meh” concepts.
Woot has a history of disallowing photos or stock imagery due to usage rights and to retain a sort of uniqueness in their designs. You can find GOBS of stock element using designs on print on demand sites because of how quick and easy they are to make, not all of which are being used legally. In the end, renders usually end up looking exactly like a generic photo or stock element, but not always, which is why it is a grey area that the community feels the need to voice their opinions on.