Shirt.Woot

When I checked out the submitted designs the other day, immediately I too was reminded of C&H with the snowman image, BUT...because I once owned a skateboard shop, today's contender also reminded me of something as well.

this little guy is called Wet Willy





and this little guy is Spitfire



I am NOT complaining though. I definitely got mine! Thnx Again w00t

I bet unicornlovah69 bought a pair.

Did you not read his post at all? He *OWNS* the rights to that stock photo.

I don't get it. What's up with you? What's your motivation to get on the internet and do nothing but try slam others?

tgentry wrote:No he doesn't own the rights. If he got printing rights, then he may be allowed to print them. But istock still owns the image. And that's even beside the main point, that it was unoriginal. All he did was find clip art, copy it, and post it, which is supposedly against the rules of the contest.

I don't care. Nor does anyone else. This is Woot's decision, not yours or anyone elses, so quit acting like you're being the hero here.

Woot isn't stupid. They know what's original and what's printable.

crap. I'm suck a rookie. can't believe is sold out so quick. cool shirts.

Dood, you rock. Just ordered, the launch Tee.... which is the only one so far that was worth it.

Cherrypicker wrote:Back door to all w00t! Tees (so far....). NOTE: Price is always $15, not $10, on 'second chance' orders.

2nd chance orders available AFTER MIDNIGHT of the day originally offered.
===========================================

http://shirt.woot.com/Friends.aspx?k=NNNN

For NNNN, use these product ID's

3618 = WOOT Launch

3622 = Sore Thumbs
3625 = Robot Service
3627 = The Must-See Comedy Shirt of the Summer
3629 = Sea Chimp
3630 = Threat Level: Doctorow

3633 = This Here Is My Unicorn-Shootin' Gun
3637 = Word Problem
3640 = Rat Rod
3642 = Nobody's Perfect
3643 = Cube One

3645 = Sci-Fi Weenie Roast
3650 = Scales & Bubbles
3656 = Too Hungry
3657 = The Rustic
3658 = Dead Heat (but one link for each of the two shirts)
.............3659 = Unhappy Meeting .......3660 = Snowmen in Heat
...or ..... use the shirt name 'UnhappyMeeting' or 'SnowmenInHeat'

Dood, you rock. Just ordered, the launch Tee.... which is the only one so far that was worth it.

Cherrypicker wrote:Back door to all w00t! Tees (so far....). NOTE: Price is always $15, not $10, on 'second chance' orders.

2nd chance orders available AFTER MIDNIGHT of the day originally offered.
===========================================

http://shirt.woot.com/Friends.aspx?k=NNNN

For NNNN, use these product ID's

3618 = WOOT Launch

3622 = Sore Thumbs
3625 = Robot Service
3627 = The Must-See Comedy Shirt of the Summer
3629 = Sea Chimp
3630 = Threat Level: Doctorow

3633 = This Here Is My Unicorn-Shootin' Gun
3637 = Word Problem
3640 = Rat Rod
3642 = Nobody's Perfect
3643 = Cube One

3645 = Sci-Fi Weenie Roast
3650 = Scales & Bubbles
3656 = Too Hungry
3657 = The Rustic
3658 = Dead Heat (but one link for each of the two shirts)
.............3659 = Unhappy Meeting .......3660 = Snowmen in Heat
...or ..... use the shirt name 'UnhappyMeeting' or 'SnowmenInHeat'

right on!!! finally got in a good one!

WalkingSnake wrote:Did you not read his post at all? He *OWNS* the rights to that stock photo.

I don't get it. What's up with you? What's your motivation to get on the internet and do nothing but try slam others?

Without getting into whether or not the images are too close... if one owns the print rights to something purchased on istockphoto, that doesn't mean they can put it on t-shirts. It's been a while since I read the standard licensing agreement, but I remember you couldn't use images for cafepress products.

I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. :-P

tgentry wrote:You're right it's their decision to print it. It's too bad more people don't care about stealing other peoples art. Since he claims to be a freelance artist, I hope for his sake no one ever steals his 'original' work.

I'm sorry, I just hate to see people using the "Guilty until proven innocent" approach.

swirlyblueskies wrote:Without getting into whether or not the images are too close... if one owns the print rights to something purchased on istockphoto, that doesn't mean they can put it on t-shirts. It's been a while since I read the standard licensing agreement, but I remember you couldn't use images for cafepress products.

I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. :-P

Yes, but he didn't use the iStock photo itself. He made a recreation of the idea, even if it does look similar.

I don't know both sides of the story here, so I'm not judging.

tgentry wrote:You're right it's their decision to print it. It's too bad more people don't care about stealing other peoples art. Since he claims to be a freelance artist, I hope for his sake no one ever steals his 'original' work.

I care as well. Derby needs a complete overhaul. btw, I enjoy your work in woot contests...

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? LESS THAN TWO HOURS? DAMN PEOPLE! SAVE SOME FOR ME TOO!!!

samryan wrote:Thanks to the nice folks who say they liked the design. And the nice folks who bought them. I used to feel bad about the 12 or so who said the design sucked, ergo, I sucked.

Thank you Woot, for building my confidence and boosting my self-esteem. I no longer cry myself to sleep over the slurs of those angry bunch of Forumers.

I just noticed that there were two similiar designs in your same style. Yours and then another one that looked a bit smooshed and had a frowny water drop. Talk about copy and change and attempt to steal idea five days later than yours.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to tomorrow's derby start as well, I liked the flaming eye one, and not sure ho I feel about the melting snowmen, other than that I'm going to love wearing that in winter down here in Florida since snowmen would die and melt down here even during the high point of winter here. Ha ha!

tgentry wrote:Well apparently you're completely blind and not looking at the images that have been posted ad infinitum. I guess I just hate to see people using the "look the other way and pretend I don't see it" approach.

Wow, I say I'm sorry and get a response full of accusations and insults.

Guess what, I'm an artist. I'm studying graphic design. This doesn't give me a license to make accusations when I haven't heard both sides of the story. While it's unlikely for this situation, what if it ended up he was the creator of that stock image? While it'd still break Woot rules, it would be a completely different situation.

I guess I'm just too open-minded, that's all.

gennaxrotten wrote:ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? LESS THAN TWO HOURS? DAMN PEOPLE! SAVE SOME FOR ME TOO!!!

You shoulda been here at midnight [1am est]. But, you can still buy them tomorrow night for five bucks more...

that sucks... the one night i get stuck at work when i should be off, and two gangsta shirts get put up?
oh poo...

zux1 wrote:i think that was mostly the calvin and hobbes effect, and the $5 a shirt deal, that's a nice deal for stupid shirts, better than walmart and a normal company

That's funny. I buy nice shirts for under $5 all the time.

samryan wrote:I used to feel bad about the 12 or so who said the design sucked, ergo, I sucked.

Thank you Woot, for building my confidence and boosting my self-esteem. I no longer cry myself to sleep over the slurs of those angry bunch of Forumers.

It's not like you designed it anyways. You 'own' print rights to it, right?

swirlyblueskies wrote:You can still get them, they just aren't selling at a loss anymore. $10 bucks for two is awesome, but if you really like the shirt $15 isn't bad.

quitcherbellyachin ;)

I already know about that but two for $30 isn't a deal even if you like the shirts. People buying something because it's cheap not because they like it prevents people who do like something from getting it. It'd be like me going to a toy store and buying Bratz dolls because there was a get two for the price of one deal and preventing the tween girls from getting them.

tgentry wrote:And saying you're sorry and then implying I'm using an 'innocent before proven guilty' mentality don't really go together.

We have differing opinions, I'm not going to argue it. As an artist, I respect your opinion and your anger, and I have no problem with you.

I guess it just gets to me when I see the thread full of accusations that everyone has heard already over and over.

QuickChick9x wrote:no wayyy.. i was busy on regular woot and totally missed out on this =[

unless reg.woot is a Bandolier of Carrots always come here 1st and complete. then go back.
and if it is a Bandolier of Carrots over there you'll be done in a few seconds anyway.

gennaxrotten wrote:ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? LESS THAN TWO HOURS? DAMN PEOPLE! SAVE SOME FOR ME TOO!!!

2 hours? it was less than that l ol

tgentry wrote:



Supposedly? Apparently you have no shame. I thought you would slink away after it was found out that you just went to a clip art site and copied someone else's work. So for the next contest we can just expect you to find some more clip art to copy then? Maybe we should all do that.

Just because the images look similar, it doesn't mean that they were copied. Sometimes, people have similar ideas, concepts, and perspectives. I've made up songs on the piano and ten years later hear a new song with a similar tune. I hear songs on the radio all the time with a very close sound. I see paintings with a similar idea in mind. I highly doubt that these images were copied. If they were, then they probably would have butchered more for the sake of fooling everyone around. It is, in fact, possible that two people shared a similar idea about a design. Sometimes, people see something or hear something and use it as an influence subconsciously. If you are so concerned about copying, then why don't you contact the original designer and see how he/she feels about it. I guarantee they will understand that sometimes things look alike and it doesn't actually completely resemble his own design. In fact, he may not want to waste his time with you. Stop complaining and whining for someone you can't complain for. Contact woot, but don't clog the forum with your anger and hostility. Grow up.

WalkingSnake wrote:We have differing opinions, I'm not going to argue it. As an artist, I respect your opinion and your anger, and I have no problem with you.

I guess it just gets to me when I see the thread full of accusations that everyone has heard already over and over.

So, being an artist is having respect for others' opinions and anger?

Tossing all "ZOMG HE STOLE IT" accusations aside, they're cool shirts for $5 each.
It's not like the design is going to be hanging in an art gallery or anything. I bet the "original artist" wouldn't even care. I wouldn't.

I think I should say something - this guy is getting eaten alive by you guys . If it matters, I am a professional, and i've been in the internet/graphics art industry for about 5 years now. I am an Interactive Designer, I used to work for an interactive internet marketing agency in Boston for 3 years as a designer. In my experience, working with big companies like Comcast (and through them HBO, ESPN, Disney), bmw-mini, gap - we've used stock images in almost every project weve tackled- using them as a reference for vector and other mediums. I can say this is true for almost all corporate sites -

I'm by no means a copyright expert -- but i think he knew his boundaries. If he were to directly COPY and paste those icons into his designs - I think your argument has some merit.. but he didnt. If he even used the image at all - I think it was merely for referencing.

tgentry wrote:You're right it's their decision to print it. It's too bad more people don't care about stealing other peoples art. Since he claims to be a freelance artist, I hope for his sake no one ever steals his 'original' work.

Feel free to contact iStock and the owner. At which point they will say that I own the license (the only reason I got the licesnse and image was because all the hubub -- I didn't own either when I designed it and used no part of the image when designing), the design is not a copy anyways, that designers buy these things all the time, and you don't understand the design world at all. That's the whole point of iStock or Veer or any of the hundreds of stock vector art places that ALL designers use in their inspirations. No one has a unique style and rarely has unique concepts -- we ALL browse sites for ideas and inspiration:

See this scandalous site recently featured on Digg

And let's see...I have a 1 water drop and 1 flame and both have faces. The drawing/shapes are different, the concept is different, they're facing each other, the shading is different, and therefore, it is a copy. Uh....?

(You know, when I need to do a Abe Lincoln illustration, I don't do it from memory -- I find some reference images and draw it from scratch -- it just so happens that all flame references had spiky hair and curved bottoms -- oh my goodness!)

And no, this conversation is not worth it and I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself, so here's where I take a deep breath, take confidence that one angry stranger on a forum shouldn't affect me one iota, and move on :-)

Note: Edited a few times for clarity and because I'm a freakin' perfectionist...

I'm just waiting for a t-shirt that doesn't suck. Sure, I would have bought the two for one, but they still aren't great designs yet.

... gets out popcorn to sit back watch the debates!

samryan wrote:Feel free to contact iStock and the owner. At which point they will say that I own the license anyways, the design is not a copy anyways, that designers buy these things all the time, and you don't understand the design world at all. That's the whole point of iStock or Veer or any of the hundreds of stock vector art places that ALL designers use in their inspirations and sometimes, designs. No one has a unique style and rarely has unique concepts -- we ALL browse sites for ideas and inspiration:

See this scandalous site recently featured on Digg

And let's see...I have a 1 water drop and 1 flame and both have faces. The drawing/shapes are different, the concept is different, they're facing each other, the shading is different, and therefore, it is a copy. Uh....? (You know, when I need to do a Abe Lincoln illustration, I don't do it from memory -- I find a reference image and draw it from scratch.)

And no, this conversation is not worth it and I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself, so here's where I take a deep breath, take confidence that one angry stranger on a forum shouldn't affect me one iota, and move on :-)

pwned.

like it... hate it...
who cares
buy it... don't buy it
don't bitch, just don't waste your money on it if you don't like it
i do so love snowmen....

Collectordragon wrote:I already know about that but two for $30 isn't a deal even if you like the shirts. People buying something because it's cheap not because they like it prevents people who do like something from getting it. ..

"Be faster"
"He who gets to the pot first..."
"Life is not 'fair'"
If you like the shirt designs you can still buy them. Since you don't want to pay the real price, then you're also one of those who just wanted a cheap shirt. who missed out. You're in a group of many. face reality. Not everyone who beat you tonight for 2-fer-1 shirts will win the next time they want something limited. That may be your turn then.
move on.

cyrusjumpjet wrote:pwned.

lulz wooookie

I also wanted to add that as a photographer, I buy books with photographs in them. I use those as reference to the photographs that I take. Am I a thief too?