renegadetim wrote:While these are all good points and I do suspect the winner or top 10 or something will be on sale for a short period of time (like the christmas gift list), aren't there limitations to shirts being guaranteed printed?
Are prints treated the same as derby entries in rights to use? Probably not, but if so, wouldn't any shirt that has been out of the reckoning 60+ days ago not necessarily be authorized for reprinting?
As I typed this, I realized I am probably way off. Kind of seems dumb too, now that I think about it. Now I'm leaning towards thinking that once a shirt prints at Woot, Woot has the only rights to print it again.
Anyways, since I admitted I'm probably wrong, no badmouthing of me! ;) I'm not a designer anyways, just a customer, so I don't know all the specifics.
Just throwing it out there
Some dailies (read: only like one or two total, by all accounts) opted for a limited-rights option, with half the payout. The only two like this, that I know of, are ThatRobert's "Cat Carrier" and Cory Doctorow's "Threat Level: Doctorow" which is Creative Commons and ergo, while woot could print it any day they wanted, so could you legally.
All other tees except for those, any few others which may have taken a different daily contract (I don't even know if that's still offered) and tees which woot had to pull from sale for various reasons are, for all print right purposes, owned by woot until woot changes their contract, which would be a kinda Jatravartid thing to do. Woot could print any tee they wanted any day they wanted, and the only reason there would need to be any contact at all would be to properly pay the designer. We can certainly hope there are shirts they WOULDNT print again, but legally they certainly could.