WootBot


quality posts: 14 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Better Together

Speed to First Woot:
2m 48.449s
First Sucker:
GreasenUSA
Last Wooter to Woot:
casual2atee
Last Purchase:
3 days ago
Order Pace (rank):
Bottom 32% of Shirt Woots
Top 32% of all Woots
Woots Sold:
421

Purchaser Experience

  • 0% first woot
  • 93% second woot
  • 7% < 10 woots
  • 0% < 25 woots
  • 0% ≥ 25 woots

Purchaser Seniority

  • 7% joined today
  • 1% one week old
  • 1% one month old
  • 11% one year old
  • 79% > one year old

Quantity Breakdown

  • 93% bought 1
  • 6% bought 2
  • 1% bought 3

Percentage of Sales Per Hour

3%
3%
1%
2%
1%
4%
5%
7%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%
5%
4%
4%
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Percentage of Sales Per Day

3%
1%
87%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Woots by State

zero wooters wootinglots of wooters wooting



Quality Posts


theimmc


quality posts: 10 Private Messages theimmc

"Stick shift cars and feelings of arousal"

Wait, what's wrong with that one?

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
theimmc wrote:"Stick shift cars and feelings of arousal"

Wait, what's wrong with that one?


#spanishfly #urbanlegend

lordbowen


quality posts: 224 Private Messages lordbowen

So did the dog get bigger or did the girl get smaller?

kittysoup


quality posts: 4 Private Messages kittysoup

I have to take time out of my busy nightlife to argue.

Lamps and disease
Gum disease and those annoying lamps dentists shove in your face.
Stick shift cars and feelings of arousal
We shouldn't judge people with different sexual preferences than us. Objectum sexuality is real. Raise awareness.

Photos of crickets and air travel
Obviously you didn't read James and the Giant Peach (though to be fair, there were no crickets or photos of them). But there were bugs and an air traveling peach!

Pancake batter and cowboy hats
Haven't you ever seen the morning after an awkward cowboy-themed porno?

TobiasAmaranth


quality posts: 22 Private Messages TobiasAmaranth
Stick shift cars and feelings of arousal.



*coughStrangeObsessioncough*

Support Fablefire: Follow her on -

Delusionalovely


quality posts: 6 Private Messages Delusionalovely

a Clifford shirt?
Am I hallucinating? This is amazing! I'm so happy!!
(。◕‿◕。)

lonelypond


quality posts: 414 Private Messages lonelypond

Sweet sleepy scene. Love the way some colors pop off silver shirts.

GyleDesigns


quality posts: 5 Private Messages GyleDesigns

Who'sagoo'boy?!

Congrats, Jeff!

havingfunyet


quality posts: 2 Private Messages havingfunyet

My name is Emily and I have a big dog named Clifford. I must buy this shirt.

ertolsma


quality posts: 13 Private Messages ertolsma

Three cheers for trademark infringement!

jayrandom


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jayrandom
ertolsma wrote:Three cheers for trademark infringement!



Is there something in this picture that I'm missing that makes it a parody? I'm sometimes very slow with these things, but this seems like a straightforward Clifford the Big Red Dog shirt.

bakntime


quality posts: 15 Private Messages bakntime
ertolsma wrote:Three cheers for trademark infringement!



No kidding. I've been wondering (mostly out of curiosity) how woot gets away with it so often on some shirts.

I ain't signing anything! What? It's not that kind of signature? Oh. So that's what it is? Oh. I'm still not interested.

hisgrossness


quality posts: 0 Private Messages hisgrossness
bakntime wrote:No kidding. I've been wondering (mostly out of curiosity) how woot gets away with it so often on some shirts.



I think because they are private designs and generally aren't explicitly ___ (whatever they look like) than any court case would be long and drawn out because they would have to try and prove that a private individual was "most likely" copying their (copy-written) design in order to make money off it.

why are you reading this

jayrandom


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jayrandom
hisgrossness wrote:I think because they are private designs and generally aren't explicitly ___ (whatever they look like) than any court case would be long and drawn out because they would have to try and prove that a private individual was "most likely" copying their (copy-written) design in order to make money off it.



I think this argument works better for shirts sold out of the back of some guy's trunk. This is on a major website owned by one of the largest e-commerce companies in the world.

There's a huge red dog and a young, blonde girl, those being the two most recognizable features of Clifford's story. If this isn't Clifford the Big Red Dog, why would anyone be interested in this shirt? Why would Woot make the horrible pun in the artist description?

Presumably Woot has enough risk aversion to avoid deliberately stealing Trademarked characters, so there must be a better explanation than, "it would take too much effort to sue us, so we can do pretty much whatever we want". I just wonder, and still wonder, what that explanation is for this shirt.

sonofafish


quality posts: 11 Private Messages sonofafish
jayrandom wrote:I think this argument works better for shirts sold out of the back of some guy's trunk. This is on a major website owned by one of the largest e-commerce companies in the world.
...
I just wonder, and still wonder, what that explanation is for this shirt.



It's a sweet design that probably appeals to dog owners, so there's that. Also, as far as copyright, Woot in general is the most stringent in the whole online T-shirt scene. If you look at any other t-shirt site, they all appear to have more lax standards.

In any case, I'm having trouble understanding why this design is bad. It looks nice, the colors are great, and it evokes a pleasant emotion. Personally, I like it!

evilg


quality posts: 1 Private Messages evilg

I happen to work for Scholastic...let's see what they have to say about it? We will clear this up once and for all!!

Spiritgreen


quality posts: 214 Private Messages Spiritgreen

The parody is taking the cartoon books and reimagining them in the real world. Emily looks more college age here and Clifford is fully grown.

Seems like an adult's perspective on the childhood story. It's very nicely drawn too, congrats to Jeffrey.

mm1sssw


quality posts: 2 Private Messages mm1sssw

Been a while since I commented on here. It appears that Woot has gone to cheaper flimsier shirt. Too bad. I really enjoyed the earlier ones. But my READ and ELEMENTAL MODEL of THE UNIVERSE are too embarrassing to wear. Looks like I haven't washed them right out of the drier. BLAME. Remove the B.

jayrandom


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jayrandom
sonofafish wrote:It's a sweet design that probably appeals to dog owners, so there's that. Also, as far as copyright, Woot in general is the most stringent in the whole online T-shirt scene. If you look at any other t-shirt site, they all appear to have more lax standards.

In any case, I'm having trouble understanding why this design is bad. It looks nice, the colors are great, and it evokes a pleasant emotion. Personally, I like it!



I think it is a beautiful and well-drawn shirt. I'm sure others do, as well. I'm just curious as to what makes the use of a seemingly trademarked character acceptable. I don't doubt that Woot has an internal policy, just curious what it is about this drawing.

michaelvella


quality posts: 12 Private Messages michaelvella
jayrandom wrote:I think it is a beautiful and well-drawn shirt. I'm sure others do, as well. I'm just curious as to what makes the use of a seemingly trademarked character acceptable. I don't doubt that Woot has an internal policy, just curious what it is about this drawing.



This is a parody, not meant to be a representation. That's where the line is.
Look at this dorky shirt I bought last year from woot - http://shirt.woot.com/offers/a-new-hop
Clearly that's a stormtrooper, but..
I think you get the idea.

airegold


quality posts: 0 Private Messages airegold
sonofafish wrote:It's a sweet design that probably appeals to dog owners, so there's that. Also, as far as copyright, Woot in general is the most stringent in the whole online T-shirt scene. If you look at any other t-shirt site, they all appear to have more lax standards.

In any case, I'm having trouble understanding why this design is bad. It looks nice, the colors are great, and it evokes a pleasant emotion. Personally, I like it!



I don't know how some of the other sites get away with their designs when their characters are drawn in the original style and could be mistaken for that franchise's work. While this dog is big and red, he does not look like the original cartoonish bright red Clifford. I love this.

idontkn1


quality posts: 4 Private Messages idontkn1
jayrandom wrote:I think it is a beautiful and well-drawn shirt. I'm sure others do, as well. I'm just curious as to what makes the use of a seemingly trademarked character acceptable. I don't doubt that Woot has an internal policy, just curious what it is about this drawing.



I am generally fine with parodies or a redux of the original but I don't see how this can in any way be construed as either. Darth cooking breakfast for 8 year old Leia and Luke, Cookie Monster after one more bender of milk and cookies those are what I want to see. It's Emily Elizabeth laying on Clifford reading a book, something portrayed in many of the Clifford stories and cartoons. I in no way see how this would be protected under fair use. Just because it's not drawn exactly like the original big red dog means that it's not infringement. Anyway I'll look elsewhere for a Clifford shirt if I decide to buy one.

bsmith1


quality posts: 103 Private Messages bsmith1

Doesn't look anything like Clifford and the girl he hangs out with.

This shirt's artwork is way better than those crudely drawn books.

oakenspirit


quality posts: 75 Private Messages oakenspirit

Really great- Love the style, and the blonde girl makes me think of my 3-year-old (not that the image looks 3) Might have to grab this- ;)



Xeryon


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Xeryon

With copyrighted characters there has always been an exemption for artistic recreations. Once upon a time owners of copyrighted characters tried to fight this exception without success. If you look around; recreated characters appear everywhere. The problem for people who make and distribute this content is if they try to pass it off as the original creators work or try to market it in the original context.

This recreated character shirt is fine provided it isn't explicitly advertised as the original character and that it isn't part of an animated series about a girl and her giant red dog.

A little light reading on the topic (wiki so take it with a grain of salt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

magnoliasouth


quality posts: 4 Private Messages magnoliasouth

I'm just happy to see a dog for a change! I am not a cat lover and those get old fast.

No offense to the cat lovers out there (I used to like cats, if that's any consolation), but there are a thousand cat shirts to every dog shirt.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they hate you, or anyone else.

michaelvella


quality posts: 12 Private Messages michaelvella
idontkn1 wrote:I am generally fine with parodies or a redux of the original but I don't see how this can in any way be construed as either.



This sentence makes no sense given the artwork of this shirt.
Time for the whole lot of you to give it up and get back to work.
Or go on facebook or something.

bsmith1


quality posts: 103 Private Messages bsmith1
michaelvella wrote:...
Time for the whole lot of you to give it up and get back to work.
Or go on facebook or something.



Who knew there were so many hardcore Clifford purists out there?

aldridgec


quality posts: 0 Private Messages aldridgec

I agree. The shirts look bad on me anymore. I'd happily pay a couple of extra bucks to get a shirt that didn't feel like an old white undershirt. I have a E A Poe shirt that I don't wear anymore after only a few washes, along with a few others. I'd consider this shirt, but am afraid of looking droopy and dorky in it.

mm1sssw wrote:Been a while since I commented on here. It appears that Woot has gone to cheaper flimsier shirt. Too bad. I really enjoyed the earlier ones. But my READ and ELEMENTAL MODEL of THE UNIVERSE are too embarrassing to wear. Looks like I haven't washed them right out of the drier. BLAME. Remove the B.



michaelvella


quality posts: 12 Private Messages michaelvella
bsmith1 wrote:Who knew there were so many hardcore Clifford purists out there?



srsly

bshubinsky


quality posts: 0 Private Messages bshubinsky

I dunno why but seeing this gave me the feels.

sonofafish


quality posts: 11 Private Messages sonofafish
bsmith1 wrote:Who knew there were so many hardcore Clifford purists out there?



Oh, and don't any of you DARE mess with Thomas the tank engine or I'm seriously gonna lose it on someone! ;)

idontkn1


quality posts: 4 Private Messages idontkn1
Xeryon wrote:With copyrighted characters there has always been an exemption for artistic recreations. Once upon a time owners of copyrighted characters tried to fight this exception without success. If you look around; recreated characters appear everywhere. The problem for people who make and distribute this content is if they try to pass it off as the original creators work or try to market it in the original context.

This recreated character shirt is fine provided it isn't explicitly advertised as the original character and that it isn't part of an animated series about a girl and her giant red dog.

A little light reading on the topic (wiki so take it with a grain of salt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody



Call me dense but how does what you reference have anything to do with the question at hand unless you think this is a genuine parody? Considering there nothing here out of the ordinary in terms of the original story lines, I would say it most definitely is not.

ibyes


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ibyes

Hey it's up! Looks great, congrats Jeff!

luthomas


quality posts: 0 Private Messages luthomas
magnoliasouth wrote:I'm just happy to see a dog for a change! I am not a cat lover and those get old fast.

No offense to the cat lovers out there (I used to like cats, if that's any consolation), but there are a thousand cat shirts to every dog shirt.



I was glad to see this too. This particular shirt is not the one for me, but I look every day here for a clever dog shirt, and I tend to find a ton of cat shirts.

More dog shirts please. And by the way, Woot - some of us big dog owners put shirts ON our dogs, so you might be able to sell 2 at once!! There's your incentive.

marvinbeaverdip


quality posts: 3 Private Messages marvinbeaverdip

I really don't understand why this shirt exists. Where's the parody? It's just a clifford shirt, and the world needs another one of those like the world needs giant Winnie the Pooh sweatshirts on white trash grandmas. If this were Clifford eating Emily and the kids, or a normal size dog, with a giant red Emily, I could see the parody. This is just another (nicely drawn, mind you) clifford shirt.

michaelvella


quality posts: 12 Private Messages michaelvella
marvinbeaverdip wrote:I really don't understand why this shirt exists.


Xeryon


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Xeryon
idontkn1 wrote:Call me dense but how does what you reference have anything to do with the question at hand unless you think this is a genuine parody? Considering there nothing here out of the ordinary in terms of the original story lines, I would say it most definitely is not.



By legal definition the characters on this shirt qualify as a parody: it isn't attempting to be the same as the original in context or image. It is an artistic reinterpretation.

idontkn1


quality posts: 4 Private Messages idontkn1
Xeryon wrote:By legal definition the characters on this shirt qualify as a parody: it isn't attempting to be the same as the original in context or image. It is an artistic reinterpretation.



How is it attempting to be different in context? If it was drawn more in line with the original series it would be indecipherable to the drawings by Mr. Bridwell.

Simplification of The Supreme Court rulings define parody as "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works" I just don't see anything in the drawing that constitutes new commentary.