Copyright Law 101
Copyright law is very tricky.
For example, did you know that you can take someone else’s copyrighted image, put it through a Photoshop filter and then it’s yours and you can do whatever you want with it? Its true!
See?
Now technically, I don’t have the right to show that image, because the Etsy seller put it through a Photoshop filter. But that’s where my knowledge of the Copyright Photoshop Filter Act of 2011 comes in to play! Because if I run her image through a different filter, I own it!
Let me know if you want a T-shirt.
Here are some other images that I now own:
Artwork is property of Regretsy and may not be reproduced or duplicated to be resold or displayed on the web, this includes self promotion, social media, or blogging. Artwork shall not be used for promotional/for profit or non-profit uses. Copyright is retained by the artist following the sale of the item.
November 15, 2011 at 10:44 am
I thought it was that you just had to change 60% of the image, so your photoshop filters only have to be set to 60% opacity!
November 15, 2011 at 10:50 am
teeecccchhhhnically this “artist” only sent the image through illustrator’s live trace tool, so really they’d only have to set the threshold at 60 colors and BAM that shit’s basically the original but hiiighly scaleable!
November 15, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
November 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
November 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm
You are trying way too hard for thumbs down, it isn’t clever, just kind of sad.
November 16, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
November 15, 2011 at 10:53 am
This is totally true. I read it on Twitter about a month ago.
November 15, 2011 at 11:35 am
And there is a Blingee clause I believe, so you can do like 55% Photoshop, and 5% Blingee, Or 15% Photoshop and 45% Blingee, whatever adds up, you know, be creative!
crying eagle pictures
November 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Look on the bright side; I own her logo now. I think I’ll use it for a line of geriatric hygiene products.
©2011 HalfNote5 Animations. Reproduce it, and we’ll break your hip.
November 15, 2011 at 12:41 pm
(Sadly, I fear that this, too, may be stolen.)
November 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm
November 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm
AWESOME YOU MADE MY DAY ! REGRETSY I LOVE YOU !
November 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm
i keep thinking crying glittereagle is a skull whenever he pops up. he’s like a Rubins Vase for slackers. goddammit. i never realize it’s him until it’s too late.
November 15, 2011 at 10:44 am
Where’s the button to buy the HP one? And do you take cats in heat as payment?
November 15, 2011 at 10:49 am
If she doesn’t, I call shenanigans. Any legitimate seller would take cats in heat as payment. I’m knowledgeable like that.
November 15, 2011 at 10:54 am
Now, if I take your Marilyn image and recreate it in post it notes, does that mean I own that image or do I have to give you credit. What if I change the dress colour to red hot kitty peckers? What if I use my zoloft/anti-psychotics/and legal uppers to make a sandwich followed by a vodka chaser and then attempt to recreate said image? Damn you Americans and your laws. We Canadians just have to think nice thoughts of the original artist before we steal the image.
November 15, 2011 at 11:09 am
Would you please make me one of those sandwiches? Sounds delighfully delish!
November 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm
And we shall eat them whilst we lounge in our clothes printed with hot red kitty peckers.
November 15, 2011 at 10:46 am
“Copyright is retained by the artist following the sale of the item.”
So, even if I BUY the thing, I still can’t look at it?
These laws are fool proof!
November 15, 2011 at 10:57 am
Sounds like there is no copyright in place until it sells, you’re totally in the clear HK!
November 15, 2011 at 11:06 am
they WERE fool-proof, then they built a better fool.
November 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
There’s a sucker born every minute.
I think that should be included in the clause.
November 15, 2011 at 11:08 am
Not to be a buzzkill, but that is true of most artworks – copyright is retained by the artist following sale of a piece of art unless an assignment of copyright is specifically included in the sale. You can look at it all you want – you just can’t duplicate it, put it on public display, etc.
November 15, 2011 at 11:21 am
Excuse me, but I believe, I’m the Buzzkill (or a buzzkill)
November 15, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Yes it is true, provided the artist actually owns the image you’re buying.
November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
I completely understand the law now! That’s it–I’m becoming a lawyer!
November 15, 2011 at 11:20 am
i think you mean layer. mmmm cake.
November 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm
November 15, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Work of the ever fabulous Allie Brosh from Hyperbole and Half, by the way. As if y’all didn’t already know.
November 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm
And here’s the link: http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com
November 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm
ahhh I lOVE hyperbole and a half!!!
November 15, 2011 at 2:49 pm
And THAT is exactly how I am after coming home from work (I’m a baker). CAAAAAKE!!!
November 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I want…cake.
November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
If I close my left eye, everything I look at becomes about 60% blurry, and therefore altered. By this logic, I OWN ALL THE THINGS!!!
And I charge $5 bucks for them. Pay up.
November 15, 2011 at 10:52 am
I don’t even to close an eye. I just have to look over the top of my glasses. Therefore, by your logic, it’s MINE!
November 15, 2011 at 11:05 am
She called it first, so you need to look over your glasses, through her bad eye, THEN it’s yours.
November 15, 2011 at 3:08 pm
If you’re gonna fight, I’ll hold your coats.
November 16, 2011 at 6:36 am
I read that as, “If you’re gonna fight, I’ll hold your cats.” Seems about right for this place.
November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
Photoshop: Copying right.
November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
So they went to the same law school as Jacqueline Stallone then?
November 15, 2011 at 10:57 am
Don’t forget Dennis.
November 15, 2011 at 11:32 am
So let me see if I understand copyright law correctly… if you put a glitter tear on Marilyn, then all your bases belong to Dennis?
November 15, 2011 at 11:03 am
If so, I bet they are rolling their hands in glee.
November 16, 2011 at 9:05 am
Don’t forget the ever popular lip licking! She can tell those bastard layers to lick MY lips… (awesome! Rumpmaster just provided me with a new way to tell people to eat me!)
November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
A serious word from JPiC:
This hits home like it’s been hitting home for that past thirty years. Do you know on how many websites I’ve seen my illustrations?
You think Rodney Dangerfield got no respect…..?
November 15, 2011 at 10:48 am
Hoh-hoh! You’ll be hearing from Disney lawyers! Hoh-hoh!
(that’s an attempt at a Mickey laugh)
November 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
Which will be awkward, since April works for Disney.
November 15, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Exactly!
Although I think in that case they just put you into the Goofy suit for several weeks.
November 16, 2011 at 9:14 am
The judge asked mickey “lemme get this straight…you want to divorce minnie because she’s crazy?” Mickey says “No! What I said is she’s FUCKIN GOOFY!!!”
thank you folks, I’m here all week…
November 15, 2011 at 10:49 am
Oh…. and I love the new Apple logo.
November 15, 2011 at 10:50 am
I think she’s trying to ensure that some cuntflap won’t come along and do the same thing she did. Doesn’t seem to have worked out for her.
November 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
Yeah, people that run stuff through a PS filter and call it a vector reeeeally get on my nerves. And there’s a crap ton of it, too!
Vectors at the very LEAST require tracing over an image, if not a modicum of talent to create one from memory/scratch.
for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anitacperez/3453707213/ is a good’n.
And don’t even get me started on “digital paintings” (see also: the paintbrush filter.) argjkh;ltkjhfffffff
November 15, 2011 at 10:55 am
I’ll see your modicum of talent and raise you “inkscape can automatically turn things into vectors”.
November 15, 2011 at 11:04 am
Agreed. Illustrator can do it, too.
I think there’s a good chance this is a vector image, but I don’t believe for a minute that the seller traced it by hand.
November 15, 2011 at 10:59 am
Digital paintings–Ah, I remember Watercolorgate on the forums. Good times.
November 15, 2011 at 11:03 am
So true. You can’t get a vector from photoshop. One of the properties of a true vector image is that since it’s bitmap, it can be scaled without loss of quality. Photoshop sure as shit can’t do that.
November 15, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Did you mean since it’s *not* a bitmap it can be scaled w/o loss of quality?
Also, Photoshop sure as shit does have vector capabilities these days– I know cause I use it for scalable graphics since I don’t have Illustrator…
November 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm
‘struth!
You can do vectors in PS
November 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Not according to the featured seller, who has sent me a hate convo to that effect on Etsy!
Also, apparently my art sucks.
November 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm
My first computer graphics program was Corel Draw 3. Photoshop was such a relief.
November 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Hear, hear, Robin!
I get a peeve about copyright claimed on “hand-drawn” digital stuffs. My mandalas are hand-sketched with pencil, then digitally edited by me: scan, trace with alter and fuss, print, trace with more alter and fuss, over them, scan, rinse lather repeat.
Sad fact is MOST mandala artists cop out of the work and toss a photo, dingfont or vector into a kaleidoscope filter or program that does 90% of the work for them, and call it hand drawn, pffft. (I’ve done it for fun, so I know what to look for.) Those mandalas look gorgeous, stunning and fantastically complicated, and they are – thanks to the creator of the program/filter used. Etsy’s full of it.
November 15, 2011 at 10:52 am
I’ll hold off my lawyers as long as possible.
YOU DO THAT. IN THE MEANTIME, I OWN THIS NOW – HK
November 15, 2011 at 10:57 am
I logged in for the sole purpose of offering you A MILLION green thumbs up.
November 15, 2011 at 11:05 am
That should be pretty easy, since overly excited lawyers roll their hands continuously. They can’t put up too much of a fight.
November 15, 2011 at 11:16 am
Don’t forget that they lick their lips too. Probably not good for making a case in court…
November 15, 2011 at 11:39 am
So… all lawyers are Bartemius Crouch Jr.?
November 15, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Probably. Get a good supply of Polyjuice Potion and you can make anything happen.
November 15, 2011 at 11:54 am
They also cackle quietly to themselves. Probably while their eyes turn into flashing dollar signs.
November 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm
PensEnvy: That is, in fact, entirely true.
November 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Kind of looks like this.
November 15, 2011 at 11:24 am
my favorite part was about how she couldnt figure out why it was taking them so long to put the case together. (hint: they need to exist first)
November 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm
PensEnvy, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME, I must insist that you crease and desist using the following pixel:
You have clearly stolen the exact shade of my Royal Doulton hand-painted periwinkles. I will not have people thinking that I’m bandying my pixels about.
My lawyers will continue rolling their eyes hands until you return my pixel, and I am unanimous in this.
November 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
(strike, not strong, the eyes. derrrp)
November 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm
I second that!
All those unanimous, say “Aye!”
November 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm
You might think that pixel belongs to you, but it totally doesn’t! See, I watermarked it and everything!
November 16, 2011 at 6:46 am
“they’re totally real” –I don’t think it means what you think it means.
November 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@mandalamama: You managed to conflate at least two Brit-coms divas. Well done!
November 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Pretty good for an American, eh?
November 15, 2011 at 7:36 pm
better than riparian entertainments or a candle light supper
November 15, 2011 at 6:31 pm
You are clever, HK, but with my newfound knowledge of copyright and hours toiling on Photoshop, I have taken your image and put it through four different filters at once! Plus some wind and lens flares for added dramatic effect.
I have leashed my lawyers, but soon they’ll figure out how to slip out of their collars.
November 15, 2011 at 10:54 am
The dishonesty of it all!! New to the site and enjoying it
November 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Welcome to our community of fat, jealous losers, jjhedin! Bring
alcoholdrugs“party enhancers” and you’ll fit in just fine. All snark is welcome here.November 15, 2011 at 10:55 am
Vector: I do not think it means what you think it means.
November 15, 2011 at 11:02 am
What’s your vector Victor?
November 15, 2011 at 11:21 am
Roger, Roger. We have clearance, Clarance.
November 15, 2011 at 11:43 am
Oveur was over Under, but under Dunn.
November 15, 2011 at 11:43 am
*Unger. Bah
November 15, 2011 at 11:51 am
over macho grande?
November 15, 2011 at 3:09 pm
…
Stop calling me Shirley.
November 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I’ll never get over Macho Grande . . .
November 15, 2011 at 7:08 pm
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
November 15, 2011 at 11:06 am
When you wad up the print and throw it, wah-lah, it’s a vector. It has speed AND direction.
See that? I just saved you the cost of buying Photoshop.
November 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Ooh, a geeky physics joke! Love it.
November 15, 2011 at 10:58 am
This opens a whole new vault of creativity in me! This information and the Photoshop Elements 9 my Australian sent me for my birthday… IMMA BE RICH, Y’ALLS!
Ten dollars at a time!
November 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
You have an Australian?
November 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Doesn’t everyone? How can you call yourself civilized if you are without the services of an authentic Australian?
And no, you can’t get by with just an Austrian. It’s not even a good imitation of a certified Australian.
November 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I have several Australians. They are the bomb drink-ity. *wiggles eyebrowns*
November 16, 2011 at 6:49 am
Are they “The Wiggles”?
November 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Lordy – I knew I had to get back to work after I started watching THE WIGGLES while my daughter was sleeping because I thought the drummer was cute. 9 years later & I feel really dirty every time I see them.
November 15, 2011 at 10:59 am
So what if I run your image through the inverse of the filter you used? Now I own something that looks like the original. All your cats in heat belong to us!
November 15, 2011 at 11:01 am
To be 100% PERFECT the apple should have been filtered on a PC.
November 15, 2011 at 11:07 am
Someone needs to make this happen.
November 15, 2011 at 11:01 am
Double-cross Jaqueline Stallone lawyers and create FILTERED BUTTPRINT(and filtered crying eagles)
November 15, 2011 at 11:03 am
Yo Georges dawg I heard you liked pointillism so I pointillismed your pointillism.
No copies allowed without implied verbal consent
November 15, 2011 at 11:07 am
I wonder if PXL8R would reproduce this beautiful work of art you’ve created.
November 15, 2011 at 2:00 pm
That would be incredible.
Although I wonder if the Art Institute of Chicago owns the copyright on it.
November 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I own the copyright on the mustard stain under the bench in front of it from when I dropped a sammich there in 1984.
November 16, 2011 at 6:50 am
I might have sat in that… Thanks.
November 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Belinda, what were you doing sitting under the bench??
November 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
The first time I went to the Art Institute, the room with “La Grande Jatte” was closed – a woman’s purse was on the bench, its contents strewn around the room.
I don’t know if it was a mugging, or if she took something out of her purse to attack the painting, but there was no one in the room at all and the painting was fine.
In other news, “Nighthawks” was out on loan and “American Gothic” is tiny.
November 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
That one in the middle, with the pink bottom—Is that Sideshow Bob? Oh, sorry. He has blue hair. Never mind!
November 15, 2011 at 3:14 pm
November 15, 2011 at 11:04 am
Yeah, tell that to Shepard Fairey
November 15, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Too late, he’s tied up in REAL court for being a copyright-violating ass. He actually admitted outright that he stole the Obama picture but he’s above the law and an Artiste, so nyah-nyah-nyah. The judge was not impressed, so Fairey’s facing some nasty fines. Yay!
November 16, 2011 at 5:51 am
The judge was also not impressed by his filing falsified court documents. Then his lawyers were so also not impressed they dumped him. Kind of shakes up his claim he did nothing wrong by using the image, if he jumped through hoops trying to hide evidence.
November 15, 2011 at 11:06 am
why did she also squish it?
by which i mean stick a rectangle around it that has two [actually four, but for our purposes: two] little boxes stuck to either side, after which she pulled the lengthwise boxes a little closer together, making the figure entirely, but slightly, out of proportion?
November 15, 2011 at 11:11 am
Crap, you beat me to it.
November 16, 2011 at 8:49 am
I usually just lurk here, but had to say hi to a fellow female Rush fan, especially when she’s also a Harry Potter fan.
Sooo…Hi!
November 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm
She was only at 55% and need another 5 to put her into legal territory. But she didn’t count on (glitter) eagle eyes like you!
November 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Because it worked, in court, for ABSOLUT.
They got sued by the owners of the Arial copyright for using their font for a logo without permission (yes, folks, that can happen too! If you didn’t create the font and don’t have permission to use it commercially, you can’t!), but since they distorted the height/width ratio more than 25%, that made it (in the eyes of the court) sufficiently different and the case was dismissed.
November 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Font copyright is kind of a different beast, though. It involves a distinction between the letterforms and the digital files used to generate them.
Which is probably a good thing in the long run, because we’d run into a few problems if anyone managed to copyright the alphabet.
November 15, 2011 at 2:54 pm
that’s the whole point (pun intended). The letter forms are considered individual works (as a collection in one font style). It’s not the letters of the alphabet that are copyrighted (obviously), but the style in which they are produced. It’s considered art by the courts and therefore copyrightable in the same manner.
November 15, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Maybe we’re just talking about different countries, since you were referencing Absolut and all.
I should’ve been more specific: In the United States, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection. So the style and letterforms aren’t really protected. (That’s why people who make knockoff fonts don’t have to rescale the letters.) However, the computer files that make up a font are considered protected intellectual property as software, and that’s where the licensing issues kick in.
And now I’ll shut up because I’m sure this is mostly boring. (Good for crafters who use type to know, though.)
November 15, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Absolut butthurt.
November 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm
This is why you’re supposed to hold the Shift key when you Transform an object. Otherwise it gets all stretched and squishy.
November 15, 2011 at 11:08 am
In all fairness, the “artist” did more than just use a filter. There’s also the extra-important alteration to Image Size (uncheck “Constrain Proportions”) to slim her down.
This is not the same Marilyn, folks. This is SKINNY Marilyn.
November 15, 2011 at 11:14 am
BTW, here’s my copyrighted version of FAT Marilyn:
November 15, 2011 at 11:20 am
Extra-boobly Marilyn:
November 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm
big foot marilyn
November 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Someone get about 20 seconds of blurry footage of her in the woods, loop it, and we can pad it with interviews of hunters and cryptozoologists. Instant Discovery Channel special!
November 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Now this is FREAKY beyond belief – I was actually starting to work on a big foot Marilyn but decided I’d already spent too much time on here.
I’m just glad someone picked up the torch . . . clearly it needed to be done.
November 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I’d pay good pennies for Marilyn merged with a splicer.
November 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Extra-boobly Mar-alien:
November 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm
And I thought it was Taylor Swift.
November 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Ouch.
November 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Maybe it’s my monitor, but it looks likes something or someone is peering out from between her legs. Inspector Gadget, maybe?
November 15, 2011 at 11:22 am
I was about to say that Marilyn doesn’t deserve to be treated that way. I mean…skinny?? Just wrong.
I like your ‘Fat Marilyn,’ although my eyes may be failing. To me, it just looks like she’s squatting.
(goatse)
November 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
I just KNEW there was a reason I could only see one hand.
November 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm
She’s definitely taking a dump, look at her face.
November 15, 2011 at 11:10 am
Wanna see some serious BS…checkout the Lichtenstein Foundation page
http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/grrr.htm
November 15, 2011 at 11:24 am
excuse me, I hate to be a buzzkill (well I don’t, I actually enjoy being Buzzkill), but I have the copyright on the white, red, green blue, and “black” (i.e. turned off) pixels. So I own all everything.
November 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Well, I’ve got dibs on cyan, magenta, and yellow, so good luck printing them.
November 15, 2011 at 11:33 am
Well, at least it looks like nobody has purchased any of the seller’s poorly Photoshopped crap yet. Thank David Bowie for small miracles.
November 15, 2011 at 11:33 am
I now own this image. I’ll take my payment in giant pinata heads, please.
November 15, 2011 at 11:50 am
That is marvelous.
November 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Not that I would EVER say anything NEGATIVE about someone with obvious mental issues, but…
…now he looks just like his mother.
November 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Here, compare
November 15, 2011 at 2:33 pm
The resemblance is uncanny!
November 15, 2011 at 5:51 pm
marry me alice.
November 15, 2011 at 11:23 pm
I do like in the south, but I’m think that inter-species marriage is limited to barnyard animals.
November 15, 2011 at 11:36 am
False advertisement. That isn’t even a legit VECTOR image. Fucking idiot.
November 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I just made this happen this in Photoshop in my artistic ability. This 100% original artwork was hand-googled extensively, then mucked about for a lengthy period of time with dodge and burn. No Photoshop filters were harmed in the making of this picture.
I dare any of you to try to copy it. My lawyers are already rolling their
eyeshands.November 15, 2011 at 12:16 pm
THAT would be an epic mandala theme.
November 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Why yes, it would!
I clocked myself, took 3 minutes to do this online.
Damn ethics.
November 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Whoa … is it just me, or is that mandala nipply?
November 15, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Opps! Sorry, I meant to give you a thumbs up, but my finger slipped.
November 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Slippery nipple?
November 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm
It looks like both a nipple and an iris. Creeeeepy.
November 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm
November 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Ooh, this could go all recursive and shit. Shweet!
November 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm
November 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm
November 15, 2011 at 2:57 pm
November 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm
November 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm
@mandalamama: I won’t argue your ownership…but what do I owe you for looking at it?
November 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Let’s not miss this gem.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/83410099/photo-editing-photo-fantasy-place
November 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“It can take several hours to get the colors, shading, and angles just right!”
Unfortunately, she made her demo on her laptop while eating Spaghetti-Os out of the can at a stoplight.
November 15, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“Several hours” = “I just got Photoshop yesterday and haven’t really figured out how to use it yet.”
Nothing about this photo is “just right.” The coloring and lighting are wrong, the resolution and focus don’t match . . . ugh.
I could do a better job in half an hour, tops. And that’s with my two little
bratsangels in the other room screaming about whose turn it is to play Lego Star Wars on the XBox.November 15, 2011 at 3:08 pm
That game is hard. I mean, much harder than it actually should be.
November 15, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I don’t know . . . my 5-year-old has pretty well mastered it. Then again, his age may be an advantage.
November 15, 2011 at 1:46 pm
THAT IS NOT HOW WATER WORKS.
November 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm
http://www.etsy.com/listing/82988430/smile-inspirational-word-art-5-color
SPLUTTERS DIET COKE EVERYWHERE. 15.fucking.dollars??!! For TYPING??!! For not even a piece of paper??!!
*i haz brane anyoorizm*I am seriously, seriously in the wrong business. I should probably open another Etsy shop under an assumed name and sell Photoshopped bullcrap and make some real money.
November 16, 2011 at 8:01 am
Hey, you can convo her to change the word. I have some suggestions.
November 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I once photoshopped together a picture of an alpaca surfing on the moon and it’s far more believable than the job she did pasting that head onto the body.
November 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Hey, so where is it?
November 15, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Please enjoy my realistic photo.
(Forgot it’s a llama, not an alpaca)
November 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Kuzco? Is that you?
November 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm
That is fucktastically amazing! And so real!
November 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Wow, I can almost smell the saltwater. Or I could if there were any human-sustaining atmosphere, I guess.
November 15, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I . . . I . . .
I fucking love you for that.
November 15, 2011 at 10:19 pm
November 15, 2011 at 10:22 pm
(oops, do over)
November 16, 2011 at 8:10 pm
My new desktop.
November 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Oh great scott! She’s got Lucille Ball, Johnny Depp and Amy Winehouse, too.
If I knew it was this easy to make “vector art” I would never have taken the time to learn Inkscape.
November 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm
If she sues for copyright and gets layers (Regretsy lawyers) and she’s used layers on her “vector” graphic (which is actually a layered photoshop image), does that mean that if she inserts a layer with her layer layer’s copyright warning, it’ll be a layer layer layer.
November 15, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Ogres have layers…
(Do trolls?)
November 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Oh oh, look at what I made in my artistic ability.
From the original at the top of the post:
- Crop out all the uninteresting white crap and text
- Magic Eraser tool out the background
- Background Eraser for the straggler pixels (but not too much, you don’t want it to look too good)
- Make a new layer and move it to the bottom
- Fill entire new layer with white
- Filter –> Pixelate –> Facet
- Image –> Auto Tone and Auto Color
- Image –> Adjustments –> Hue/Saturation –> +5 Hue, +21 Saturation, +8 Lightness
- Image –> Image Size –> Uncheck “Constrain Proportions” and increase height of image from 554 pixels to 650 pixels
VOILA. Took me about 10 minutes to do. Kind of sloppier looking than the seller’s, but whatever, this is a gift to the world and I’m not trying to bilk anyone out of $10 for this monstrosity.
November 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm
ten bucks add glitter and charge double
November 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm
OH FFS. If you’re gonna copy something that’s copyrighted, at least make it something a *little* bit less iconic than this photo of Marilyn Monroe!
November 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm
My copyright lawyer told me that if I just scratch out the artists name and then stick my own name on a piece of their art, it legally transfers to ME! I’m going to take my Sharpie to the art museum and claim myself a bitchen, new art collection!
November 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
November 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm
So, what you’re telling me is, if I use photoshop to blur an image of Labyrinth Bowie, then I own that image, but that’s still the closest I’ll ever get to being the Goblin Queen? Damn it.
November 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm
No, THIS is the closest you can get, but I got there first.
November 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm
someone looks deeply disturbed …
November 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Look ma! No talent!
(Note: This isn’t her “original art”. I recreated it–so I guess it’s my “original art”.)
November 15, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I like that! It’s a mix of animation and the old paint-by-numbers style of “art.”
November 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm
all of this is null and void if you just put that little copyright logo on the pic. you know the allmighty C in a circle makes the image off limits…….
November 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm
http://www.etsy.com/listing/83410099/photo-editing-photo-fantasy-place
Wow this really makes the Level 2 Manipulation Cat looks professional.
November 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Cat is up to Level 4.
I know exactly where my “photo fantasy place” is – in a Johnny Depp and Jude Law sandwich. (But only if Mr. Law gets some serious waxing done).
November 15, 2011 at 3:44 pm
HIRSUT-IST!
November 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Ooh, googled and noticed he’s less hairy as he ages, yayy! When he was in his early 20s he was Chewbacca. Can’t find the old pics … his publicist is gooood!
November 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Found one …
November 16, 2011 at 3:46 am
not only does pedo-bear approve of this photo, he is actually a member!
November 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Spolips… soolips….spism…. copycat!!
Cookbook ‘authors’ do it too, I worked in a restaurant kitchen where they were doing a dessert cookbook and a third of it was poached from other cookbooks. Tweak a quantity or ingredient and the recipe is now yours. Fooey.
So if I make some of the cookies from that book and sell tins on Etsy, will I hear from Mr. Sparklepants’ layers?
November 15, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Cookbooks are kind of a special case. You can’t copyright a recipe.
What is a recipe after all? It’s a set of instructions to make something. The method of making a thing is way outside the realms of copyright – the only way to protect that is secrecy or a patent.
However clever your recipe is, it’s almost never special enough to justify a patent. The fact you’ve written a cookbook means you’ve decided against the secrecy route, so once your recipe is out there, it’s no longer yours. It becomes part of the sum of human knowledge.
So all you’re left with is the actual presentation of the recipe – the wording of the method and the photos or illustrations that accompany it. You can’t just copy and paste from one cookbook to another. But if you reproduce a recipe in your own words, it’s fair game. Good manners to credit the originator, but nobody can make you.
Annoying if you’re an inventive cook, but that’s just the way it is.
November 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm
That explains how there are so many spiral-bound church cookbooks out there. Thanks, now I get it.
November 15, 2011 at 6:47 pm
There is only one True Spiral-Bound Church Cookbook, and all other spiral-bound church cookbooks derive from it. (We won’t even discuss the heretical Ladies Auxiliary spiral-bound cookbooks and PTA spiral-bound cookbooks. Blasphemers.)
I quote Campbell’s 2:15:
I am the One True Cookbook, and thou shalt place no other cookbooks before me. I have delivered you to the Land of Cream of Mushroom, and succored you with manna and hot dish. He who believeth in me shall forever have their thirst slaked by tasty concoctions of ginger ale and lime sherbet. Thus sayeth the Cookbook.
November 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm
How could that photo ever be vector art? Pixel me confuzzled. But you know I was clicking for a larger version to check out the extra toe!
November 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Another really good loophole is the ‘criticism’ loophole. It means you can take scenes from movies, still images, parts of songs, and people’s entire artworks, and run ‘reviews’ of them. You then are free to profit from your site that is made almost entirely of other people’s work. Another great one – you can pull sex scenes out of context and place them on your very own porn site, say you are reviewing the scene, and the actress, the studio, etc, has no say at all about their love scene appearing under a title like ‘Lolita gets butt fucked’. And again you can charge money for advertisers to appear on this porn site.
November 15, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Of course there are legit versions of both these things but people often misuse them.
November 16, 2011 at 7:38 am
The difference is that, once you sell an item from that site, or charge a fee of some sort for membership to that site, you then need permission to use the works involved – unless it is strictly a parody site, but even then, the works (images, videos) must be altered to show the intended parody
November 15, 2011 at 10:25 pm
I miss Marilyn’s old nose.
November 16, 2011 at 7:32 am
Has anyone pointed out, yet, that this alleged “vector art” is actually the result of using the Photoshop Artistic/Cutout filter? I’m not sure whether that’s a resident filter, or something I added later, since my Photoshop 7 is nine years old.
I’d read every comment again to answer my question, but I’m still waiting for the coffee maker to finish.
November 16, 2011 at 7:47 am
Hey, April…you might be able to get a reading from JStallone using this 100% original vector image I made in my artistic abilty just for you.
November 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
yes, it’s discussed a few times above.
It’s either the Live Trace” filter from Illustrator, or the “Cutout” filter in PS (yes, it’s a resident filter) used after the
perpetrator of copyright violationartist removed the background and desaturated the blue and other elements showing through her skirt.November 16, 2011 at 8:20 am
So our thief has noticed the attention – she removed the one Marilyn and replaced it with one that’s probably just as easily traceable to its original owner.
November 16, 2011 at 8:22 am
Well, shit, she’s not even making it fun. It’s in the first row when you type “Marilyn Monroe” into Google images.
November 16, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Stealing– she sucks at it.
November 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Wow, just got hate mail from her via Etsy convo (apparently in regards to my ever-so hate-filled comment above) which ends this way:
“If your art were worthy I would copy it too.”
LOL. She might trace pictures of my jewelry in Illustrator and sell them, if only I were wooooorthy!
She’s also changed her store profile to a butthurt shout-out to Regretsy.