Is this intellectual property theft or imitation/inspiration?

>>251679
It's a grey area that'd have to be determined in court. However, the claim itself would be worth less than the court fees I'm sure (if this is your work.)

It's a dangerous line to tread and either way, its just a shitty piece that looks bad in your portfolio and makes you look like an unreputable hack.

>>251680

Yeah it's a little thing I'm messing with at home w/o a scanner or note pad. I needed a reference and was not sure where the line lies.

>>251679
Insperation. There are enough differences.

>>251679
if this appeared in court, you would lose

File: IorI2.jpg (141KB, 1319x553px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1319x553px

Full color inbound, theft or not?

>>251694
why are so fixated on copying this image?
Let your inspiration come from many sources, why not try looking at several different bulls, then make your own.

also this >>251684

>>251698
I'm not fixed on copying it, I'm relaxing while putting a few back at home and I don't have my sketch pad so I needed a reference, that's why I was asking if it was too close or not. That and I was genuinely curious as to where the line in the copyright sand is drawn.

>>251684
>>251698

OP again. I should also assert that I think you are incorrect. In the automobile and firearm industry there have been many lawsuits regarding an approximate design that has the same keystone fundamentals but peripheral uniqueness. But who knows, I'm probably just a full of shit asshole.

File: 1378921770529.jpg (68KB, 477x352px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 477x352px

>>251702
looks like a copy to me

File: copyright.jpg (328KB, 1334x808px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1334x808px

>>251704

As much of a copy as a chevy engine is to a ford, yep.

>>251705
not exactly a moto to live by if you don't want to be sued

>>251709

I reposted because of spelling and grammatical errors, but the same post is right above you here
>>251709

No legit lawyer would take a case like this or one similar to my examples, there is precedent for this stuff. Every art or technology, physical or silicon is built off of references. It's appalling difficult to prove infringement considering the realm of IP is such a convoluted facsimile of law to begin with. In fact most of our advancements are simply augments of existing public IP.
.

File: faggot.jpg (102KB, 1319x553px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1319x553px

>>251710
>it's not copying
>i just traced the legs and changed their location

you are a fool

>>251711

Yeah I did use the legs, pretty sure that ties in to my explicit omission that the keystone fundamental elements are the same.
See: >>251703

Congrats, you have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old.

>>251712
>i think
>pretty sure
you are the one that came in here asking...

sorry you don't like the answers you got

would you feel better if we just sent this screen cap to RAsutdio and let them decide?

>>251711
>>251712

To reiterate, since it seems I need to. I am not asking your moral opinion of this work, I'm asking whether or not legally, I have violated copyright laws.

Clearly I referenced and copied parts of this design, I thought that was explicitly clear since the OP, apparently I over estimated the critical thinking skills of the /gd/ audience.

So, assume I am a scumbag hack for the sake of argument, do you believe the produced results are indicative of theft? Or simply a result of new IP born of imitation?

>>251715
>I referenced and copied parts of this design,
>Have I violated copyright laws?

YES

>>251713
Feel free, I'm quite sure their lawyers would tell them they have no legs to stand on, and to salt the wound, this was made by me for me, no one is buying it, but please, make them aware. Maybe one day I'll sell the piece after you vet me :)

>>251716
>I'm quite sure

kek
clearly you're not

>>251717

That's not how copyright laws work though. If that were the case 60% of design would have been an illegal infringement, and another 30% would be up for debate in the law arena.

>>251719
Yep, I am, reposted because of grammar and spelling. See: >>251718

>>251720
all it takes is for them to prove that you even referenced their image.

I worked at an agency that lost to a case just like this.

File: 1323448694499.jpg (49KB, 441x408px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 441x408px

>>251721
if you are so sure then why did you make a thread faggot

>>251723

To talk, why does anyone make any thread on 4chan?

I like getting in a quaint text based tussle after a few drinks, it's just so nice to see you're all such pushovers.

>>251722

I don't believe it, link it. Referencing is not copyrighted in anyway, in fact it's expected in the world of design, whether it be graphic, metallurgical or technical.

>>251684
case closed

>>251728
Not so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Thanks for playing, come again.

>>251731
>Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.

>>251732

Nice greentexting bro.

Some anon already brought to your attention that the majority of the art is different. >>251711
He even tried to use it as an insult! I swoon with smugness.

>>251733
>majority of the art is different
oh you mean the minor change you made after tracing it?

you'd have to prove that the goat you copied is considered Fair Use, meaning you'd have to show proof that there are many other goat images that are equally as similar as yours is to it.

>>251734
>oh you mean the minor change you made after tracing it?

There is a distinct amount of variation, you are so wrong it's sad. D:

I'd love to see you reference a case when anything even close to this had won. Guess what, you can't produce it. Because this is clearly unique IP with references to existing work, but not violating that existing work.

Keep trying to play at semantics to alleviate your insecurities, I'll keep sitting here waiting to kick you in the nut sack.

ITT a 12 year old OP pretends to be a lawyer

>>251735
https://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/04/19/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/

>>251736

Wow you totally got me, fantastic rebuttal ;)

>>251737
>https://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/04/19/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/

None of those pertain to the image posted here: >>251679
Or here: >>251694

Got anything substantive?

>>251739
kek

>>251741
>kek

Nice, you clearly have an argument.

Well I rebut regardless. These cases listed in you link are all direct copyright infringement, they are literally either direct reproductions, or the original image with shitty photoshop paint tools on top of said original image. as >>251711 and >>251708

showed, that is not what my artwork is.

So, I reiterate, got anything substantial? Or would you prefer to hide behind memes?

Can a mod delete this. This guy is just being a huge faggot even though he got genuine replies.

>>251748
Still waiting to be proved wrong. Keep crying for mommy.

>>251753
it depends if the image have public copyright license
see
http://sm4good.com/2014/06/06/understanding-usage-rights-creative-commons-licensed-photos/

For your exact case the answer is no since the original is a stock photo. They wouldn't have a case since they wouldn't be able to proof you ripped them off or someone else who licensed the use of it.

If the original was someone's design that wasn't stock then they absolutely could sue (not that they would since you don't have the skills to make real money off it; reiterating >>251680). My wife works for a firm that (almost) exclusively handles IP law. They defend quite a few artists who mainly work in appropriated art (no one as big as Richard Prince but still internationally known) and usually turns away infringements like this all the time. Unless you're making serious money off of it, it wouldn't be even close to worth it for a company to sue a hobbyist over something like this.

>>251778
That said, if you are actually worried then consult an attorney. If you live in New York, I can give you the name of a firm that could help; they're not as successful as the firm my wife works at but they go out of their way to help individual artists/small business owners.

File: mgt.jpg (310KB, 1181x784px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1181x784px

Sorry for being such a combative prick last night guys, I really need to stay off the bottle.

Whadya guys think?

>>251822
yo op how did you make that mesh texture?

>>251822
too detailed, goat will look like ass at printed size

>>251822
yeah, actually can anyone tell me how to make a criss cross endless pattern just like that? I tried in illustrator but I can't get it just right.

>>251867


No it will be fine. I've done work for burrito labels with more detail that reproduced fine.

>>251862
>>251869

Use a 2 color gradient background and put the lines on top as a solid fill using the darker color in the gradient.

>fell in love with a logotype style
>can never make and use my own variation because theft
>can never come up with it in my own because only recently started design as a hobby

why live

>>251732
>>251733
Not sure if this applies, but that isn't just a piece of art you are "modying", but it is also stock that's being sold as a product directly.

not that anyone asks me (Im a graphic designer with 10+ years experience) but since its based on a stock image that anyone can buy/download and use and you are remaking it from scratch, even though its similar, Im pretty sure you are fine as far as legality goes. now if you found the right image on another artists site and then remade it, then that could get you in trouble...