AFAIK, no, it's not okay, unless the image license says you can use it and sell it...
Any time you use an image that you do not own the copyright to, or purchased the copyright off for that use is ripping. The only exception is images offered by photographer/designer for free.
It is NOT ok for anyone, let alone a designer who should be aware, to use images 'found' on the web.
It does not matter what the price of the contract is, the legal costs could be immense...
So would you classify a designer as a ripper if he or she used this practice?..
If the designer used the image as a model to work from, and didn't make a blatent noticable rip of the image, then id say for $25.00 this is fine. It would be a 1 in a million shot if the owner of the origional image ever noticed or cared.
I know what image you are talking about and no, the image is not noticable as the designer had added extras to it, and it wasn't a copy and paste from a google image. Use your own judgment, you really cant listen to other people, but all I'm saying mate is this stuff happens all the time. Some people use images for inspiration, some go one step further and use it as a model.
Why dont you ask the guy who done that image to change the position on the ears and some of the facial features, make is so that nothing is in the same position, then it would be origional because there would be nothing to show that the image was ripped, and nothing would ever be noticable...
You can either draw or you cannot...but to take another drawing and trace it and then add color and a body from another image is NOT CREATIVITY.
If he had traced an image of a screenshot of a gremlin then more power to him...but he traced someone else's artwork for the head of the gremlin. I didn't bother looking for the body of the image but it was obviously ripped as well...
Its better to post here the 2 work to can have a good idea???.
"NOT CREATIVITY." grimlins is grimlins..
I assume you're talking about the gremlin image...
That is considered as inspiration and not ripping, specially since the new image does not come off the original but is in itself an original.
You got that for $25? what a bargain! am going to offload some work at NP!!..
Here is an overlay of the original and the "inspirational copy". You didn't draw this, you traced it. I have made a living in the art world as a professional designer, Illustrator and Art Director for 15 years and for some pretty heavy hitters and I can tell you that tracing another's work and then modifying it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. http://www.bigspaces.com/rip.jpg.
Since you want to force the issue, I will find the original body image as well and post that. Congrats on being able to paint someone else's work in Photoshop...you are quite the accomplished artist...
Assume that nothing on the internet is fair game unless specifically stated it's in the public domain. you might use the wikimedia site as a source, since most of that has been placed there subject to GNU open use licensing. Read the actual license before doing anything though...
When hyundi made a car with the same sort of shape as a Dodge Viper did dodge go crazy and cause hype? Alot of car companys take inspiration from other cars and most the time you can tell.
When you look in these Car Mod magazines and you see headlights that are near copies of Ferrari lights, do ferrari take them to court and sue? No.
Lets look at another example, Mobile phones, how many cheaper models do you see that look like Nokias? Alot of mobile phone companies make near copies of rivals and sell them for a cheaper price, do the companys sue? No because they cant.
Another example, I just looked around my room and spotted my girlfriends GHD Hair straightners, very expensive, but yesterday I seen a pair on the high street by Morphy Richards, that were exact clones but at a cheap price.
This is actually funny, ive seen some people request logos for car websites, mobile websites, ipod websites, and they make vector images based on a car/mobile/ipod and nobody complains that the ipod, or the car or the phone is actually a trade mark of that company and you need permission to do that.
For $25.00 what do people expect? If your offering a competition at $25.00 your not exactly reaching out to the creative people who would spend a good few hours on your logo, your reaching out to photoshop newbies who use tutorial sites and want some quick cash for a new domain name.
Fico did not copy and paste, he reconstructed the image and made id different. Maybe if he'd used his head a bit more, he could have made it so that you would never have noticed it was modeled from that image...
I will let your stupid words speak for themselves. What a clueless...(edited)...
Proverb : Empty barrels make most noise.
Isnt from me sorry I dont have copyright for this proverb..
Ok, just for clarification sake:.
Was there a work order for an image? Is so, what were the guidelines for this image? Were examples given or a certain vision given to create the image? Was a request for an original image (assuming there wasn't a certain guideline given)?.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there was a request to do an image and the person who ordered the image feels they did not get an original piece in return and is asking for clarification on originality vs. ripping. Hoenstly, I can see why it would be asked. Then again, if it was requested "Do an image like this, but I wasnt him walking out the PC screen", and that is what he got.
As far as the examples given, artwork is a little different creature than products...
"Since you want to force the issue, I will find the original body image as well and post that.".
He he he.
Empty barrels make most noise..
I'm not sure about copyright laws about images but copyright about music allows you to use a melody as inspiration as long as it is not too smillar to the original.
I think the inspired melody can be maximum %30 smillar to the original.
The two pictures in question are smillar in many ways but they are also different. I would say the smillarity here is %60. So there is a problem with these two pictures.
It would be less if some characteristics like the ears and face was changed more. If you copy and alter an image, do it properly. Don't alter just some sections.
I think the designer who created the logo for you should change the character a little more. Then it should be fine.
Of course I wouldn't use other people's work if I was a designer. Also I agree that it is not creativity to copy and alter images or websites or any form of design. On the other hand, if the difference is big enough I think there is no copyright problem but more an ethical problem...
If you are worrying about something like this for a $25-$250, then maybe the internet is not the best career choice you can make.....
PS : for any info about this picture ask the new nampros investigator to know from who is this draw, element, color, font, and also the origine of the mouse the designer have use !!! : he have a lot of time to googleeeee..
He might not have returned, but the image in that link is hardly an "empty barrel"...
The head and ear sizes are perfect matches to the sketch as shown; only the body has been somewhat modified.
There are zillions of different situations regarding just as many different works of art, but in the case of Gremlins, here's a little side story from my background in media:.
When Spielberg and company had produced the movie Gremlins in the 1980s, and sought to legally make it their own, their research department discovered an extremely embarrassing fact during a routine check: the very same shaped (and colored) characters had already existed since the 1940s!.
They were also small little trouble-causers and were also called "Gremlins" - and they were also clearly not in the public domain. Where had they been hiding all that time? One place was in the pages of a comic book. The other was in a series of part live action and part animated World War II training films (ala Roger Rabbit), showing the safe and proper way to maintain planes and not let "the Gremlin" mess up your engine.
But the real corker was the name of the company who first published the Gremlins characters in those comic books and allowed them for later use in those training films:.
(And in this production, Spielberg's company was of course competing against Disney. Now don't tell Stevie baby that I told you about this - it's still quite a sore spot with him.)..
Ok...first of all i'm not worrying about anything!!! read the initial post...
This was a contest I was running for a friend and when this particular entry was posted another designer pointed this out and the debate was on and the contest went south. There were at least 5 designers ready to make entries and decided against it due to the contraversy. I made a last ditch attempt to save the contest by directing the debate to this category.
Money is not the issue here hence the $25 $250 reference!.
Does it matter? is it ok if it is cheaper? cheaper makes it legal?.
THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS..Why punish the contest holder???.
Maybe I should have clarified this earlier but I just wanted to get the debate out of my contest thread..
It is not right to do it since you might land up in a bunch of legal problems...
But that is a 0.00000001% chance....
I doubt if someone would actually notice the copyrighted image..lol..
How about entering a painting competition?.
1. Buy a painting..
2. Add some additional brushstrokes to it.
3. Scratch out the artist's name and put your own on instead.
Voila! Instant winner!..
What I personally (and a few thousands more) have against contests to start with.
Specially since this is going on and on about 'legality'...