There is nothing original about this image. You took someone else's work and posted it as your own.
Graphic Artists are professionals who get paid for their work and often copyright their images. The image you used is posted with the following copyright:
2) if you aren't familiar with Monsters, Inc, you would have no idea that Mike is dressing up as Sully (I've seen the movie and still had to wait for your explanation...your guests probably won't get it)
3) I agree, nothing original here, it is clearly the work of the Pixar artist that you shouldn't have reproduced (even for personal use).
4) Not sure of legal issues
5) telling people that "they have issues" is not the way to make friends...very rude IMO. just trying to help as I read it. perhaps look in the mirror
2) if you aren't familiar with Monsters, Inc, you would have no idea that Mike is dressing up as Sully (I've seen the movie and still had to wait for your explanation...your guests probably won't get it)
ok... I don't know how old are you but most my guests are 18 to 28 most of them movie freaks
gheller wrote:
3) I agree, nothing original here, it is clearly the work of the Pixar artist that you shouldn't have reproduced (even for personal use).
I didn't reproduced it! I simply altered the original in PS in a fan art/fun/parody way
gheller wrote:
4) Not sure of legal issues
If he were right... www.worth1000.com would be dead
gheller wrote:
5) telling people that "they have issues" is not the way to make friends...very rude IMO. just trying to help as I read it. perhaps look in the mirror
g
I don't think he was very friendly either I was just being funny
Sadly this is the world we live in. Currently in court right now where I reside in western PA., is a popular restaurant that is suing a baking company for copyright violations in NY.
The product in question is a smiley cookie. You heard right, over the design of a baking cookie. The restaurants version is the smiley cookie with a dot on it included for its nose. The company in NY is baking cookies without the dot for it's nose.
BTW, the restaurant has won, many times over in court with various other enterprises trying to get away with it.
In closing, people is posting the right information trying to CYA. Companies do sue and have every right to do so, protecting their own products. If it's for your own personal use, do yourself a favor and don't publish it over the internet or distribute it publicly. Just my two cents worth.
Natalia T wrote:
OMG you ARE serious.
lol
What's your problem?? do you go around looking for ridiculous things to argue?
It's just a parody of the original poster for personal use only, non distributed or sold in any way
You really have issues.
I do have issues with people that blatantly violate copyright and post other's work as their own. Not only is it a violation of the FM Forum rules:
"Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own. You may not use or publish any of the photographs displayed on these pages without express permission from the original photographer. No exceptions."
It is also disrespects professional graphic designers who make their living from creating these works.
You photographers are quite strange about these things ...
Does anyone watch Mad TV, SNL, listen to remixed music or have Scream-based thematic house parties ... let alone a zillion and one other ports, rips, parodies, etc that invade our everyday lives ...
It's a bit out of hand w/ the photog's though (coming from a music background in my case), because it's so vague and arbitrary ... in music, they have come up w/ "orders of change from original" that determine if a remix is legally an infringement or not ... if you change 17% or more or something, than you can consider it a reworking and call it your own to some extent ... it goes something like that anyways ..
if i take a palm tree from one guy's picture, a cabana boy from another unrelated shot ... and a coconut from the fisheye test shots on canon's website ... make a collage in photoshop, and then paint a giant purple question mark over it ... who's creation is that? ...
When you photograph a building do you give credit to the architect who designed it, i mean, after all, that info is publicly available to you downtown ... it isn't your building ... you didn't design it ... if you take a photograph and the mcdonalds arches are in the background, do you get permission from mcdonalds before you print it? ...
i'm sorry, but i for one, would love to hear from a copyright lawyer on the actuality of the law and how it is typically used in court because i hear a lot of strong opinions but can never find the resources online to substantiate them ...
i'm not trying to be argumentative w/o reason, but i hear a lot of fighting about copyright law and very little documentation ...
gm
PS - i understand that photog's livelihood is wrapped up in their images to some extent, however, at once i find it counterproductive to spend more time worrying about the pictures you've taken in the past than concentrating on taking new ones to keep getting ahead ... but that is just my opinion of course ...
I think it's great, after all it's personal use for a freakin' party. And the original reason she posted it here was to see if anyone thought she did a good job with the invitations which she did. Still can't believe someone would bring copyright into it. By the way you should visit some of the 3D developement sites where amatuers get excited because they were able to replicate pixar characters using different programs. You really think pixar is gonna sue up and coming potential employees? gimme a break.
grantmichaels wrote:
You photographers are quite strange about these things ...
PS - i understand that photog's livelihood is wrapped up in their images to some extent, however, at once i find it counterproductive to spend more time worrying about the pictures you've taken in the past than concentrating on taking new ones to keep getting ahead ... but that is just my opinion of course ...
Take some time and educate yourself about copyright law.
My point was that the graphic was not original, that the OP should concentrate on creating her own art instead of stealing someone else's work and calling it her own. If the OP wanted to create some private party invitation, why post it in a public forum under false pretenses? Copyright law is not restricted to music, but graphic images, photographs and even literature. These creations are considered intellectual property and have value. The music industry has seen fit to go after individuals for illegally downloading music. Why do you think this situation is any different?
Would you be upset if someone just took something you have spent hundreds of hours on to create and they got the credit (or money) for creating it? Wake up!
i have been in the exact situation you describe on multiple occassions ... i have had my concepts and creations and once even just a vision ripped and used for profit by another person ... no credit ... no asking permission ... no royalty or compensation otherwise ... and i agree w/ you to a large extent ...
i've also produced code (programming) for work and have had that stolen and recycled by the companies that once employed me after i'm gone w/o compensation etc ... i just think that turning profit is the determining factor *FOR ME* ethically and accept anything less than commercial reproduction as a jilted form of flattery ...
they will rip you anyways, so you might as well get a little boost from it, otherwise it just brings you down (and makes you sound callous or coarse or what not) ...
i would like to educate myself in regard to copyright law, and i think i made mention of that in my post ... unfortunately the law is very tricky to interpret these days as it doesn't even start to take into consideration the digital era we now live in without getting into VERY current casework and decisions which isn't readily available ... it's years later and i'm just beginning to digest the digital millennium act ...
i thought you were unnecessarily coarse and so i felt compelled to share a more moderate view, but that doesn't mean that i think you are wrong and that i am right ... i just felt the response was too aggravated for an otherwise lighthearted post ...
maybe i'm wrong, it happens to me all the time ... whether or not what you said is more correct than what i said, the fact remains that you could be friendlier since this is a social setting ... the argument that this is a professional forum is really totally unfounded ...
Hey Gerald I think all those years in Corrections have gotten to you. remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, she did a damn good job AND it's not the same pic, she did a lot of work to make it look like that, Natalie is good at what she does....even if I didn't get an invite.
carl
