homage or rip off?

MauiTiki, that really sucks. My Mower just wouldn't be the same without your sticker.

what an awesome mower!! makes cutting the lawn that much more fun!!!

sorry i hijacked this thread with the above post about someone on ebay duplicating shag paintings...I just found that sellers store last night and figured that since we were on the topic of rip-offs, this was an example......

On 2005-12-23 23:28, Tipsy McStagger wrote:
you want a rip-off?? here it is...this a-hole is totally ripping off shag......

http://cgi.ebay.com/Shag-Like-JET-SETTER-Original-Acrylic-6-X-6-Sexy_W0QQitemZ7352656133QQcategoryZ20135QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Look at his feedback. It's horrible. 48 negatives in the last 12 months? Not that I'm defending him, it's obvious he ripped off the style, but I can't recall, are these actual copies of SHAG, or just total look alikes?

On 2005-12-23 23:28, Tipsy McStagger wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Shag-Like-JET-SETTER-Original-Acrylic-6-X-6-Sexy_W0QQitemZ7352656133QQcategoryZ20135QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

That guy looks like Brock Savage.

I don't watch much TV but apparently everything I do watch is sponsored in part by Glenfiddich.

Look at his feedback. It's horrible. 48 negatives in the last 12 months? Not that I'm defending him, it's obvious he ripped off the style, but I can't recall, are these actual copies of SHAG, or just total look alikes?

these are direct copies of old shag pieces and as a result, they become look-a-likes.....there's one from the leeteg show a few years back, which I have an actual print of by shag..and the one featured in the link I believe is from another show or event that shag did the art for....this is not merely imitating shag's style, this is a direct lift of his original works in all it's detail ....no new elements added as far as I can tell.......to imitate a style and produce your own design in that style is one thing, but to directly copy? where is the art in that?? apparently art boy must have slept through that part in "art school".......

Look at his feedback. It's horrible. 48 negatives in the last 12 months? Not that I'm defending him, it's obvious he ripped off the style, but I can't recall, are these actual copies of SHAG, or just total look alikes?

these are direct copies of old shag pieces and as a result, they become look-a-likes.....there's one from the leeteg show a few years back, which I have an actual print of by shag..and the one featured in the link I believe is from another show or event that shag did the art for....this is not merely imitating shag's style, this is a direct lift of his original works in all it's detail ....no new elements added as far as I can tell.......to imitate a style and produce your own design in that style is one thing, but to directly copy? where is the art in that?? apparently art boy must have slept through that part in "art school".......

On 2005-12-24 05:27, badmojo wrote:
MauiTiki, that really sucks. My Mower just wouldn't be the same without your sticker.

Badmojo, did you get your sticker from me?? http://www.stuckonmaui.com
I don't make a red version of my tiki sticker. I only sell it in white and chrome. It would have to have been a special order, and I don't remember ever making red tiki's. It's hard to tell from the photo, but it doesn't look as clean as the original design that I sell.

On 2005-12-26 14:50, MauiTiki wrote:

Badmojo, did you get your sticker from me?? http://www.stuckonmaui.com
I don't make a red version of my tiki sticker. I only sell it in white and chrome. It would have to have been a special order, and I don't remember ever making red tiki's. It's hard to tell from the photo, but it doesn't look as clean as the original design that I sell.

... with the supercharged version of "streamline" (part of illustrator/cs2)... anything image (nearly) can be scanned, printed and cut in vinyl... the alohabros believe this to be true and common...

On 2005-12-23 23:32, Tipsy McStagger wrote:
and that's not all...if you check their auctions, you will find other copies of shag's paintings.. who would like the honor of whistle blower on this???? any takers??

... keep in mind the style of painting being "ripped off" here is technically basic, easy to duplicate and artistically unsophisticated... a quick buck is simply that - a quick buck... the style is by and large cute and that is the appeal... moms and grandmoms around the world duplicate "cute" relentlessly and no one is blowing the whistle on them...

..that doesn't make it right..if I was shag I'd have my lawyer send this guy a letter a.s.a.p....it's an obvious infringement of particular paintings of which shag and none other was the originator of....this guy is making a "quick buck" off someone elses sweat , labor and ideas. Apparently you think this is okay, under the flawed logic of "every one is doing it, so what's the big deal" ...here's a concept, how about this guy make an "honest buck" on his own ideas for a change, after all, he claims to have so much artistic background, you would think he might have an original idea rattling around in that pea-brain of his...sure, people copy and borrow all the time, some more blatantly than others, but remember- "just because a million people follow a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea...a majority does not make it right". When the "rip-off", as in this case is so obviously a knock-off and not a case of borrowing, how can you honestly lump this into the same catagory as grandmas and such painting cute things....c.mon dude, use your head..

On 2005-12-27 11:28, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

..that doesn't make it right..if I was shag I'd have my lawyer send this guy a letter a.s.a.p....it's an obvious infringement of particular paintings of which shag and none other was the originator of....this guy is making a "quick buck" off someone elses sweat , labor and ideas...

... in that case, hire an attorney and let the attorney do his/her thing... pretty straightforward... this stuff happens all the time... stay cool...

true enough....I just want to point out one more thing...if someone wants to copy a work of art for their own private use, there isn't anything legal that an artist can do about it...just be flattered i guess...it's only when that same copied piece is in turn sold by the counterfeiter his/herself that a legal line has been crossed, for now they are taking someones intellectual property(in this case, an unmistakable shag image)and selling it for a profit of which the original artist(shag) recieves no monetary compensation....I can make copies of shag paintings till my head falls off and if all I do with them is give them away to friends or hang them on my wall, nothing illegal has taken place(ethical maybe, but not illegal)...only when financial gain enters into the picture, as in selling those same copies, does the problem occur....we owe it to ourselves as well as our fellow artists to be vigilant of things like this....If they continue to go unpunished or dealt with, it sends the message that it's okay to steal, cause no one is going to stop you if you do.....and with that, i'll end my rant..

thanks for bendin' an ear....

Along these same lines . . I had considered entering my latest carving in a local art contest but decided against it because it was my original intention to COPY this tiki (artist unknown?) from BOT. Now if I'd intended to BASE it on the photo with some ideas of my own thrown in I wouldn't feel wrong about entering it. Even though mine IS different, I think it's too much the same to consider it an ORIGINAL work.

What about this situation: someone reproducing some tacky wall art from a company that mass-produced everything they sold but is no longer in business?

What if you can't contact anyone to get clearance?

Touchy stuff. If it makes you at all uncomfortable, don't do it. You have to sleep at night.

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-29 05:04 ]

Here is my understanding of copyright on these type of things. Before 1978 (I think) to copyright your art you needed to file paperwork with the library of congress. Your copyright was good for 14 years after which it could be renewed for 14 more years. This means anything produced before 1950 is public domain. Because of Mickey Mouse things have changed since 1978. (they had to change the rules so Mickey wouldn't become public domain) One of those things is that you no linger need to file your designs with the library of congress, everything is copyrighted the minute it is signed or completed by the artist. However registering work is still recommended. I'm not sure of how long but copyrights last a whole lot longer now.

..I hear it's for the lifetime of the artist, plus 50 yrs after the artists death....quite a change...thanks walt!!! now my kids will have a college fund.

Always file with the library of congress( though it's true, you do not have to)..the $30 it cost per submission will save you thousands down the road and win you court cases due to the fact that a legal record of the artwork in question holds more power in court than debating exactly when you created the work by simply signing and dating it.

Question.... can religous items be copyrited?

I had to laugh at the description that they are a trained artist. What?? A well trained rip off artist maybe!

http://cgi.ebay.com/CONTEMPORARY-POP-ART-SHAG-TIKI-LOUNGE-PAINTING-18x33-in_W0QQitemZ120454082963QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Paintings?hash=item1c0b9f7193&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Well the one good thing about this one is that..well I don't think Shag has to be too worried about her stealing his painting concepts. If she hadn't said it...I would of been pressed to compare her work to his!

Its crazy how even a copy of a simple Shag illustration can go wrong. If you're gonna copy it, why not really copy it? I guess that's why Shag gets paid the big bucks, he's got the rendering and the ideas down!

[ Edited by: TIKI DAVID 2009-08-05 10:19 ]

Oh lordy someone bid on it. I laugh to keep from crying! For those of you not familiar with the original by Shag it was called "The Benevolent Idol"