One thing in the world of poster design that bugs me got brought up in the last class. Often bands will make posters using imagery from other works that they do not own the rights to. These guys are usually small time and nobody really gets to upset about it, but occasionally big name bands will do it too. As I've probably made clear I don't much like this kind of thing. If you are going to make something derivative from something else it had better be pretty different from the original.
Band members are not always designers though. So often don't really consider that they are ripping off someone's work when they grab imagery, or else they just don't care. Now this might seem like a trivial thing to a band. After all if they can play cover songs at a concert they why not have a 'cover poster' of sorts? Well it goes back to recognizability. If you cover a popular song or if you say "this next one is a cover of X" then you make it clear that you are borrowing something. Unless you put a disclaimer or something at the bottom of the poster then people looking at it probably won't know where it came from. If bands actually did that; had a footnote that said "imagery from so-and-so" then maybe that would be alright. Heck it would probably be great publicity for the artist.
Usually thought it's stuff that nobody cares about that gets used on band posters. A band might need a poster ASAP and have no cash or time to spare making something legit. What's more it's kind of a popular thing to do for a gig poster, so people pretty much expect it anyway. And stuff's in the public domain right? These are called excuses. If a band really wants a poster to promote their event then just hire an illustrator. It doesn't even have to be a serious thing, they can just ask a friend who draws or uses Photoshop if he would do it for twenty bucks. Small time bands should know how hard it can be for up and coming artists to get a job, so why not just support an up and coming artist? There are plenty out there who are as desperate to eat as the band is to get a poster up the night before a concert.
And in my opinion some of the best gig posters are illustrated ones. Collages of retro stuff or reused images may look cool, but an illustrated poster brings something unique to the band's image. Later if they make it big they can reuse and resell these posters without worrying about some dude crying copyright infringement. Provided that they buy the rights from the artist of course.
Lastly here's a book full of cool illustrated gig posters. Click on the preview to see some awesome illustrations.
Gig Posters Volume 1.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Inspiration or Rip-off? Rules to Consider
Looking at the examples comparing and contrasting stolen/similar work made me want to put down some rules that I consider when deciding whether something is a rip-off or not.
1. Was this made for a profit? If the derivative work was made and sold or then it whether it is a rip-off of another work or not should be considered. If some dude just made it for fun or practice then it doesn't really matter whether it is a rip-off or not. People can do what they want in their free time. Getting mad about it would be like trying to stop people from singing karaoke.
2. Does the derivative work contain actual imagery from the original (not even redrawn or anything)? If so then it is a total rip-off. If it's stuff in the public domain then it might be okay from a legal standpoint, but it is just not ethical in my opinion. Only if the original creators permission is obtained does that make it okay. Stock imagery and textures are up for grabs in a collage if the poster of the content gives permission, but randomly scouring the internet with google and taking whatever you find is not cool.
3. If they have the same idea of main look, then is it possible that two people could have come up with it? Some ideas are just archetypical. They get reused and explored so often that it's impossible to say that you came up with it in the first place. Anything with eyes as the main theme has likely been done, so as long as you aren't doing something that breaks rule #1 then it's probably okay.
4. If it is a parody or Homage then is it borrowing from something well known? This is hard to gauge, but if the work is referencing something obscure then the possibility that it could be mistaken for original work rises and the more likely it is to become a rip-off.
5. If it is for a school project then what is it being used for and how it it being used? This one's more general. School projects fall under the theoretical assumption that in the real world the student would have permission to use the imagery. After all you can't expect a student to go out and hire a photographer for an ad project. A real world situation would have a budget, but trying to make students buy rights to everything would just make it impossible to learn and keep them from exploring ideas. Just make sure to consider how it is used. For example taking a photo from the internet and using it in a magazine ad project is okay, but taking the same photo and turning it in to a photo class is not. Common sense really. Just don't try to sell schoolwork that would be plagiarism in the real world.
1. Was this made for a profit? If the derivative work was made and sold or then it whether it is a rip-off of another work or not should be considered. If some dude just made it for fun or practice then it doesn't really matter whether it is a rip-off or not. People can do what they want in their free time. Getting mad about it would be like trying to stop people from singing karaoke.
2. Does the derivative work contain actual imagery from the original (not even redrawn or anything)? If so then it is a total rip-off. If it's stuff in the public domain then it might be okay from a legal standpoint, but it is just not ethical in my opinion. Only if the original creators permission is obtained does that make it okay. Stock imagery and textures are up for grabs in a collage if the poster of the content gives permission, but randomly scouring the internet with google and taking whatever you find is not cool.
3. If they have the same idea of main look, then is it possible that two people could have come up with it? Some ideas are just archetypical. They get reused and explored so often that it's impossible to say that you came up with it in the first place. Anything with eyes as the main theme has likely been done, so as long as you aren't doing something that breaks rule #1 then it's probably okay.
4. If it is a parody or Homage then is it borrowing from something well known? This is hard to gauge, but if the work is referencing something obscure then the possibility that it could be mistaken for original work rises and the more likely it is to become a rip-off.
5. If it is for a school project then what is it being used for and how it it being used? This one's more general. School projects fall under the theoretical assumption that in the real world the student would have permission to use the imagery. After all you can't expect a student to go out and hire a photographer for an ad project. A real world situation would have a budget, but trying to make students buy rights to everything would just make it impossible to learn and keep them from exploring ideas. Just make sure to consider how it is used. For example taking a photo from the internet and using it in a magazine ad project is okay, but taking the same photo and turning it in to a photo class is not. Common sense really. Just don't try to sell schoolwork that would be plagiarism in the real world.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Most Important Part of a Business
The list of things to obtain and accomplish before starting a small business can be long and complex, covering everything from filling out acknowledgement of existence forms to health benefits for workers. It's time to start talking about the most important part of running a business. The one thing that is by far the most important thing possible to running a business. That's right; buying a nice printer.
Things to consider when buying printers include: what is it's intended purpose, how much are you willing to spend, and where you are going to put it. If you need to be printing a bunch of business documents all them time, from multiple computers, then you may want to consider a office printer with a touch screen like the ones at Fedex Kinkos for a few thousand dollars. The behemoths of office printing offer fancy printing options such as double sided printing, ability to print on heavy paper stock, bulk copying, gloss coatings, and sometimes even binding options. Cheaper alternatives include the fancier desktop printers that generally go for $300 dollars and up. These offer you almost the same quality as the large ones but with less paper handling options and paper trays. On the other hand you might be a traveling business, in which case you can't very well lug one of those around. Except that I am totally planning to put a hugeass printer in an RV and hauling it around. But don't be like me; I'm not right in the head. Instead go for a nice portable printer. There are a bunch of portable printers out there that are made for businessmen on the go that are about the size of a briefcase. Also useful for providing clients on the spot prints if you are a freelance illustrator. Not the best if you are gonna do a lot of stuff though.
Another option is renting a printer from a business like RJ Young. They will repair and unjank your printer for you. The downside is that it can end up being a costly service in the long run, but a larger business may be fine with paying the fees to keep guaranteed support.
Things to consider when buying printers include: what is it's intended purpose, how much are you willing to spend, and where you are going to put it. If you need to be printing a bunch of business documents all them time, from multiple computers, then you may want to consider a office printer with a touch screen like the ones at Fedex Kinkos for a few thousand dollars. The behemoths of office printing offer fancy printing options such as double sided printing, ability to print on heavy paper stock, bulk copying, gloss coatings, and sometimes even binding options. Cheaper alternatives include the fancier desktop printers that generally go for $300 dollars and up. These offer you almost the same quality as the large ones but with less paper handling options and paper trays. On the other hand you might be a traveling business, in which case you can't very well lug one of those around. Except that I am totally planning to put a hugeass printer in an RV and hauling it around. But don't be like me; I'm not right in the head. Instead go for a nice portable printer. There are a bunch of portable printers out there that are made for businessmen on the go that are about the size of a briefcase. Also useful for providing clients on the spot prints if you are a freelance illustrator. Not the best if you are gonna do a lot of stuff though.
Another option is renting a printer from a business like RJ Young. They will repair and unjank your printer for you. The downside is that it can end up being a costly service in the long run, but a larger business may be fine with paying the fees to keep guaranteed support.
Goofy Businesses
In preparation for making a mock business for class I started looking at ideas for businesses. Ideally I would like to use the business I would like to one day start with Jordon; Chickenworks, an Illustration Studio. In the event that we can't do the same business I will probably come up with something completely wacky. I took a look at some lists of weird businesses and found the following gems.
Turtle Transit is a business that will take a vehicle and turn it an advertising vehicle. They will make your car look completely like a pig. With wheels.
CLOO is a phone app that gives you access to a network of residential bathroom hosts. Designed for people walking around the city who are in need of a nearby toilet, this company offers a service where you can use your gps to locate CLOO hosts nearby and send a request to use their john. If they accept then a fee of about two bucks is transferred to the hosts account through the service.
Shitsenders.com is a business that will mail your choice of cow, elephant, or gorilla poop to an address of your choice. Shitsenders keeps you anonymous so that you can exact your petty revenge on whoever your diabolic wrath falls on. They also claim no liability for sending your ex-boss a box of poop.
Turtle Transit is a business that will take a vehicle and turn it an advertising vehicle. They will make your car look completely like a pig. With wheels.
CLOO is a phone app that gives you access to a network of residential bathroom hosts. Designed for people walking around the city who are in need of a nearby toilet, this company offers a service where you can use your gps to locate CLOO hosts nearby and send a request to use their john. If they accept then a fee of about two bucks is transferred to the hosts account through the service.
I'll spare you the image I was going to put for this one.
Shitsenders.com is a business that will mail your choice of cow, elephant, or gorilla poop to an address of your choice. Shitsenders keeps you anonymous so that you can exact your petty revenge on whoever your diabolic wrath falls on. They also claim no liability for sending your ex-boss a box of poop.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Tax Returns.
One of the most loathed parts of employment and business is when it comes time for tax returns. Maybe some people hate having to fill out forms to ask for a portion of their money back from the govenment. Personally I just hate filling out forms. Something about being quizzed by a sheet of paper that determines something important just bothers me. I think it's because you can't just ask the paper questions, so it's up to you to fill it out right, or seek out someone who maybe knows how to go about it, but you don't really know if they know or if they just think they know. I don't know. Know.
But as the deadline for tax returns draws closer and I start to begrudgingly think about filling out those awful papers that I should be happy to fill out because they give me money I remember that this is related to business practices.
When going to school or owning a business there are things you can write off as related expenses that they will actually reimburse you for. It's like they are paying you to just to get off your butt. I know people that run their own businesses that can write of things that are vaguely related and get money back for it. As a student I have written off school expenses and gotten reimbursed for it. I bought a computer and reported it as an educational expense because I am a graphic design student and a digital illustrator. I got back enough to buy another computer. So I bought another computer and did the same thing. Then I had enough to buy a third computer. Instead of just creating a chain of quasi-free computers I just put it in the bank, but you get the idea. Save all your receipts for art supplies and everything. I think they are counting on people not bothering to look into it, which works out great for people who do.
But as the deadline for tax returns draws closer and I start to begrudgingly think about filling out those awful papers that I should be happy to fill out because they give me money I remember that this is related to business practices.
When going to school or owning a business there are things you can write off as related expenses that they will actually reimburse you for. It's like they are paying you to just to get off your butt. I know people that run their own businesses that can write of things that are vaguely related and get money back for it. As a student I have written off school expenses and gotten reimbursed for it. I bought a computer and reported it as an educational expense because I am a graphic design student and a digital illustrator. I got back enough to buy another computer. So I bought another computer and did the same thing. Then I had enough to buy a third computer. Instead of just creating a chain of quasi-free computers I just put it in the bank, but you get the idea. Save all your receipts for art supplies and everything. I think they are counting on people not bothering to look into it, which works out great for people who do.
Walking the Walk
In high school there was term that got thrown around a lot. A poser is someone who pretends to be someone they are not in order to stand out, fit in, or generally make themselves look cooler. If you thought this behavior was limited to high schools then you were probably very disappointed when you started college. Even in a "professional" office environment these people exist. Right now they are existing about as hard as you can possibly exist, which is to say that you'll never be rid of them.
So if a résumé is a place where you can talk up your best qualities and experience while omitting any unnecessary negativity you can imagine that some people like to talk as if they are a lot more qualified than they really are. These people can end up getting jobs that they shouldn't because people don't bother to look into their claims. We all like to make people think we are better than we really are, but when it comes to getting a job boasting too much can cause serious trouble.When you obtain a design position and it is revealed that you don't know what CMYK is there is going to be some backpedaling. Often the braggarts end up getting jobs that don't really require that much expertise anyway, or the employer simply doesn't care and just picked the best looking chore boy. Other times someone unqualified gets put in charge of something important.
One story that was kinda shocking was the story of how a woman in charge of government information got her job with a bogus degree. Laura L. Callahan got a job as the Department of Homeland Security's deputy chief information officer in 2003. She was very proud of her PHD and insisted on being called Doctor and was generally a haughty ass about it by doing things like firing people for not understanding every word of her colorful vocabulary.
Well one employee had his suspicions when she mentioned that she got her degree at Hamilton University. Not the school in New York that produces Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State; that would be Hamilton College. Hamilton University is a church that believes that all education is equal and sells you a degree if you can pass an open book exam. Also they will happily backdate your fake degree for you. So yeah, there's that. She resigned after the investigation. Did I mention that before that she was the Senior IT manager at the White House and was involved in an incident where valuable information was lost due to "a bug?"
While it's nice to talk up you abilities and whatnot, it's important to shop for shoes that you are going to grow into. If the position you are seeking requires a little more than you have done in the past, but you feel like you can learn on the job without becoming a liability, then sure go for it. Just don't act like you are qualified when you aren't even close. To quote some goofy cartoon surfer: "don't write a check your tush can't cash."
Here's some more outlandish résumé charlatans.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Digital art seems to get plagiarized a lot....
I was recently at an art competition award show in which one of the winning pieces was a stolen image. One of the illustrations, was taken from copyrighted video game concept art owned by a large entertainment company and a couple of Photoshop filters were applied to it. A guy I knew recognized it and blew the whistle after the show. It wasn't a small competition either. All I could think was "how stupid do you have to be to think you could get away with this?" I also probably said it out loud a dozen times or so.
A digital artist I follow had a similar run in when a high school girl entered one of her pictures in a contest to win a $10,000 scholarship. She was caught and fans of the artist brought it to light. The artist herself though was nice about it and after all was said and done asked people not to blacklist her, since she ended up being removed from the competition and the award was given to someone else. Here's her journal entry about it.
Furthermore as a popular artist her work is all over the internet, and sometimes people will actually accuse her of stealing her own work. The silly things people do.
That kind of thing really bothers me. I don't mind when someone wants to paint fanart of a copyrighted character or a famous person and sell it because the artist isn't taking claim for creating the idea, they are just making something based on it. They are producing a whole new thing. So long as they don't try to claim they came up with the material I see no real harm in selling fanart in small quantities. I mean all those airbrush-shirt people can do it, and I don't see how Warner Brothers is going to lose out just because some dude sells a cheap t-shirt with some lobotomized versions of Loony Tunes painted on. But I digress.
As a digital painter I spend countless hours drawing and painting, and can't stand to see someone take someone else's work and run some bs filters on it, or collage it into some crap that barely qualifies as a collage and fit's more in line with "I put hats and mustaches on it and think it's cute." What's worse is when you give no credit to the artists you take it from. Worse still is when you claim you made it and enter it in a competition. Being a digital artist I hear about computer based work get stolen a lot. Because of the nature of digital work it's hard to tell when it's stolen because google ganking a picture and printing something out takes little effort and is impossible to spot a counterfeit unless you already know the source. Because y'know it's not an oil painting or something which would have to be painstakingly copied to pass inspection.
I suppose the advantage the internet affords of getting alot of exposure for your work also means higher risk of art theft, be people really should knock it off. Or rather stop making knock offs. Something like that.
A digital artist I follow had a similar run in when a high school girl entered one of her pictures in a contest to win a $10,000 scholarship. She was caught and fans of the artist brought it to light. The artist herself though was nice about it and after all was said and done asked people not to blacklist her, since she ended up being removed from the competition and the award was given to someone else. Here's her journal entry about it.
Furthermore as a popular artist her work is all over the internet, and sometimes people will actually accuse her of stealing her own work. The silly things people do.
That kind of thing really bothers me. I don't mind when someone wants to paint fanart of a copyrighted character or a famous person and sell it because the artist isn't taking claim for creating the idea, they are just making something based on it. They are producing a whole new thing. So long as they don't try to claim they came up with the material I see no real harm in selling fanart in small quantities. I mean all those airbrush-shirt people can do it, and I don't see how Warner Brothers is going to lose out just because some dude sells a cheap t-shirt with some lobotomized versions of Loony Tunes painted on. But I digress.
As a digital painter I spend countless hours drawing and painting, and can't stand to see someone take someone else's work and run some bs filters on it, or collage it into some crap that barely qualifies as a collage and fit's more in line with "I put hats and mustaches on it and think it's cute." What's worse is when you give no credit to the artists you take it from. Worse still is when you claim you made it and enter it in a competition. Being a digital artist I hear about computer based work get stolen a lot. Because of the nature of digital work it's hard to tell when it's stolen because google ganking a picture and printing something out takes little effort and is impossible to spot a counterfeit unless you already know the source. Because y'know it's not an oil painting or something which would have to be painstakingly copied to pass inspection.
I suppose the advantage the internet affords of getting alot of exposure for your work also means higher risk of art theft, be people really should knock it off. Or rather stop making knock offs. Something like that.
Getting the Job at All Costs
The whole point of writing a résumé and building a portfolio is to get your name out there and get hired. Some people don't like to take such a passive approach to advertising themselves. Here's a couple people who will stop at nothing to land the job they are gunning for:
Peter Grosz and T.J. Jagodowski, The two guys from the Sonic drive through commercials had a job doing said advertisements for eight years. The improv comedy skits were popular enough to have then run for nearly a decade, but Sonic's new management decided to end the commercials.
The two decided the show running and continued making drive though car style videos and putting them on youtube getting a bunch of attention from fans in the hoped pf getting their jobs back. They even made this video where they supposedly call the CEO in a comedy routine to get rehired.
Effectiveness? They have a lot of fans and now a lot of publicity. If sonic won't hire them someone else probably will. The story.
David Schwartz wanted to become a mental health counselor. He attended Webster Universities counseling program where he was well on his way to becoming one. Problem is that the school didn't think he was up for the job. They said he lacked the ability to empathize with others necessary to be a counselor, and kicked him out of the program. Dead set on pursuing counseling (and not the kind he should have been pursuing) Schwartz decided to get an attorney and hold a publicity stunt which he called an "empathy workshop."
The event was to be held at the Saint Louis Zoo at the polar bear exhibit, which unfortunately bears no bears after the last one died in 2009. Soooo he was going to hold a workshop where he voiced how sad he was over the loss of the bear. The zoo called shenanigans on him and asked him not to go through with it because they don't want some dude gathering a bunch of people and causing a scene on their property. His lawyer then released a note that said Schwartz had cancelled the workshop because he empathized with the concern for interfering with the "zoo visitor experience" and that perhaps his client was empathetic after all. Yeah. Effectiveness? Remains to be seen but the whole thing seems a little stiff. The story.
Peter Grosz and T.J. Jagodowski, The two guys from the Sonic drive through commercials had a job doing said advertisements for eight years. The improv comedy skits were popular enough to have then run for nearly a decade, but Sonic's new management decided to end the commercials.
The two decided the show running and continued making drive though car style videos and putting them on youtube getting a bunch of attention from fans in the hoped pf getting their jobs back. They even made this video where they supposedly call the CEO in a comedy routine to get rehired.
Effectiveness? They have a lot of fans and now a lot of publicity. If sonic won't hire them someone else probably will. The story.
David Schwartz wanted to become a mental health counselor. He attended Webster Universities counseling program where he was well on his way to becoming one. Problem is that the school didn't think he was up for the job. They said he lacked the ability to empathize with others necessary to be a counselor, and kicked him out of the program. Dead set on pursuing counseling (and not the kind he should have been pursuing) Schwartz decided to get an attorney and hold a publicity stunt which he called an "empathy workshop."
The event was to be held at the Saint Louis Zoo at the polar bear exhibit, which unfortunately bears no bears after the last one died in 2009. Soooo he was going to hold a workshop where he voiced how sad he was over the loss of the bear. The zoo called shenanigans on him and asked him not to go through with it because they don't want some dude gathering a bunch of people and causing a scene on their property. His lawyer then released a note that said Schwartz had cancelled the workshop because he empathized with the concern for interfering with the "zoo visitor experience" and that perhaps his client was empathetic after all. Yeah. Effectiveness? Remains to be seen but the whole thing seems a little stiff. The story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)