San Jose concept jersey

[Roger Clemente]

This is getting out of hand with stolen logos and templates. There really should be rules in place for submitting concepts to the board. At the very least some kind of honour system should be in place.

1. Of course no logo should be stolen from another board member. No exceptions.

2. No logo should be stolen from another league and applied to another franchise. Really, is there any point to the San Jose Sharks stealing a logo from an Australian team?

3. No existing template shall be recoloured and submitted as one's own work.

4. No original work should be reposted on the board by someone other than the author. If you can find the graphic online you can find the author. It's disrespectful to take their work and repost it without their permission.

In regards to number 1, permission should always be asked before using a board members original artwork. The exception is when someone says they would like to see people freely try concepts with logos they have created, or it is something that could classify under what we probably consider the "CCSLC public domain", such as jersey templates and team number kits that were created by people, such as myself, for general use by the members of this community to make conceptual design easier.

In regards to number 2, there have been many concepts made by taking logos from other professional leagues and applying them to other sport jerseys, not just for the sake of a crossover, but as a genuine concept for a team where the logo in use compliments a design better (like say, if someone wanted to use the NFL's Cincinatti Bengals tiger logo in a concept for the WHL's Medicine Hat Tigers) or a logo does not currently exist or the conceptual artist is unable to create one. In these cases, as long as it is mentioned where the logo came from, I find it acceptable from a purely ideal perspective (because it'll legally never become a real jersey.)

In regards to number 3, I think the same thing I said in regards to number 1 should also apply, because, there are some actual blank templates that exist with pre-existing lines and maps on them that some people may use for a the basis of a genuinely good design. However, there are some concepts that someone may post with a new striping design that someone else may think could work well with another team. Unless the original author expresses interest in creating the requested design, if the person is given permission by the author, then they should be free to try this concept.

In regards to number 4, I don't think there is anything wrong with reposting another member's original artwork if it is relevant to the topic and the original author is not available, like say, trying to show where

someone else may have "stolen a concept", as long as the original author is mentioned with his or her accompanying production AND as long as it remains SOLELY within the message board where it was posted before.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Leonard]

If I may say so, the jersey looks very nice. Very nice indeed.

[VitaminD]

If I may say so, the jersey looks very nice. Very nice indeed.

No, you may not say it.

And you may not artifically inflate your post totals by saying "it looks nice" in every thread either. C&C is saying more than "it's good" or "THAT SUCKS!"; the thread starter is looking for a detailed, informed analysis of his/her work. Saying you like it without any support of your opinion is a wasted post.

In this case, what about it looks nice? Most people who've been here more than a couple months [correctly] identified the "concept" as doubly stolen: the logo from an Australian team, the sweater striping and overall design from KaTo's Sabres concept (which is an actual concept). Moreover, it's a sloppily done concept at that. So again, I ask: what "looks very nice"?

[BBTV]

Meh. Needs stripes.

[FlyersHockey1967]

This is getting out of hand with stolen logos and templates. There really should be rules in place for submitting concepts to the board. At the very least some kind of honour system should be in place.

1. Of course no logo should be stolen from another board member. No exceptions.

2. No logo should be stolen from another league and applied to another franchise. Really, is there any point to the San Jose Sharks stealing a logo from an Australian team?

3. No existing template shall be recoloured and submitted as one's own work.

4. No original work should be reposted on the board by someone other than the author. If you can find the graphic online you can find the author. It's disrespectful to take their work and repost it without their permission.

To put number 4 in perspective, I guess it's illegal for me to have an avatar with the Flyers wordmark, RC to have the Ducks logo in his sig, and JCC to have the Habs logo in his?

I know what your intentions are and I agree with these rules, but as far as I am concerned, it can be difficult to impose this "reposting" rule with regards to visitors who take ideas off this board and post them in some other board, taking credit for it.

I think there should be a little footnote below number 4 saying "If it's not watermarked, it is anyone's to repost".

[VitaminD]

This is getting out of hand with stolen logos and templates. There really should be rules in place for submitting concepts to the board. At the very least some kind of honour system should be in place.

[...]

4. No original work should be reposted on the board by someone other than the author. If you can find the graphic online you can find the author. It's disrespectful to take their work and repost it without their permission.

To put number 4 in perspective, I guess it's illegal for me to have an avatar with the Flyers wordmark, RC to have the Ducks logo in his sig, and JCC to have the Habs logo in his?

I know what your intentions are and I agree with these rules, but as far as I am concerned, it can be difficult to impose this "reposting" rule with regards to visitors who take ideas off this board and post them in some other board, taking credit for it.

I think there should be a little footnote below number 4 saying "If it's not watermarked, it is anyone's to repost".

Not exactly. First off, he is absolutely right - if you're going to borrow the original art of someone else, just give them credit. There are far too many extremely sharp-eyed, intelligent people here who will out you as a plagiarist, and there are far too many professional designers here whose livelihoods could be threatened by plagiarism.

Next, your signature is not a concept. You did not put it up for critique, you are not trying to market it. It's something you made for you. Ditto Rog's signature. Professional sports teams' identifying marks may be used so long as the user is not profiting from them directly. Which you're not. There is a world of difference between using a team's official logo in a banner and ripping off someone else's original artwork and including it in your original work and trying to pass it off as your own. I can't explain it more simply than that.

Finally, we can't police any other community but our own. Most people abide by an honor system, but many don't. Many of the biggest offenders are the newer members who aren't as familiar with the way this place works. Fortunately, the same sharp-eyed members of this community are often members of those other boards and can keep a peripheral eye on what's going on there, and defend the artists if need be.