Lions uniform changes

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Are you trying to equate plagiarism with sampling in music?

Two totally different things.

[leopard88]

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

He didn't. Can't you hear the extra "ding" between the lines? I'm sure you've seen the clips of Ice explaining the difference.

-- in case it wasn't obvious.

[rtrich11]

The Detroit News posted the winner in its Lions logo contest.

Detroit News Lions Logo Contest Winner(s)

Winning entry:

HA! I knew this had an influence from somewhere.

Why are we so quick to accuse plagiarism? I don't love the Lions logo but come on, it hardly looks like that Sea Lions logo.

I don't see it as acute plagiarism, but I DO think this is a heavy-handed influence, though. The styles are very different, but you have to note the unique posing/composition used in both. I can't give the artist props for this art where he took the idea, just executed it differently.

[John in KY]

Are you trying to equate plagiarism with sampling in music?

Two totally different things.

Not if you don't credit who you sampled and pay royalties to them - like Vanilla Ice (Queen w/David Bowie), Ton-Loc (Van Halen), etc.

Then it's either plagiarism or just plain theft.

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Theft maybe. Still not plagiarism.

Either way, this topic should get back to what matters - the new Lions uniforms.

[McCall]

Theft maybe. Still not plagiarism.

Either way, this topic should get back to what matters - the new Lions uniforms.

Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and ideas of another author and representation of them as one's own original work.

Basically, any work, literary, musical, artistical, etc. that is used and passed off by a second party as their own, is plagarism.

So yes, sampling music without permission IS plagarism.

[The_Admiral]

Artistical?

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Theft maybe. Still not plagiarism.

Either way, this topic should get back to what matters - the new Lions uniforms.

Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and ideas of another author and representation of them as one's own original work.

Basically, any work, literary, musical, artistical, etc. that is used and passed off by a second party as their own, is plagarism.

So yes, sampling music without permission IS plagarism.

Man, I don't want to derail this conversation, but I feel like this has to be addressed.

Sampling music is NOT plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you have permission to do the sampling or not.

I don't consider sampling music to be plagiarism because I consider it to be a form of art. The originators of hip hop couldn't afford to hire full bands to record backing tracks. Computers weren't common so they couldn't just make their own beats. So what did they do? They sampled elements of other music and used these elements to make an entirely new kind of art. They built upon the work of others. That's not stealing. Maybe it's stealing in a commercial sense (it's obviously not right to sell your sampled tracks without paying royalties), but it's not the same thing as plagiarism.

Sampling a beat from a Frank Sinatra song and rapping over the top of it isn't plagiarism, it's creating something new. Recording the exact same song as Frank Sinatra and calling it your own is plagiarism.

In artistic terms, none of us would say that a painter who incorporates the style of Salvator Dali in his own paintings is plagiarizing. We would say that he is incorporating an element of Dali's style in the creation of something new.

To get back to the original argument, maybe what Vanilla Ice did qualifies as plagiarism. Someone said that he passed off his samples as his own original work (I have no idea if this is true and I don't really care). If that's the case, then he plagiarized Queen. However, if a musician acknowledge that he used samples in a piece of music that he recorded, then he didn't commit plagiarism.

Sorry for the long post.

[ferrousoxide66]

Theft maybe. Still not plagiarism.

Either way, this topic should get back to what matters - the new Lions uniforms.

Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and ideas of another author and representation of them as one's own original work.

Basically, any work, literary, musical, artistical, etc. that is used and passed off by a second party as their own, is plagarism.

So yes, sampling music without permission IS plagarism.

Man, I don't want to derail this conversation, but I feel like this has to be addressed.

Sampling music is NOT plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you have permission to do the sampling or not.

I don't consider sampling music to be plagiarism because I consider it to be a form of art. The originators of hip hop couldn't afford to hire full bands to record backing tracks. Computers weren't common so they couldn't just make their own beats. So what did they do? They sampled elements of other music and used these elements to make an entirely new kind of art. They built upon the work of others. That's not stealing. Maybe it's stealing in a commercial sense (it's obviously not right to sell your sampled tracks without paying royalties), but it's not the same thing as plagiarism.

Sampling a beat from a Frank Sinatra song and rapping over the top of it isn't plagiarism, it's creating something new. Recording the exact same song as Frank Sinatra and calling it your own is plagiarism.

In artistic terms, none of us would say that a painter who incorporates the style of Salvator Dali in his own paintings is plagiarizing. We would say that he is incorporating an element of Dali's style in the creation of something new.

To get back to the original argument, maybe what Vanilla Ice did qualifies as plagiarism. Someone said that he passed off his samples as his own original work (I have no idea if this is true and I don't really care). If that's the case, then he plagiarized Queen. However, if a musician acknowledge that he used samples in a piece of music that he recorded, then he didn't commit plagiarism.

Sorry for the long post.

Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. And thanks for derailing the thread.

[ferrousoxide66]

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

He didn't. Can't you hear the extra "ding" between the lines? I'm sure you've seen the clips of Ice explaining the difference.

-- in case it wasn't obvious.

Thank you, somone got that reference. LOL!

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. And thanks for derailing the thread.

Your fantastic argument convinced me that my opinion is wrong. Since we are now all on the same page, I apologize to everyone and we can go back to discussing the Lions.

[gingerbreadmann]

The Detroit News posted the winner in its Lions logo contest.

Detroit News Lions Logo Contest Winner(s)

Winning entry:

HA! I knew this had an influence from somewhere.

Why are we so quick to accuse plagiarism? I don't love the Lions logo but come on, it hardly looks like that Sea Lions logo.

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

So if you created the Sea Lions logo and went to court against the creator of this Lions logo, you think you would have a real chance at winning? I do not doubt that the creator was influenced at least a little by the Sea Lion, in a few of the shapes (specifically that point in each of the paws, the shoulder, and the pose of the lion, but even that is different and you can't trademark a pose) specifically, but they are so minor and somewhat different from the original and the rest is SO much different, it just doesn't come close to plagiarism. If you flipped either one horizontally you would not be able to see a resemblance, especially in the face area. I cannot stress this enough. You can be as snarky and clever about it as you want, but it's just not there.

[leopard88]

To get back to the original argument, maybe what Vanilla Ice did qualifies as plagiarism. Someone said that he passed off his samples as his own original work (I have no idea if this is true and I don't really care). If that's the case, then he plagiarized Queen. However, if a musician acknowledge that he used samples in a piece of music that he recorded, then he didn't commit plagiarism.

I will agree with this part, except without the "maybe." Even in his own deluded world (see below), there was only a one note difference between the relevant parts of "Under Pressure" and "Ice, Ice Baby", yet he insists it was his own work. That = plagiarism.

If you sample someone's work and acknowledge you did so, that is not plagiarism. You may be infringing on a copyright if royalties aren't paid, but it isn't plagiarism.

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

He didn't. Can't you hear the extra "ding" between the lines? I'm sure you've seen the clips of Ice explaining the difference.

-- in case it wasn't obvious.

Thank you, somone got that reference. LOL!

[darkhaha]

MANY years ago, after hearing MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This" for the first time, a comedian frined of mine wrote a bit that went something like this:

MC Hammer comes home one day to find his wife in bed with Rick James. Hammer angrily yells, "What the hell are you doing f$#@in' my wife?"

Rick James says, "Oh, I'm not f$#@in' her -- I'm just samplin' her..."

[chakfu]

I would argue that even if the sample is not cleared and credit is not given to the original artist...the producer doing the sampling still isn't trying to "pass it off as their own work." They may be trying to save money or may be trying not to reveal their source after extensive crate digging and finding something obscure...but they're not passing off the original work as their own...and from a weird perspective one could argue that it's not really plagiarism that way.

[IceCap]

Now that logo is amazing!!!!

Yes, but it's also a rip-off of the initial Jacksonville mark.

I beginning to suspect there's very little in the way of original thought being bandied about on the Lions' mark.

Of course, since it's already been updated, it's a moot point.

1) No it's not. By your logic the current full-body Jags logo is a rip-off of the old Jacksonville mark, and so is the Bengals' leaping tiger. Aside from featuring leaping big cats all of these logos are pretty unique.

2) It's perhaps the best concept for a new Lions' mark I've seen so far.

Oh, and I'm with McCall.

[mcrosby]

enough people, when that concept was posted it was accompanied by an explanation, INCLUDING THE USE OF THE JAGS CONTROVERSIAL ORIGINAL LOGO AS INSPIRATION. can we move on

thank you

and the caps lock is necessary here, people just aren't paying attention

[oldschoolvikings]

The Detroit News posted the winner in its Lions logo contest.

Detroit News Lions Logo Contest Winner(s)

Winning entry:

HA! I knew this had an influence from somewhere.

Why are we so quick to accuse plagiarism? I don't love the Lions logo but come on, it hardly looks like that Sea Lions logo.

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

So if you created the Sea Lions logo and went to court against the creator of this Lions logo, you think you would have a real chance at winning? I do not doubt that the creator was influenced at least a little by the Sea Lion, in a few of the shapes (specifically that point in each of the paws, the shoulder, and the pose of the lion, but even that is different and you can't trademark a pose) specifically, but they are so minor and somewhat different from the original and the rest is SO much different, it just doesn't come close to plagiarism. If you flipped either one horizontally you would not be able to see a resemblance, especially in the face area. I cannot stress this enough. You can be as snarky and clever about it as you want, but it's just not there.

Are you serious? IMO that court case would be a slam dunk victory for the Sea Lions designer.

[quantum]

The Detroit News posted the winner in its Lions logo contest.

Detroit News Lions Logo Contest Winner(s)

Winning entry:

HA! I knew this had an influence from somewhere.

Why are we so quick to accuse plagiarism? I don't love the Lions logo but come on, it hardly looks like that Sea Lions logo.

Yeah, and Vanilla Ice didn't rip off Queen/Bowie.

So if you created the Sea Lions logo and went to court against the creator of this Lions logo, you think you would have a real chance at winning? I do not doubt that the creator was influenced at least a little by the Sea Lion, in a few of the shapes (specifically that point in each of the paws, the shoulder, and the pose of the lion, but even that is different and you can't trademark a pose) specifically, but they are so minor and somewhat different from the original and the rest is SO much different, it just doesn't come close to plagiarism. If you flipped either one horizontally you would not be able to see a resemblance, especially in the face area. I cannot stress this enough. You can be as snarky and clever about it as you want, but it's just not there.

Are you serious? IMO that court case would be a slam dunk victory for the Sea Lions designer.

I think a judge would find the logo an infringment.

[gingerbreadmann]

Really? Why is this such a slam dunk? I sincerely want to know.