shaydre1019 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Sorry if thi has been mentioned but I was on Facebook today and saw a post by Sportsnation, regarding Andrew Luck.I knew that looked familiar, and sure enough it appears to be the work of our very own gladsadmadI'm not sure if he gave permission or was given credit, but I thought this deserved it's own post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dissident93 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I'm fine with it as long as he was credited. Some people won't even accept that though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I really hope he got credit for it, because his work makes ESPN's "photoshops" look like they were done in MS Paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandMooreArt Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 yes thats Gladsadmads work. i can easily tell because he messed up the left shoulder stripes. lol. furthermore, they should not be using his work. the reason why its unacceptable, Dissident93, is because its stolen. that wasnt done for ESPN. they are using someone elses work to promote their own network. they may even have some issues with Getty, or wherever the original photo came from GRAPHIC ARTIST BEHANCE / MEDIUM / DRIBBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Brandon is right. They better have paid him for that, number one, and in addition, someone should have paid the image house for the original image. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phutmasterflex Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 A watermark probably would have prevented ESPN from taking this image Go A's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cola Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 A watermark probably would have prevented ESPN from taking this imageNot really. With enough time and effort, simple watermarks (the most appropriate kind) only do so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrookedThumb Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 A watermark probably would have prevented ESPN from taking this imageCopyright principles prevent ESPN from taking the image, at least rightfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 A watermark probably would have prevented ESPN from taking this imageCopyright principles prevent ESPN from taking the image, at least rightfully.Principles prevent lots of things, in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phutmasterflex Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 A watermark probably would have prevented ESPN from taking this imageNot really. With enough time and effort, simple watermarks (the most appropriate kind) only do so much.At least with a watermark, the audience will know that the image wasn't from ESPN but from another source. Go A's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kw11333 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I know for a fact ESPN pays people to do stuff like this. One of their graphic designers is on here, and stole that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 On one hand is be stoked if ESPN used my work, but i guess at the very least hopefully they asked for permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The problem is that I don't suppose gladsadmad asked the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts for permission to use the Colts logos and uniform. So it's not like he can do anything about it. But it also shows some members double standards on intellectual property rights. Happy to borrow, uncredited on one hand, unhappy to be borrowed from on the other. (Just to be clear, some intellectual property right thieving is very bad. I don't think purloining a Photoshop effort to illustrate a poll on facebook falls into that category.) 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 The problem is that I don't suppose gladsadmad asked the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts for permission to use the Colts logos and uniform. So it's not like he can do anything about it. But it also shows some members double standards on intellectual property rights. Happy to borrow, uncredited on one hand, unhappy to be borrowed from on the other. (Just to be clear, some intellectual property right thieving is very bad. I don't think purloining a Photoshop effort to illustrate a poll on facebook falls into that category.)Yeah, so like if someone were to call out ESPN directly for jacking a pic, they could call out gladsadmad for jacking the original?Well I guess neither can really get in trouble though because neither are trying to profit, right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's just a Facebook wall post, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 1334911407' post='1794218']1334909377' post='1794213']The problem is that I don't suppose gladsadmad asked the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts for permission to use the Colts logos and uniform. So it's not like he can do anything about it. But it also shows some members double standards on intellectual property rights. Happy to borrow, uncredited on one hand, unhappy to be borrowed from on the other. (Just to be clear, some intellectual property right thieving is very bad. I don't think purloining a Photoshop effort to illustrate a poll on facebook falls into that category.)Yeah, so like if someone were to call out ESPN directly for jacking a pic, they could call out gladsadmad for jacking the original?Well I guess neither can really get in trouble though because neither are trying to profit, right??huh? ESPN isn't trying to profit? You realize it's a commercial website, right? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meetthemets Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Unless he took the photo himself, or got permission to use it, he's technically stealing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrookedThumb Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The problem is that I don't suppose gladsadmad asked the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts for permission to use the Colts logos and uniform. So it's not like he can do anything about it. But it also shows some members double standards on intellectual property rights. Happy to borrow, uncredited on one hand, unhappy to be borrowed from on the other. (Just to be clear, some intellectual property right thieving is very bad. I don't think purloining a Photoshop effort to illustrate a poll on facebook falls into that category.)Unless he took the photo himself, or got permission to use it, he's tecnically stealing as well.The thing about gladsadmad's work (and most of the concepts posted on this board) is that even though it uses logos and images that belong to other people (Colts, NFL, Nike, the person who took the original Andrew Luck photo), it would most likely be considered a "Fair Use" of those images. The US Supreme Court brought forth a 4-factor Fair Use test, and it seems like gladsadmad's work passes the test and is ok. Especially since his work passes the two most important factors, nature of the work and market effect on the original works, I can't see how his image isn't fair use.ESPN, however, simply took the photo and exploited it on their Facebook page. Unless they got permission from gladsadmad, that's probably infringement.Sorry...I'm a law student, specializing in Intellectual Property, and I'm about to take a Copyright Law final in three days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 ESPN, however, simply took the photo and exploited it on their Facebook page. Unless they got permission from gladsadmad, that's probably infringement.Like I said, it's a post on a Facebook wall. It's not like they used it on air. If they used it on air, then I'd understand the problem with this but they just posted it on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The problem is that I don't suppose gladsadmad asked the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts for permission to use the Colts logos and uniform. So it's not like he can do anything about it. But it also shows some members double standards on intellectual property rights. Happy to borrow, uncredited on one hand, unhappy to be borrowed from on the other. (Just to be clear, some intellectual property right thieving is very bad. I don't think purloining a Photoshop effort to illustrate a poll on facebook falls into that category.)Unless he took the photo himself, or got permission to use it, he's tecnically stealing as well.The thing about gladsadmad's work (and most of the concepts posted on this board) is that even though it uses logos and images that belong to other people (Colts, NFL, Nike, the person who took the original Andrew Luck photo), it would most likely be considered a "Fair Use" of those images. The US Supreme Court brought forth a 4-factor Fair Use test, and it seems like gladsadmad's work passes the test and is ok. Especially since his work passes the two most important factors, nature of the work and market effect on the original works, I can't see how his image isn't fair use.ESPN, however, simply took the photo and exploited it on their Facebook page. Unless they got permission from gladsadmad, that's probably infringement.Sorry...I'm a law student, specializing in Intellectual Property, and I'm about to take a Copyright Law final in three days.Not to get into a legal minefield here, but what 'market effect' is using someone elses Photoshop going to have? What market value would the original have? and given that gladsadmad didn't do the original to profit, I don't see how he coulduse 'nature of work' as a defense either? 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.