This shirt is truely inspiring. Great themes/ideas explored. Dynamic execution. Everything a good t should be. Definately a favourite. I'd buy one in 2 seconds if there were any left.

i have mine in my closet. very lovely

i have mine in my closet. very lovely

umm.. this is a copyrighted image that costs money in order for one to use...



take a look for yourself...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2D712F15



ya, you can also go to www.gettyimages.com and serch for "One Young Woman Only (Only Young Women) and Pollution Mask (Mask)" (no quotes) it is the first image.

umm.. this is a copyrighted image that costs money in order for one to use...



take a look for yourself...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2D712F15



ya, you can also go to www.gettyimages.com and serch for "One Young Woman Only (Only Young Women) and Pollution Mask (Mask)" (no quotes) it is the first image.

this is a copyrighted image that costs money in order for one to use...



maybe she bought it..then uses it....



anyway i think there's a difference btw vector art and a photo image...

NO HARM DONE!.

this is a copyrighted image that costs money in order for one to use...



maybe she bought it..then uses it....



anyway i think there's a difference btw vector art and a photo image...

NO HARM DONE!.

I totally agreed with Spectrum. Vectorised image is ok. It does not affects any copyright issue and stuff. Anyone can pose as the lady in that pix and get it vectorised. It doesnt matter. So chill dude. ha ha...

Nice piece here anyway. : )

I totally agreed with Spectrum. Vectorised image is ok. It does not affects any copyright issue and stuff. Anyone can pose as the lady in that pix and get it vectorised. It doesnt matter. So chill dude. ha ha...

Nice piece here anyway. : )

I'm disappointed. Thought the design was great, but just vectorising somebody else's picture... Dunno...

And, actually, vectorising or even re-making of a copyrighted image IS illegal. (Depends on, um, "profanity" of a given image: if the photography could be seen as a piece of art and therefore the artist has a copyright on it, then nobody else would be allowed to fiddle with it without the consent of the maker. Which makes sense. Cause otherwise I could make tons of, say, Dalí-style pictures, just a little bit modified, and sell them for heaps of dough, right?)

Seems that nowadays nobody cares about originality. As long as it sells, it's okay. Which is really sad. Because, as I said, i really liked it, but this kinda ruins it for me...

I'm disappointed. Thought the design was great, but just vectorising somebody else's picture... Dunno...

And, actually, vectorising or even re-making of a copyrighted image IS illegal. (Depends on, um, "profanity" of a given image: if the photography could be seen as a piece of art and therefore the artist has a copyright on it, then nobody else would be allowed to fiddle with it without the consent of the maker. Which makes sense. Cause otherwise I could make tons of, say, Dalí-style pictures, just a little bit modified, and sell them for heaps of dough, right?)

Seems that nowadays nobody cares about originality. As long as it sells, it's okay. Which is really sad. Because, as I said, i really liked it, but this kinda ruins it for me...

so what guys, every idea is inspired by something else.



this is an original design. have you seen one like it before? a photo - maybe, but its still not the same.



make more prints of this shit, i want one in a medium!

so what guys, every idea is inspired by something else.



this is an original design. have you seen one like it before? a photo - maybe, but its still not the same.



make more prints of this shit, i want one in a medium!

Although I really like this tee, Sumocat13 and buzzword are right; This image is the property of Jason Heatherington, and the shirt is a case of copyright infringement... a trend that is becoming more and more popular. It's really shitty because most designers sit on both sides of the fence; we want to use images we find in our work, but would be pissed if someone ripped us off.



And the idea that if the image in question is changed enough it's ok is a myth. Although there are clauses about "fair use" in the Copyright act, you can guarantee that using it for a commercial nature doesn't fall under "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research".



you should read www.copyright.gov

Although I really like this tee, Sumocat13 and buzzword are right; This image is the property of Jason Heatherington, and the shirt is a case of copyright infringement... a trend that is becoming more and more popular. It's really shitty because most designers sit on both sides of the fence; we want to use images we find in our work, but would be pissed if someone ripped us off.



And the idea that if the image in question is changed enough it's ok is a myth. Although there are clauses about "fair use" in the Copyright act, you can guarantee that using it for a commercial nature doesn't fall under "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research".



you should read www.copyright.gov

Oh and Giniro...



check this site:



http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/search/resultsmain.asp?txtSearch=woman+mask+alone&source=quickSearch&brand=tsi&UQR=bjymfo



I think you'll agree this photo IS the same.



It's a shame too, I gave this tee a 5.

Oh and Giniro...



check this site:



http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/search/resultsmain.asp?txtSearch=woman+mask+alone&source=quickSearch&brand=tsi&UQR=bjymfo



I think you'll agree this photo IS the same.



It's a shame too, I gave this tee a 5.

yeah RIP i saw the photo before.



so i guess if someone bases a sketch off of, say, a statue, or a little kids toy, then they are violating copyrights?



if he put the photo of the shirt on a t, then clearly it would be violating copyrights...



but he has drawn a new image that is similar to the photo...i know that doesnt violate copyrights.

yeah RIP i saw the photo before.



so i guess if someone bases a sketch off of, say, a statue, or a little kids toy, then they are violating copyrights?



if he put the photo of the shirt on a t, then clearly it would be violating copyrights...



but he has drawn a new image that is similar to the photo...i know that doesnt violate copyrights.

If I base a sketch off of, say, Klimt's "the Kiss", or Escher's "Sky & Water" then I am infringing on copyright.

Same goes for the photo that belongs to Jason Heatherington.



Depending on the likeness of the sketch, drawing something or photocopying something (or photographing something) are the same under copyright law; they're reproductions. Using your examples above; any statue was created by an artist. If he was paid by the gov. to do so and sold his rights to the piece to the gov. then most likely it is "public domain". But if the statue's artist retains the rights, then YES, drawing or photographing his work for any other reason than those outlined in the "Fair Use" section is an infrinement of copyright. As for the children's toy... imagine if you will that the toy in question is a Donald Duck doll. You base a sketch on it, stick it on a shirt and sell it by the truckload... even though the original artist gave up his rights to Disney... they have the right (and the power) to take you to court over copyright infringement. Now if the the toy was some no-name wooden truck... the artist/company would still have the same rights as Disney, but probably wouldn't have the same resources to a) find out about the infringement, or b) pursue a legal case. However, the internet is making it easier to police copyright as well as infringe upon it.



you really, really should read www.copyright.gov

If I base a sketch off of, say, Klimt's "the Kiss", or Escher's "Sky & Water" then I am infringing on copyright.

Same goes for the photo that belongs to Jason Heatherington.



Depending on the likeness of the sketch, drawing something or photocopying something (or photographing something) are the same under copyright law; they're reproductions. Using your examples above; any statue was created by an artist. If he was paid by the gov. to do so and sold his rights to the piece to the gov. then most likely it is "public domain". But if the statue's artist retains the rights, then YES, drawing or photographing his work for any other reason than those outlined in the "Fair Use" section is an infrinement of copyright. As for the children's toy... imagine if you will that the toy in question is a Donald Duck doll. You base a sketch on it, stick it on a shirt and sell it by the truckload... even though the original artist gave up his rights to Disney... they have the right (and the power) to take you to court over copyright infringement. Now if the the toy was some no-name wooden truck... the artist/company would still have the same rights as Disney, but probably wouldn't have the same resources to a) find out about the infringement, or b) pursue a legal case. However, the internet is making it easier to police copyright as well as infringe upon it.



you really, really should read www.copyright.gov

Yep, thank you RIP, totally right!!!

And, by the way, as I read Sumocat13's comment I made screenshots of both the photo and the vector image (try it for yourself): there's nothing like "based on" or "similar to the photo" - I could take the photo and use some tool like streamline and would probably, with 10 minutes of work get 100% the same result.

And, if I'm not quite mistaken: Just ask your teachers at the Ringling School of Art and Design, Giniro No Oni, they'll definitly tell you the same.

Yep, thank you RIP, totally right!!!

And, by the way, as I read Sumocat13's comment I made screenshots of both the photo and the vector image (try it for yourself): there's nothing like "based on" or "similar to the photo" - I could take the photo and use some tool like streamline and would probably, with 10 minutes of work get 100% the same result.

And, if I'm not quite mistaken: Just ask your teachers at the Ringling School of Art and Design, Giniro No Oni, they'll definitly tell you the same.

the only people who have failed to comment on all of this seems to be the jakes. either they don't know or don't care, but in the end it seems it doesn't bother them much, they are reprinting it after all....

the only people who have failed to comment on all of this seems to be the jakes. either they don't know or don't care, but in the end it seems it doesn't bother them much, they are reprinting it after all....

i know the copyrights. it was a rethorical question.



anyone that anal about copyrights basicly doesnt do anything ever i guess? you cant write anything, draw anything, or do anything "artistic" without it being based off other things, or have it be similar to something already created. so quit being a whore about it and just get over it. lol

i know the copyrights. it was a rethorical question.



anyone that anal about copyrights basicly doesnt do anything ever i guess? you cant write anything, draw anything, or do anything "artistic" without it being based off other things, or have it be similar to something already created. so quit being a whore about it and just get over it. lol

i thought i was gonna submit this comment first. haha. im so out of it. today i randomly went to getty images, because when im bored i search stock photography ( i know, its bizarre) but the main picture on the site today is outbreak girl! i was like "wait... whoaaaaaa."



but! the argument has already been raised.



i dont know how i feel about it.

it looks better as a cartoon, but hey, some guy already took the picture...



the scull and crossbones was added, but still. im a lil wary about how legal it is.



oh well.



shit happens.

i thought i was gonna submit this comment first. haha. im so out of it. today i randomly went to getty images, because when im bored i search stock photography ( i know, its bizarre) but the main picture on the site today is outbreak girl! i was like "wait... whoaaaaaa."



but! the argument has already been raised.



i dont know how i feel about it.

it looks better as a cartoon, but hey, some guy already took the picture...



the scull and crossbones was added, but still. im a lil wary about how legal it is.



oh well.



shit happens.

whoa after seeing what sumocat13 found out about the design, i'm really starting to not like the image just because it's not really as original or creative as you think. hmm...before knowing all that, i kinda liked it. now well, i wouldnt wear it because i know the story behind it. but nice vectoring, aha.

whoa after seeing what sumocat13 found out about the design, i'm really starting to not like the image just because it's not really as original or creative as you think. hmm...before knowing all that, i kinda liked it. now well, i wouldnt wear it because i know the story behind it. but nice vectoring, aha.

....did U see that these fucks (http://shop.store.yahoo.com/ytshirts/index.html) sells this tee; WITHOUT

....did U see that these fucks (http://shop.store.yahoo.com/ytshirts/index.html) sells this tee; WITHOUT

........any permit from girl_friday? May they get a burning tire around their necks!!!!!

........any permit from girl_friday? May they get a burning tire around their necks!!!!!

I just joined this site, and the "Outbreak Girl" design was one design to which I immediately gravitated. Then the controversy surrounding it made me even more interested. This is a great example for design teachers to use when they cover copyright issues with students.



I have to say, the blatant rip-off discovered by Ivan at the ytshirts Yahoo! store is "fair justice" with a good dose of irony. I believe the t-shirt design would not exist today without the original photo by Jason Heatherington. The idea of vectorizing the original photo for a t-shirt design was great. It shows the designer has a keen eye for photos, as most photographs do not translate well into 2-color vector art. The choice of black hair instead of blond also strengthens the design.



But, this design is strong because of its style... the predominate mask covering one eye, the tilted-back head, the one eye staring straight at you, the asymmetry... all of these were orchestrated by the original photographer. More specifically, it was the original photographer's creativity. Would the design be as strong if the girl was facing straight-on in a symmetrical design? Probably not.



OK, so the t-shirt is a great design. But the designer should have given credit to the photographer, and have received permission from the photographer or Getty Images (maybe the designer did this, I don't know). The t-shirt design is a collaboration of creativity, and it would not exist without both parties. But the design started with Heatherington's photo and his creativity. The fact that everyone sees the similarity proves this. If people had trouble spotting similarities, then copyright infringment may not be an issue. But in this case, the original photo is the foundation of the design not just the "inspiration".



So in all fairness, I think the credits for this design should be "designed by Girl Friday from an orignial photograph by Jason Heatherington"... or something like that. Hmmm maybe Jason should get a check for some of the profits too, or maybe he'd be content just getting a good laugh over this controversy. And don't make too many reprints of this design, because Getty Images might show some interest if the profits come rolling in. Now, as for that unscrupulous Yahoo! store...

I just joined this site, and the "Outbreak Girl" design was one design to which I immediately gravitated. Then the controversy surrounding it made me even more interested. This is a great example for design teachers to use when they cover copyright issues with students.



I have to say, the blatant rip-off discovered by Ivan at the ytshirts Yahoo! store is "fair justice" with a good dose of irony. I believe the t-shirt design would not exist today without the original photo by Jason Heatherington. The idea of vectorizing the original photo for a t-shirt design was great. It shows the designer has a keen eye for photos, as most photographs do not translate well into 2-color vector art. The choice of black hair instead of blond also strengthens the design.



But, this design is strong because of its style... the predominate mask covering one eye, the tilted-back head, the one eye staring straight at you, the asymmetry... all of these were orchestrated by the original photographer. More specifically, it was the original photographer's creativity. Would the design be as strong if the girl was facing straight-on in a symmetrical design? Probably not.



OK, so the t-shirt is a great design. But the designer should have given credit to the photographer, and have received permission from the photographer or Getty Images (maybe the designer did this, I don't know). The t-shirt design is a collaboration of creativity, and it would not exist without both parties. But the design started with Heatherington's photo and his creativity. The fact that everyone sees the similarity proves this. If people had trouble spotting similarities, then copyright infringment may not be an issue. But in this case, the original photo is the foundation of the design not just the "inspiration".



So in all fairness, I think the credits for this design should be "designed by Girl Friday from an orignial photograph by Jason Heatherington"... or something like that. Hmmm maybe Jason should get a check for some of the profits too, or maybe he'd be content just getting a good laugh over this controversy. And don't make too many reprints of this design, because Getty Images might show some interest if the profits come rolling in. Now, as for that unscrupulous Yahoo! store...

Whoa... M wilcox! Nice... I like the way you comment. Damn cool. Respect.

Whoa... M wilcox! Nice... I like the way you comment. Damn cool. Respect.

I don't care about all this copyright bullshit, she looks a lot better with dark hair

I don't care about all this copyright bullshit, she looks a lot better with dark hair

anyways...creativity or not...the pollution mask bit is a bit of a cliche, i've seen that sooo many times

in sooo many different situations.

anyways...creativity or not...the pollution mask bit is a bit of a cliche, i've seen that sooo many times

in sooo many different situations.

Simply, this design is a pathetic rip off.

Simply, this design is a pathetic rip off.

in the end the shirt is dope, I own two

in the end the shirt is dope, I own two

dont listen to any of this ppl that r being dick heads, the shirts fuckin awsome. i would bye one

dont listen to any of this ppl that r being dick heads, the shirts fuckin awsome. i would bye one

yeh this is is an amazing design, i dont understand why people have been negative about this!

yeh this is is an amazing design, i dont understand why people have been negative about this!

I love this t-shirt!!! I wore it in a production called "Sub Rosa" and everyone loved it. Its political, direct and really effective. Rip off my arse, as long as its good who cares!!

I love this t-shirt!!! I wore it in a production called "Sub Rosa" and everyone loved it. Its political, direct and really effective. Rip off my arse, as long as its good who cares!!

I wore this shirt to school, and I was stopped by my Assistant Principal and told to remove my shirt. When I asked why he said it was because my shirt was drug related. When I questioned another Assistant Principal about it he said the kids taje extacy and put vicks vapo rub on the inside of those masks to enhance the quality of their high. She also said that the Skull with the heart cross bones also represents extacy use.

I wore this shirt to school, and I was stopped by my Assistant Principal and told to remove my shirt. When I asked why he said it was because my shirt was drug related. When I questioned another Assistant Principal about it he said the kids taje extacy and put vicks vapo rub on the inside of those masks to enhance the quality of their high. She also said that the Skull with the heart cross bones also represents extacy use.

http://www.unsophisticatedgarb.com/images/inventory/shirts/masked-girl.jpg

The same shirt is for sale at unsophisticatedgarb.com ...

http://www.unsophisticatedgarb.com/images/inventory/shirts/masked-girl.jpg

The same shirt is for sale at unsophisticatedgarb.com ...

i love it...and i should buy it haha

i love it...and i should buy it haha

fyi, someone swiped your design :(



http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=__killyou

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=_bandits



which just makes me love your originals even more

i would kill for threadless to run a reprint!!!!

fyi, someone swiped your design :(



http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=__killyou

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=_bandits



which just makes me love your originals even more

i would kill for threadless to run a reprint!!!!

I got a ripoff of this in Bangkok before i'd heard of threadless.



However, it was brown/white on black, and it looked excellent!

(just an idea for any reprinting, because, ya know, i'll be needing to replace mine...)

I got a ripoff of this in Bangkok before i'd heard of threadless.



However, it was brown/white on black, and it looked excellent!

(just an idea for any reprinting, because, ya know, i'll be needing to replace mine...)

This was one of my first Threadless purchases and is still my favorite and gets the most positive feedback. Looking forward to another reprint as mine is starting to fall off my back!

This was one of my first Threadless purchases and is still my favorite and gets the most positive feedback. Looking forward to another reprint as mine is starting to fall off my back!

toxic love = first thought

this really needs to be reprinted, regardless of the copyright bickering.

Still want a reprint! Mine is destroyed.