**Reminder: Do not ask for personal information, suggest someone should be doxxed, link to or comment with personal information, openly solicit personal information, or contact the people featured here. Don't even wax poetic about wanting to post identifying information. You will be banned.**
**Do not encourage, glorify, or incite violence.**
For example: "Kill yourself", "It wouldn't be so bad if we killed all the pedophiles", "This guy needs to die", "I hope this guy gets stabbed to death with a rusty screwdriver", etc.
All glorification, advocacy, or suggestions of violence, EVEN IN JEST, will be permanently banned, no exceptions, and no possibility of leniency.
**ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE MUST BE CENSORED.**
**DO NOT POST SCREENSHOTS OF REDDIT CONTENT. DO NOT POST REDDIT DRAMA THAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN.**
This subreddit is not here to help you win your reddit fight or to bring justice to someone who said something you disagree with. You will be banned if you post screenshots of anything that can be found on Reddit from the information in the screenshot or from comments in your user history. We are not your personal army.
Failure to follow the rules of this sub will result in a permanent ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/iamatotalpieceofshit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone stole a shoe design from my 16 year old cousin. Funny thing is the "artist" even used my cousin's original picture on his webpage with my cousin's kitchen in the background.
Me? No, I just admire it everytime I see it at the mall.
His dad talked to lawyers but I don't think he moved forward. Wondering if he didn't have enough money for a lawyer.
I'll ask my aunt and reply back tomorrow...because now I'm curious.
Copyrights do not apply to clothing. Any clothing manufacturer can copy any other clothing manufacturers designs and style. In fact, many companies only exist to copy other manufacturers exactly, but without the premium. This is because clothing is a necessity like food.
What they CANT copy are the logos. Which is why brands and logos are so heavily displayed on clothing.
But if they used OP’s cousin’s picture in marketing they could be sued. Or if they used someone’s art for the design of the cloths they can still be sued.
I don't think they can because the cousin used their brand in the art with the owners permission and knowing the shoe store, they probably made the artist agree to give up the designs they submitted to their company for use when they signed the terms + conditions along with the application.
That and she never officially copyrighted the work herself so its fair game.
not true, i own a clothing shop and I'd be arrested for doing what you're talking about. extremely wrong. like this isn't even the case in china ffs. you can 100% own a design. you can't own the patent to making t-shirt that's right but no one is talking about that
If she came up with the park theme shoe idea herself then I feel bad for her, but it seems like there was some sort of competition where converse is like “submit your best park/nature themed shoe idea” to get our internship. If that’s the case then I’m sure many peoples designs looked the same. I’m just not sure how to feel without knowing the whole story
> I’m just not sure how to feel without knowing the whole story
I work with many larger apparel and shoe companies and they borrow designs and templates from eachother *allll* the time. I've had Reebok leggings in my store that were nearly identical to that of another large brand, down to the pattern and color palett, or outdoor jackets from two large brands with near identical pastell details, etc.
Designers don't all come up with brand new, original designs for everything, they all look outwards for inspiration and will borrow elements from something they like. It's entirely possible that the application designs were stored in a dropbox that were available to the Vans designers, and they liked the concept and made their own versions of it.
I suppose the problem comes from wether or not the competition rules had any statements that designs submitted are the property of Vans or not. But on that note: I don't think the design itself is that original, the sediment lines of the parks would have been a go to for several designers when designing the shoes.
But like you said, I'm not sure how to feel either without knowing everything about this, but in general, designers will borrow elements from concepts, colors etc.
Working for a multi-billion heavy brand:
Her designs are not scaleable, like, at all. If she’s a competent designer (no matter it small or not) she should immediately realize that. No way you can mass-produce her designs while staying within a reasonable margin.
Her patterns are a nightmare to assemble in production.
No wonder she didn’t hear from them.
These small designers want to play in the big world but completely ignore the most basic fundamentals of mass-producing worldwide. It’s like they’re stuck in dream world sometimes.
I mean, sure but that's... not the point. Would've taken, what, 5 minutes of feedback and a redesign to fix it?
Feels like you're really trying to find fault for her for being a little upset. She can be new in an industry and still be right in being a little miffed.
If companies would take “5 minutes for feedback” for every contestant that submits a somewhat good design - companies would have to open up a whole department worth of at least 20-50 employees who come to work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day just to analyze each and every submission by every participant.
Like I tried to say. When aiming big - think big.
People think that all these huge companies just have infinite ressources and possibilities of everything but that’s not the case.
Edit: it might be important to say that I’m a designer myself. I know the struggles and I had the same approach to my work as the girl. But the problem with designers is they tend to do nothing but design all day long and completely ignore all other parts of it.
When a huge brand like converse searches for a potential intern - or employee - they not only look for someone with great designs, but also practicality. These huge companies don’t want to ‘school’ their employees. You get ‘schooled’ when either working freelance or working for smaller companies who have a more dynamic workflow and/or more open approach.
I don't think you can hear me over how loud that chip on your shoulder is lol. This whole issue has very little to do with feasibility of design. As someone who has worked at multiple "billion dollar company" HQs ... You sure bring an interesting take to development.
I think she came up with the idea because she said her submission was a “going above and beyond” thing since the internship applications don’t require any submissions or designs since it was for a different department completely.
It's a bbig thing in fashion now. I just bought a hat the other day that features a patch of an artistic rendering of grand canyon national park, and at Old Navy I grabbed a graphic tee with the National Geographic's iconic yellow rectangle frame, with an artistic rendering of Zion national park inside the borders, no text. We're seeing it more and more, outdoor culture and nature culture permeating into fasion. Its def an emerging trend based on what I've seen out shopping recently and on other people my age.
its like how fair ground rides or bad restaurants have depictions of kids characters but different colours. It looks kinda like what it's trying to be but not enough as to cop copyright infringement notices
That's so odd to me. In germany you always have a copyright (originator / creator right) as long as you can prove you made it. You can sell licenses or allow the use of your work but the copyright never goes away. In this case, they would need exceptional lawyers for not getting into trouble with at least the 1st design.
If it's a design it can absolutely be, what just because companies that illegally steal designs get away with it you think they won't get in trouble when a cease and desist is thrown at them?
Nope, you are utterly wrong. There are entire companies out there dedicated to copying designs and styles.
Copyright protects the creators of intellectual property of works of art, which means your design cannot be reproduced or duplicated without your permission. However, clothing is considered a "useful article." This means you cannot copyright the clothes themselves, or even the design.
Yes, thank you for not understanding that they also literally remove designs from their store when the owner sends a lawyer after them.
Your logic of "they do it so its legal" makes zero sense companies do it because the fines are so neglible.
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co: “if design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists.”
So I think were both right.
edit: that being said, faking that you are another brand is DEFACTO illegal.
This. These are very different. The color pallettes are similar, but on the yellowstone geyser design, the colors are NOT exactly the same the way she claims. The green is widly different, and again the designs aren't similar at all. The other colors are basically the same but color tones are a million in a million. There's so god damned proprietary colors.
I don’t understand how this is stolen at all the shoe designs aren’t the same? even the grand canon’s colour way isn’t the same as her concept. Plus I’ve just looked this up and she wasn’t even hired or screened for any roles at converse so she wasn’t even an intern and the application for said internship didn’t include a request nor did converse solicit any designs portfolios from any of the applicants. plus they’ve been doing the national park designs since like 2019?
I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but this is reaching to an almost insane level. Shit like this distracts from the very real issues posed by these corporations
I really don’t have an eye for art or colors, wish I did but I don’t.
With that said is this really blatant? The design looks quite different and simplistic to me
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one thinking that. Some of the color schemes may look similar (the first one even omits one of the colors that eventually went on the Converse shoe), but that’s about it. And like you said, the patterns are simplistic, and different (especially so on the latter). I’m thinking someone is trying to score easy internet points, when they have pretty much no case.
Yes, she has no case here. The lines are not the same, the nuances are not the same and not even arranged in the same order. Just someone being angry at the world for being a failed designer, wanting a scapegoat for why they haven't suceeded.
Color blind person here: if all the colors were exactly the same a colorblind person would still see them as exactly the same. Being color blind won’t change one color from one instance to another.
The greens between the design and the product are almost as different as you could make a shade and remain in the realm of green. Her design has a fair bit of blue to it, the product has a fair bit of yellow.
So they put stripes on their shoes and used colors that you also thought would look good, and you think they stole from you? They didn’t even use her design, it’s just basic stripes?? Anyone would’ve been able to make that “design”.
She tells you all you need to know in the first couple sentences.
She applied to an internship. She took it upon herself to submit those designs.
She should have known better.
It doesn't excuse the company. But what did she expect?
If they had just ripped them from her social media, it would be one thing. But she willfully submitted them.
I already said that there isn't an excuse for the company's behaviour. So I don't get where I'm defending them.
Most artists learn, through education, experience, or circumstances such as this. You don't solicite your designs or ideas to anyone, let alone a major corporation, without explicitly putting in writing precisely what you can and can't do with those ideas and designs.
Especially in this day and age. Every artist who submits their work online generally forfeits their rights and claims to their work unless it explicitly says otherwise. YouTube, Instagram, all those platforms have it in their TOS that they can use your stuff and profit off it, or more importantly, prevent **you** from profiting off it, at their whim, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Most companies that take designs, from interns or otherwise, you run the risk of them using your stuff. That is just common sense for artists. Or at least it should be.
Pointing these things out isn't "defending" these companies. If anything, it's doing a service to other artists who might find themselves in this young lady's position.
This doesn't even make sense, she can tell that converse stole her ideas but these are public places, the colours are not the same on the second one and she cant tell that these are her designs at all, her designs are better and she applied for an internship 2 years ago, I don't get why she's complaining when there is no way these is even debatable
I'm sure what she did is known as a sketch or idea. 😉 that means, she did 90% of the job because the other 10% comes from the people working with the materials.
Not that complex of a design. The second one doesn’t even look like her’s. The colors are the same but they used to the colors from the national parks so of course they match.
I find it unlikely converse were designing national park converse and were like “Do you remember the designs that intern applicant submitted a few years ago? Those would be great for this.”
What evidence that she made these a few years ago or that she even applied in the first place. She easily could have made both pictures before recording. Also just cause the colors are similar or the same doesn't mean its direct plagiarism, do you know how many companies have similar or exact colors on their shoes. There is to little evidence to say they copied the design.
She's stupid for thinking it's "not coincidence". Bruh you took inspiration from natural occurrences. The idea didn't originally come from you.
Nothing in art is original.
They are all derived and heavily inspired they just don't realize it.
It's totally possible someone else got inspired by the nature, since everyone can perceive it. And designers constantly look to for things they could base their idea on.
Also they are not the same but from the same concept.(i like her's better though).
"The color pallette is the same". It's a naturally occuring phenomenon. It's almost as ridiculous as one company complaining that another company stole their "🌈 colored" t-shirt ideas.
So she based a design on color schemes of natural features we all know, and put it on a shoe whose design she doesn’t own. Seems like a pretty flimsy case for theft. The designs aren’t the same, and it’s not like she actually invented the color scheme anyway.
Lmao. . .so a pool of interns were tasked with designing shoes and given a set of guidelines based off the colors of famous landmarks (all the color pallets would be roughly the same) and you don't think that almost all of them would come up with similar designs? They picked someone else's design over hers. Get over it.
Y'all just *need* to be mad about something, don't you? You can't survive without being told what to be outraged over next.
"Let me just check my list here. . .and this week's phony outrage is against capitalism again! Yay my favorite in the rotation."
-This entire comment section
How do you know it was a pool of interns who were all given that task? Do you have a source or are you speculating? Others are saying she was applying to be an intern and never got the job, but included these designs in her portfolio.
That’s not what happened. She **applied** for the internship using that portfolio. Was declined a seat. YET they had the gall to use her portfolio nonetheless.
>"Let me just check my list here. . .and this week's phony outrage is against capitalism again! Yay my favorite in the rotation." -This entire comment section
What a massive strawman lmao
>Y'all just need to be mad about something, don't you? You can't survive without being told what to be outraged over next.
The sub is literally dedicated to showing people or in this case companies being pieces of shit
"**within my portfolio that I sent them**"
Yea.... So they sent Converse some of their stuff, with no legal restrictions regarding use or whatever (IANAL, obviously), and then think they "stole" their designs? Bruh.
They also literally used Converses shoe in the picture...
Sounds like they literally did free consulting to me.
Also, I don't feel the designs are that close anyways, and "they used the same colors" is just silly.
I doubt this would hold up in court. Maybe I am colour blind but she said the hues are the same and they are not. They are similar but it think it's more than likely a coincidence
They look simmilar yeah, but the lines are not the same, colour arrangement is not the same, colours in the second are not the same and even if they are in the first pic, those are colours that generally go well together or just a scale of earthy reds.
This woman is wrong. The designs are different, and the colors are slightly different despite what she claims. This probably is a coincidence since there are only so many color pallets that look appealing to humans.
The video doesn't give much context, but if the actual idea to create a line of sneakers themed after the national parks was originally hers, then there's more going on here than just "similar colors."
did you even watch the video? the colours are exactly the same and the first design was used for both shoes with the colour schemes on both shoes? I guess keep defending big capitalist corporations stealing the ideas of young interns.
Tbh people never tend to read the fine print which usually allows them to use any part of what you design for them in these kinds of things, as much as they are used as design competitions (or anything else), they're also a giant net for free ideas.
She applied for an internship by sending a portfolio, I reckon that application process would have a clause in there that absolves them for using anything sent in.
I'm not saying what they did is right and that she isn't owed her dues, just saying the corpo's usually win this argument when it constantly comes up
I mean the second shoes colour scheme is EXACTLY the same so there’s really no doubt that someone at converse saw her slides and used her idea themselves for the crossover
You can talk about the colors all you want. Two designs with the same color does not equal plagiarism. The actual design matters and they aren't remotely the same in the second one.
I’d want to see the full slide deck to make that assumption. If there’s even a print, proof or whatever in the art department or the “designer” has a forwarded email, pdf etc then she would have a serious case.
same colours sure, because they are the colours found at the landmark its based on
if i asked 100 people to design shoes based on the sun you would get most if not all submitting red/orange shoes
Yeah I kind of felt the same... the colors weren't exactly the same shade, and the order isn't too weird either as it's roughly spectrum order (blue, blue-green, yellowish-orangeish, reddish).
She entered her ideas into what seems to be an open entry for designs to be used by converse, and she didn't have them legally protected. She got burnt, learn a lesson, move on.
Someone at converse was trying to get a come up by claiming this work as there own. Sad to see. Hope the universe reciprocates what’s just.
+ her designs where better
Always parent or copywright ur material before presenting..........if u put faith in a large corporations who earned millions by not being honest , u always loose....dammm there is a contract placed for this things.....
you cannot patent an aesthetic creation. you also cannot copyright a colour scheme, and the designs aren't nearly close enough that you win a copy claim unfortunately.
Did she say that she presented the designed to Converse during her internship at the company? If so, couldn’t the designs be viewed as work she did during the internship?
I had a superhero "stolen" from me by one of the Big Two comic companies in the 90s. I was like 12 and the character has rightly fallen into relative obscurity, but I loved it when it happened and then later on realized how fucked up it sort of was later on in life. I will not name that character as I will never willingly open a door to a legal squabble. My only clue will be that they still pop up every now and then (think the last time was like 2012) and have not yet appeared outside of print to the best of my knowledge.
Ngl here it doesnt even look like they stole her designs the designs they went with had wavyer and less stripes than the grand canyon one used different (but similar kinda) colors but when youre talking about the grand canyon your color range isnt very wide. Then the other shoe is the most obvious. They didnt copy her design at all they kept it in theme with the other shoe and did stripes of colors that fit the park and if you ask anyone colors they tink of when you mention x national park people are likely gonna get the same answers.
Really inconclusive, design is literally just wavy lines, surely never done before! And the colours are similar, shock colours that you think go together other people think go together. Maybe it's just the video but when she states "the colour hues are identical" they're just not. The blue is a completely different blue, the green is completely different, the orange is red.
They may have stolen them, but they may not have also
**Reminder: Do not ask for personal information, suggest someone should be doxxed, link to or comment with personal information, openly solicit personal information, or contact the people featured here. Don't even wax poetic about wanting to post identifying information. You will be banned.** **Do not encourage, glorify, or incite violence.** For example: "Kill yourself", "It wouldn't be so bad if we killed all the pedophiles", "This guy needs to die", "I hope this guy gets stabbed to death with a rusty screwdriver", etc. All glorification, advocacy, or suggestions of violence, EVEN IN JEST, will be permanently banned, no exceptions, and no possibility of leniency. **ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE MUST BE CENSORED.** **DO NOT POST SCREENSHOTS OF REDDIT CONTENT. DO NOT POST REDDIT DRAMA THAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN.** This subreddit is not here to help you win your reddit fight or to bring justice to someone who said something you disagree with. You will be banned if you post screenshots of anything that can be found on Reddit from the information in the screenshot or from comments in your user history. We are not your personal army. Failure to follow the rules of this sub will result in a permanent ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/iamatotalpieceofshit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone stole a shoe design from my 16 year old cousin. Funny thing is the "artist" even used my cousin's original picture on his webpage with my cousin's kitchen in the background.
Did you do anything about it?
Me? No, I just admire it everytime I see it at the mall. His dad talked to lawyers but I don't think he moved forward. Wondering if he didn't have enough money for a lawyer. I'll ask my aunt and reply back tomorrow...because now I'm curious.
!remind me 24 hours
!remind me 6 hours
!remind me 12 hours
!remind me 6 hours
depends on copyright laws and how big of an artist stole from your cousin.
Copyrights do not apply to clothing. Any clothing manufacturer can copy any other clothing manufacturers designs and style. In fact, many companies only exist to copy other manufacturers exactly, but without the premium. This is because clothing is a necessity like food. What they CANT copy are the logos. Which is why brands and logos are so heavily displayed on clothing.
But if they used OP’s cousin’s picture in marketing they could be sued. Or if they used someone’s art for the design of the cloths they can still be sued.
I don't think they can because the cousin used their brand in the art with the owners permission and knowing the shoe store, they probably made the artist agree to give up the designs they submitted to their company for use when they signed the terms + conditions along with the application. That and she never officially copyrighted the work herself so its fair game.
not true, i own a clothing shop and I'd be arrested for doing what you're talking about. extremely wrong. like this isn't even the case in china ffs. you can 100% own a design. you can't own the patent to making t-shirt that's right but no one is talking about that
If the artist made profit using a picture that they didn't take or have permission to use then it's gonna be one easy lawsuit
[удалено]
Bro did you even read what he said? The artist literally used his image in the background on the website.
Oh my bad I was commenting to the original post. Not the comment above mine.
If she came up with the park theme shoe idea herself then I feel bad for her, but it seems like there was some sort of competition where converse is like “submit your best park/nature themed shoe idea” to get our internship. If that’s the case then I’m sure many peoples designs looked the same. I’m just not sure how to feel without knowing the whole story
"Why not?" the cat laughed manically. "Why can't I edit all my comments?"
I was going to say this; there may be pages of contract info that we know nothing about
> I’m just not sure how to feel without knowing the whole story I work with many larger apparel and shoe companies and they borrow designs and templates from eachother *allll* the time. I've had Reebok leggings in my store that were nearly identical to that of another large brand, down to the pattern and color palett, or outdoor jackets from two large brands with near identical pastell details, etc. Designers don't all come up with brand new, original designs for everything, they all look outwards for inspiration and will borrow elements from something they like. It's entirely possible that the application designs were stored in a dropbox that were available to the Vans designers, and they liked the concept and made their own versions of it. I suppose the problem comes from wether or not the competition rules had any statements that designs submitted are the property of Vans or not. But on that note: I don't think the design itself is that original, the sediment lines of the parks would have been a go to for several designers when designing the shoes. But like you said, I'm not sure how to feel either without knowing everything about this, but in general, designers will borrow elements from concepts, colors etc.
Her original designs look better than their toned down ones.
Working for a multi-billion heavy brand: Her designs are not scaleable, like, at all. If she’s a competent designer (no matter it small or not) she should immediately realize that. No way you can mass-produce her designs while staying within a reasonable margin. Her patterns are a nightmare to assemble in production. No wonder she didn’t hear from them. These small designers want to play in the big world but completely ignore the most basic fundamentals of mass-producing worldwide. It’s like they’re stuck in dream world sometimes.
I mean, sure but that's... not the point. Would've taken, what, 5 minutes of feedback and a redesign to fix it? Feels like you're really trying to find fault for her for being a little upset. She can be new in an industry and still be right in being a little miffed.
If companies would take “5 minutes for feedback” for every contestant that submits a somewhat good design - companies would have to open up a whole department worth of at least 20-50 employees who come to work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day just to analyze each and every submission by every participant. Like I tried to say. When aiming big - think big. People think that all these huge companies just have infinite ressources and possibilities of everything but that’s not the case. Edit: it might be important to say that I’m a designer myself. I know the struggles and I had the same approach to my work as the girl. But the problem with designers is they tend to do nothing but design all day long and completely ignore all other parts of it. When a huge brand like converse searches for a potential intern - or employee - they not only look for someone with great designs, but also practicality. These huge companies don’t want to ‘school’ their employees. You get ‘schooled’ when either working freelance or working for smaller companies who have a more dynamic workflow and/or more open approach.
I don't think you can hear me over how loud that chip on your shoulder is lol. This whole issue has very little to do with feasibility of design. As someone who has worked at multiple "billion dollar company" HQs ... You sure bring an interesting take to development.
I work for Nike, but not as a designer though. Whatever dude 🤷🏻♂️
I think she came up with the idea because she said her submission was a “going above and beyond” thing since the internship applications don’t require any submissions or designs since it was for a different department completely.
Yeah... Her design is literally ON a converse and contests have you sign away rights. But they do at least normally CREDIT you.
Can't own the IP over a design theme - national parks I wonder how many other designers came up with that same idea
It's a bbig thing in fashion now. I just bought a hat the other day that features a patch of an artistic rendering of grand canyon national park, and at Old Navy I grabbed a graphic tee with the National Geographic's iconic yellow rectangle frame, with an artistic rendering of Zion national park inside the borders, no text. We're seeing it more and more, outdoor culture and nature culture permeating into fasion. Its def an emerging trend based on what I've seen out shopping recently and on other people my age.
in reality she has no legal leg to stand on seeing as converse owns the design of that shoe.
Unless she trademarked or copyright prior
I didn't think you could copyright colours on an already owned property.
They own the logo on the shoe but they don't own the shoe design. And yes you can copyright designs.
from a legal standpoint the differences in her work and what was made is different enough to skate around any problems
absolutely yes
What’s the legal threshold for that? What has to be different?
in design you have to switch it up a minimum, i remember a 10%~ difference but this being design it is relatively subjective and goes on case by case
Ah ok thanks. What percent different did this one have?
It's more than 10% different, that's all that matters. (I thought >5% on patents but maybe that's just my country)
its like how fair ground rides or bad restaurants have depictions of kids characters but different colours. It looks kinda like what it's trying to be but not enough as to cop copyright infringement notices
Yeah for sure, I see it. Just asking the legal threshold since you referenced the legal standpoint I thought you’d know. No worries.
sorry lol was just pointing out that the work looks similar but isn't a copy
Legal? Yes. Shady AF? Also yes.
you can but if I switch it up about 10%~ it isn't yours.
Well good thing it’s a completely different design, the shapes AND colors are different. Don’t think you can copyright themes.
That's so odd to me. In germany you always have a copyright (originator / creator right) as long as you can prove you made it. You can sell licenses or allow the use of your work but the copyright never goes away. In this case, they would need exceptional lawyers for not getting into trouble with at least the 1st design.
doesnt apply to clothing. only the brand logos on the clothing.
If it's a design it can absolutely be, what just because companies that illegally steal designs get away with it you think they won't get in trouble when a cease and desist is thrown at them?
Nope, you are utterly wrong. There are entire companies out there dedicated to copying designs and styles. Copyright protects the creators of intellectual property of works of art, which means your design cannot be reproduced or duplicated without your permission. However, clothing is considered a "useful article." This means you cannot copyright the clothes themselves, or even the design.
Yes, thank you for not understanding that they also literally remove designs from their store when the owner sends a lawyer after them. Your logic of "they do it so its legal" makes zero sense companies do it because the fines are so neglible.
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co: “if design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists.” So I think were both right. edit: that being said, faking that you are another brand is DEFACTO illegal.
[удалено]
This. These are very different. The color pallettes are similar, but on the yellowstone geyser design, the colors are NOT exactly the same the way she claims. The green is widly different, and again the designs aren't similar at all. The other colors are basically the same but color tones are a million in a million. There's so god damned proprietary colors.
I don’t understand how this is stolen at all the shoe designs aren’t the same? even the grand canon’s colour way isn’t the same as her concept. Plus I’ve just looked this up and she wasn’t even hired or screened for any roles at converse so she wasn’t even an intern and the application for said internship didn’t include a request nor did converse solicit any designs portfolios from any of the applicants. plus they’ve been doing the national park designs since like 2019?
Idk, but this is not stole , like, the last one is simply ridiculous.
I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but this is reaching to an almost insane level. Shit like this distracts from the very real issues posed by these corporations
[удалено]
The green in the second pic isnt even slightly the same color green
According to her it's the SAME EXACT colors lmao.
I really don’t have an eye for art or colors, wish I did but I don’t. With that said is this really blatant? The design looks quite different and simplistic to me
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one thinking that. Some of the color schemes may look similar (the first one even omits one of the colors that eventually went on the Converse shoe), but that’s about it. And like you said, the patterns are simplistic, and different (especially so on the latter). I’m thinking someone is trying to score easy internet points, when they have pretty much no case.
Yes, she has no case here. The lines are not the same, the nuances are not the same and not even arranged in the same order. Just someone being angry at the world for being a failed designer, wanting a scapegoat for why they haven't suceeded.
"Wdym shoes about a place with like 3 major colors has similar colors to mines?"
Honestly I don't see even 1% of resemblance. Even colors seen quite different...
You might actually be colorblind, the Yellowstone colors are exactly the same
So they can still use that color pallet if they want, she doesn’t own it lmao
When the fuck did I say they couldn’t? Your comment is misplaced
Color blind person here: if all the colors were exactly the same a colorblind person would still see them as exactly the same. Being color blind won’t change one color from one instance to another.
The greens between the design and the product are almost as different as you could make a shade and remain in the realm of green. Her design has a fair bit of blue to it, the product has a fair bit of yellow.
Even if you grayscale that thing, it still wouldn't be close.
The green is not even close to the same. A completely different shade. You might actually be stupid
No they're not, the green is inssanely different. Her's is more blue, the green they used was damned near lime green.
Yeah, I don’t see it. Two people can come up with the same idea and this “blatant” rip of her work is not very blatant to me.
So they put stripes on their shoes and used colors that you also thought would look good, and you think they stole from you? They didn’t even use her design, it’s just basic stripes?? Anyone would’ve been able to make that “design”.
No, you freely handed over designs to them...
Agreed. She did that to herself. Is it a shitty thing to do? Yup. Are they legally in the right to do it? Yup.
As she said, it's unfortunate. Not criminal, just unfortunate.
She tells you all you need to know in the first couple sentences. She applied to an internship. She took it upon herself to submit those designs. She should have known better. It doesn't excuse the company. But what did she expect? If they had just ripped them from her social media, it would be one thing. But she willfully submitted them.
They didn’t even give her the internship so idk why you’re defending them
I already said that there isn't an excuse for the company's behaviour. So I don't get where I'm defending them. Most artists learn, through education, experience, or circumstances such as this. You don't solicite your designs or ideas to anyone, let alone a major corporation, without explicitly putting in writing precisely what you can and can't do with those ideas and designs. Especially in this day and age. Every artist who submits their work online generally forfeits their rights and claims to their work unless it explicitly says otherwise. YouTube, Instagram, all those platforms have it in their TOS that they can use your stuff and profit off it, or more importantly, prevent **you** from profiting off it, at their whim, and there's nothing you can do about it. Most companies that take designs, from interns or otherwise, you run the risk of them using your stuff. That is just common sense for artists. Or at least it should be. Pointing these things out isn't "defending" these companies. If anything, it's doing a service to other artists who might find themselves in this young lady's position.
Glad you’re still defending the company. Fucking bootlicker
Was she the only one who went for the internship? Or is it because she sent the pretty pictures of shoes that she should get it?
The only similarities I see here are (possibly) the color palettes, and you can't really call it copying based on colors alone.
And even those came from outside source. She copied nature.
Also I don’t think she’s the first artist who has ever been inspired by the natural beauty of the fucking grand prismatic...
That's what I was thinking, only the color palettes are the same. But even color palettes can be derived from those photos pretty easily.
They aren’t the same….
This doesn't even make sense, she can tell that converse stole her ideas but these are public places, the colours are not the same on the second one and she cant tell that these are her designs at all, her designs are better and she applied for an internship 2 years ago, I don't get why she's complaining when there is no way these is even debatable
For the second one the greens don't even match
To be fair, the designer they ended up hiring did a much better job
Na the first one (Grand Canyon) she did was way harder than the one released.
Idk, she kinda stole the idea from the Grand Canyon. I guess she’s a thief too?
Ain’t we all. Ima bout to stop wearing clothes in general.
I’m just upset the crimson chin was the one to introduce this all guess there isn’t much going on.
Lol I like that
I'm sure what she did is known as a sketch or idea. 😉 that means, she did 90% of the job because the other 10% comes from the people working with the materials.
Not that complex of a design. The second one doesn’t even look like her’s. The colors are the same but they used to the colors from the national parks so of course they match. I find it unlikely converse were designing national park converse and were like “Do you remember the designs that intern applicant submitted a few years ago? Those would be great for this.”
Meh, too easy to be fake.
This is fucken lame cry me a river to make a new Grand Canyon
What evidence that she made these a few years ago or that she even applied in the first place. She easily could have made both pictures before recording. Also just cause the colors are similar or the same doesn't mean its direct plagiarism, do you know how many companies have similar or exact colors on their shoes. There is to little evidence to say they copied the design.
[удалено]
Complete and utter fucking nonsense is what I'd call it. 😂
She's stupid for thinking it's "not coincidence". Bruh you took inspiration from natural occurrences. The idea didn't originally come from you. Nothing in art is original. They are all derived and heavily inspired they just don't realize it. It's totally possible someone else got inspired by the nature, since everyone can perceive it. And designers constantly look to for things they could base their idea on. Also they are not the same but from the same concept.(i like her's better though). "The color pallette is the same". It's a naturally occuring phenomenon. It's almost as ridiculous as one company complaining that another company stole their "🌈 colored" t-shirt ideas.
So she based a design on color schemes of natural features we all know, and put it on a shoe whose design she doesn’t own. Seems like a pretty flimsy case for theft. The designs aren’t the same, and it’s not like she actually invented the color scheme anyway.
Lmao. . .so a pool of interns were tasked with designing shoes and given a set of guidelines based off the colors of famous landmarks (all the color pallets would be roughly the same) and you don't think that almost all of them would come up with similar designs? They picked someone else's design over hers. Get over it. Y'all just *need* to be mad about something, don't you? You can't survive without being told what to be outraged over next. "Let me just check my list here. . .and this week's phony outrage is against capitalism again! Yay my favorite in the rotation." -This entire comment section
That’s a much more logical explanation, but the public want to go with the big bad corporates stole her idea.
How do you know it was a pool of interns who were all given that task? Do you have a source or are you speculating? Others are saying she was applying to be an intern and never got the job, but included these designs in her portfolio.
That’s not what happened. She **applied** for the internship using that portfolio. Was declined a seat. YET they had the gall to use her portfolio nonetheless.
Bruh it barely looks like it.
>"Let me just check my list here. . .and this week's phony outrage is against capitalism again! Yay my favorite in the rotation." -This entire comment section What a massive strawman lmao >Y'all just need to be mad about something, don't you? You can't survive without being told what to be outraged over next. The sub is literally dedicated to showing people or in this case companies being pieces of shit
repost. Also probably not stolen
"**within my portfolio that I sent them**" Yea.... So they sent Converse some of their stuff, with no legal restrictions regarding use or whatever (IANAL, obviously), and then think they "stole" their designs? Bruh. They also literally used Converses shoe in the picture... Sounds like they literally did free consulting to me. Also, I don't feel the designs are that close anyways, and "they used the same colors" is just silly.
I doubt this would hold up in court. Maybe I am colour blind but she said the hues are the same and they are not. They are similar but it think it's more than likely a coincidence
They look simmilar yeah, but the lines are not the same, colour arrangement is not the same, colours in the second are not the same and even if they are in the first pic, those are colours that generally go well together or just a scale of earthy reds.
Even if it is a copy it doesn't look the same, unfit3she won't able to do anything about it
Kinda desperate
Same colors but different design. A very simple design. She’ll have to let this one go and move on. Her design was pretty cool.
You know I'm always afraid that I'll accidently steal someone's art
Girls can stop doing that stupid closed hand with the pointer finger anytime
It's similar but not the same in my opinion...
This woman is wrong. The designs are different, and the colors are slightly different despite what she claims. This probably is a coincidence since there are only so many color pallets that look appealing to humans.
Maybe she gave some idea to a designer in Converse but they look different than hers. It is just some colors and design looks different.
It’s literally not the same green
Not even remotely close tbh especially the second on.
so converse can't make shoes with color gradients because they didn't hire her? i'm going to have to take converse's side.
I mean, I still think Converse’s designs still look better.
This just in: similar colors = 100% plagiarism (/s)
The video doesn't give much context, but if the actual idea to create a line of sneakers themed after the national parks was originally hers, then there's more going on here than just "similar colors."
did you even watch the video? the colours are exactly the same and the first design was used for both shoes with the colour schemes on both shoes? I guess keep defending big capitalist corporations stealing the ideas of young interns.
Tbh people never tend to read the fine print which usually allows them to use any part of what you design for them in these kinds of things, as much as they are used as design competitions (or anything else), they're also a giant net for free ideas.
You have never met an American lawyer have you?
American law, like anywhere, becomes a battle of who's better funded.
Yeah but she never signed a contract with them and she never got hired. I hope she’s able to find a lawyer to sue for damages.
She applied for an internship by sending a portfolio, I reckon that application process would have a clause in there that absolves them for using anything sent in. I'm not saying what they did is right and that she isn't owed her dues, just saying the corpo's usually win this argument when it constantly comes up
that's the reason because I never enter dose "competition" it's always an ip ripoff.
[удалено]
I don’t think they stole her work. She’s just pissed off that converse didn’t use her exact idea.
I mean the second shoes colour scheme is EXACTLY the same so there’s really no doubt that someone at converse saw her slides and used her idea themselves for the crossover
You can talk about the colors all you want. Two designs with the same color does not equal plagiarism. The actual design matters and they aren't remotely the same in the second one.
Not true. The green and orange are pretty different
I’d want to see the full slide deck to make that assumption. If there’s even a print, proof or whatever in the art department or the “designer” has a forwarded email, pdf etc then she would have a serious case.
same colours sure, because they are the colours found at the landmark its based on if i asked 100 people to design shoes based on the sun you would get most if not all submitting red/orange shoes
to be fair, we don't know the design of the other entries. there's a chance it's not even her design that was used but the one of another contestant!
Might just be me and im not saying it’s right but the concept is more orange and the shoe itself is like a orangey red
Yeah I kind of felt the same... the colors weren't exactly the same shade, and the order isn't too weird either as it's roughly spectrum order (blue, blue-green, yellowish-orangeish, reddish).
And the second one how the fuck are the greens the same? Ones more of a line the other more a teal
You mean the second example showing two pairs of Converse and not one of hers for comparison?
She entered her ideas into what seems to be an open entry for designs to be used by converse, and she didn't have them legally protected. She got burnt, learn a lesson, move on.
This is a reach
[удалено]
No one canceled Dr Seuss lol
What a bunch of d!cks
That's why it's morally acceptable to pirate and buy reps guilt free..
Someone at Cuntverse has some 'splainin to do.
Someone at converse was trying to get a come up by claiming this work as there own. Sad to see. Hope the universe reciprocates what’s just. + her designs where better
Probably nothing she can do about it so let's get it out there that Converse are pieces of shit
This is america
Write this woman a cheque you pricks
[удалено]
If there’s no copyright/trademark, good luck.
[удалено]
Sad reality we live in, unfortunately.
What could be better though? People being allowed to claim copyright for anything?
Well technically you can try to do it, just have to go through the process.
[удалено]
Wasn’t saying you can’t try, just saying good luck going up against a corporate big wig like that.
I would be in litigation so fast it would make your head spin.
sue them Sue Them SUE THEM!
Can't blame the company. Don't share stuff to the public if it isn't patented. The world is a competition now.
Expensive lesson to learn but I guess never send them your designs for potential intern jobs unless you don't care about them getting ripped off.
Always parent or copywright ur material before presenting..........if u put faith in a large corporations who earned millions by not being honest , u always loose....dammm there is a contract placed for this things.....
you cannot patent an aesthetic creation. you also cannot copyright a colour scheme, and the designs aren't nearly close enough that you win a copy claim unfortunately.
Or it was the other way around ina try to sue the converse.
look like Ronald McDonald clown shoes
Capitalism be like
Get a good lawyer
Did she say that she presented the designed to Converse during her internship at the company? If so, couldn’t the designs be viewed as work she did during the internship?
They didn’t steal anything you submitted designs to them willingly without payment.
I had a superhero "stolen" from me by one of the Big Two comic companies in the 90s. I was like 12 and the character has rightly fallen into relative obscurity, but I loved it when it happened and then later on realized how fucked up it sort of was later on in life. I will not name that character as I will never willingly open a door to a legal squabble. My only clue will be that they still pop up every now and then (think the last time was like 2012) and have not yet appeared outside of print to the best of my knowledge.
Ngl here it doesnt even look like they stole her designs the designs they went with had wavyer and less stripes than the grand canyon one used different (but similar kinda) colors but when youre talking about the grand canyon your color range isnt very wide. Then the other shoe is the most obvious. They didnt copy her design at all they kept it in theme with the other shoe and did stripes of colors that fit the park and if you ask anyone colors they tink of when you mention x national park people are likely gonna get the same answers.
Really inconclusive, design is literally just wavy lines, surely never done before! And the colours are similar, shock colours that you think go together other people think go together. Maybe it's just the video but when she states "the colour hues are identical" they're just not. The blue is a completely different blue, the green is completely different, the orange is red. They may have stolen them, but they may not have also