Calvin & Hobbes: The Downhill 16 Thomas

New topics are added by clicking the "Add Comment" link on an art entry. Off-topic posts may be purged.
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
User avatar
maden
Art Expert
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: Del Boca Vista

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:14 pm

Well looks like we are getting that melt we wanted. Right on time too.
We'll kill the fatted calf tonight, so stick around

Image
User avatar
shagdonk
Art Expert
Posts: 3574
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Hermosa Beach

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:18 pm

Image
User avatar
tourist504
Art Expert
Posts: 4259
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:00 am
Location: NOLA

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:23 pm

GiantBoyDective wrote:thread picking up steam
Wait 'til the cease and desist letters start going out from Mr. Watterson's attorney.
maden wrote:I would like to see a 16"+ diameter tube.
BlakeAronson wrote:This one is just big enough, but not too overwhelming in size.
jordachep wrote::drool: Can't believe the size. I want this so bad.
Imagex6
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:51 pm

lujborg wrote:Real fans have respect for Wattersons's wishes. Case closed!

The thieving artist and the printer have both profited here (at a minimum) - to say this is not for profit is an insult to the mostly intelligent people on eb.
Real fans of Pulp Fiction have respect for that license too! :hanging: You're such a drymounting hypocrite. How do it apply to one person's license and not another?
tourist504 wrote:I can say there is no way Mr. Watterson (who is very much alive) would approve of this comission, retail or not. No way.
How is it any different from any other unlicensed art? You own unlicensed fudge? How is owning that okay but this isn't? Studios and actors go out of their way all the time to turn people down on licensing their fudge.
guryter wrote:Reasons in this thread to not care regarding copyright infringement;

Yeah but I'm a huge fan.
Yeah but it's a screenprint.
Yeah but I want it.
Yeah but it'll be public domain in 44 more years.
Yeah but it was barely profitable.
Yeah but I have a tattoo of it.
Yeah but it's not a direct trace.
Yeah but you're just butthurt.
Yeah but I read these growing up.
Yeah but you all flip art.
Yeah but you all own unlicensed art.
Yeah but we'll be doing more C&H but it'll be more exclusive.
Yeah but this was a passion project.
Please explain how this commission is not okay and all the unlicensed art you own isn't? Then you can talk. You can't rail against one instance of copyright infringement and not against others.
lujborg wrote:JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DOES IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK.

jesus drymounting christ, what are you 2?

that's not a rational argument :lol:
You're saying it's not okay but you're buying other unlicensed art? You're literally saying that unlicensed art is okay when you buy it...All unlicensed art.
glenn1 wrote:It doesn’t have to be traced. A big difference between some of the examples you listed and this one is that this is obviously drawn to looks as close to BW art as possible.
You have a bunch of art in your collection that was drown with the intention of looking as much like the original image as possible. What's your point? What makes this bad but all of that fudge is okay?
tourist504 wrote:From the EB page for this print:

"Original Price
$40.00"

Yep. Merchandise.
WTF? Do you not know how commissions work? You're paying someone for their talent, not a product.
Diabolos80 wrote:But Mr. Watterson drew this line, which is defined by the absolute lack of merchandise, period. Sure plenty of other licenses have lines, but that's usually because there are official profits on the other side of it. Not so in this case.
This is your dumbest argument. They're all lines. You can't say one line is darker than another because someone said something in an interview and the other said something through a lawyer and producer.
tourist504 wrote:
GiantBoyDective wrote:thread picking up steam
Wait 'til the cease and desist letters start going out from Mr. Watterson's attorney.
Nobody has contacted the actual license holder about an infraction, they just went straight to the artist's employer to try to get him fired because they're kittens.
User avatar
LadyGanglia
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:28 am

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:57 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
DickButt
Art Expert
Posts: 6963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:12 pm
Location: NYC

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:58 pm

Well this was absolutely worth the full 25-page read.
User avatar
GiantBoyDective
Art Freak
Posts: 10134
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:17 pm
Location: A Whale's Vagina

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:59 pm

DickButt wrote:Well this was absolutely worth the full 25-page read.
you dont gotta lie to kick it
Image #trollcru
danieldanger wrote:what you do aint hustlin. see, in MY hustle, i get to sell the whole run and each print only costs me like $6. y'alls is small potatoe street level fudge.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:59 pm

And I still don't get why you guys aren't railing on people like Jason Edmiston or Olly Moss, etc for doing C&H art and selling it for profit. Why this guy? You haven't shown that he traced anything, so what's different about this from Edmiston's take on C&H or James White, or Florey, or Raid 71? Why aren't you after Rob Jones for ripping off Charlie Brown when that license holder wouldn't give him the license for that art? It makes no sense why you go after one but not others?
User avatar
partpat
Art Expert
Posts: 9509
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:54 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:02 pm

This thread delivers.

Keep defending this shitty ass trace job its delivering the laughs big time.
User avatar
hax0n
Art Expert
Posts: 2781
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:43 pm
Location: Keepin' Austin Weird

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:07 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:And I still don't get why you guys aren't railing on people like Jason Edmiston or Olly Moss, etc for doing C&H art and selling it for profit. Why this guy? You haven't shown that he traced anything, so what's different about this from Edmiston's take on C&H or James White, or Florey, or Raid 71? Why aren't you after Rob Jones for ripping off Charlie Brown when that license holder wouldn't give him the license for that art? It makes no sense why you go after one but not others?
Image

WHERE THE drymount GBD AT?!
Image
electrachrome wrote:None of us who are responsible for this website really have any idea how it works
User avatar
Kramerica
Art Freak
Posts: 13822
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:37 am
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:09 pm

Regardless of what you think about ripping off the IP, this shows absolutely no artistic interpretation of the characters or property. Its just a blatant ripoff. Group would have been better served hiring someone to do color seps on an original panel. It doesn't have to be traced to be a ripoff of someone else's art.
When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink. - BH
Diabolos80
Art Expert
Posts: 3967
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:54 am

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:09 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
Diabolos80 wrote:But Mr. Watterson drew this line, which is defined by the absolute lack of merchandise, period. Sure plenty of other licenses have lines, but that's usually because there are official profits on the other side of it. Not so in this case.
This is your dumbest argument. They're all lines. You can't say one line is darker than another because someone said something in an interview and the other said something through a lawyer and producer.
That wasn't my argument at all. I said the line is darker because Bill never made any money on merch. George Lucas can't say fudge about bootlegs cuz he slapped Star Wars on damn near everything. If anybody's gonna make a profit on C&H at this point, it should start with Bill. It can end with you if you like, but the precedent is not yours to make.
User avatar
ErocAfellar
Art Expert
Posts: 4509
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:25 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:12 pm

I think there would be vastly less critique on the piece if those involved would stop trying to justify it as being OK and just say, "Yea, we ripped off Bill's IP and we don't give a fudge about what he wants, it's all about what we want."
HappaHaoli wrote:That is freaking Eroctic!
User avatar
lujborg
Art Expert
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:55 pm
Location: purgatory

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:15 pm

ErocAfellar wrote:I think there would be vastly less critique on the piece if those involved would stop trying to justify it as being OK and just say, "Yea, we ripped off Bill's IP and we don't give a fudge about what he wants, it's all about what we want."
nail on the head!

and in addition... MAYBE they could have kept it "private" instead of coming to here to gloat. this is what happens. you get fudge for being shitty, the artists gets fudge for being shitty. everyone gets fudge that's involved because it was pretty drymounting shitty thing to do.
I'm here for the oil palm breeding (international society member, since 2003)
User avatar
RambosRemodeler
Art Freak
Posts: 18132
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:35 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:26 pm

alittle wrote:Watching you morons try and rationalize this fudge is hilarious.

This is a unique example where the artist has specifically gone out of his way to ask people not to be thieving kittens and to respect his vision for the characters, but y'all had to go and be a bunch of kittens anyways.

:lol: :lol: :clap: :clap: :notworthy: :notworthy:


Good lord this thread is drymounting amazing.


I do wish people would stop posting though because then I wouldn't have to see MPEs response to every drymounting post.
Image
choke wrote:I won't give up a flip that I can get myself to someone who is convinced they need it. None of us need any of this fudge. It's art. It's not medicine.
Post Reply