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.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:28 pm

partpat wrote:This thread delivers.

Keep defending this shitty ass trace job its delivering the laughs big time.
Still haven't proven it was traced. Comic characters are really easy to draw accurately.
User avatar
captainhavoc
Art Expert
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:44 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:29 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
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.
Image
Ayes wrote:Maybe all these dates who've been turning you down see you in your yard hurling cat food and blowing weed smoke at your neighbor's pets.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:30 pm

Diabolos80 wrote:
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.
A license is a license is a license. There is no other line to draw.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:31 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."
Very few people involved have been even talking in here. It's all outside observers.
Diabolos80
Art Expert
Posts: 3967
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:54 am

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:32 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote: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?
Because Schulz is the same as Lucas. He can't say fudge cuz he'll put Peanuts on anything. drymounting diapers if there's money in it.

Also, sorry Rambo :P

If Schulz said, guys please don't do this, Peanuts is sacred, we'd all be posting pics of Peanuts greeting cards and handy wipes.
Last edited by Diabolos80 on Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:32 pm

lujborg wrote:
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 think you owning other unlicensed art and coming in here bashing this unlicensed art for being unlicensed is a shitty thing to do.
MoviePosterEmpire

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:33 pm

Diabolos80 wrote:
MoviePosterEmpire wrote: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?
Because Schulz is the same as Lucas. He can't say fudge cuz he'll put Peanuts on anything. drymounting diapers if there's money in it.

Also, sorry Rambo :P
It doesn't matter! How do you not understand that there is no difference. A license is a license. It allows you to let some people to use it or allows you to let no people use it. It doesn't matter how you use it because it works the same way.
User avatar
lujborg
Art Expert
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:55 pm
Location: purgatory

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:34 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
lujborg wrote:
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 think you owning other unlicensed art and coming in here bashing this unlicensed art for being unlicensed is a shitty thing to do.

And you're entitled to your opinion, deluded as it is. whatever helps you sleep at night chief :pint:
I'm here for the oil palm breeding (international society member, since 2003)
User avatar
partpat
Art Expert
Posts: 9509
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:54 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:36 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
partpat wrote:This thread delivers.

Keep defending this shitty ass trace job its delivering the laughs big time.
Still haven't proven it was traced. Comic characters are really easy to draw accurately.
:lol:
Diabolos80
Art Expert
Posts: 3967
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:54 am

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:37 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
Diabolos80 wrote:
MoviePosterEmpire wrote: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?
Because Schulz is the same as Lucas. He can't say fudge cuz he'll put Peanuts on anything. drymounting diapers if there's money in it.

Also, sorry Rambo :P
It doesn't matter! How do you not understand that there is no difference. A license is a license. It allows you to let some people to use it or allows you to let no people use it. It doesn't matter how you use it because it works the same way.
The difference is that the creators of other properties set the precedent with thier own marketing. It's about respect dude. If Bill had said his piece, while simultaneously making bank off products like Star Wars and Peanuts have, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
User avatar
RambosRemodeler
Art Freak
Posts: 18132
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:35 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:39 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
partpat wrote:This thread delivers.

Keep defending this shitty ass trace job its delivering the laughs big time.
Still haven't proven it was traced. Comic characters are really easy to draw accurately.

Of course they are. That's why we all do it for a living.
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.
User avatar
wottagunn
Art Expert
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:28 pm
Location: Near Melbourne

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:46 pm

This thread is being bumped every drymounting minute so I guess something is going down.
Should I bother reading all 26 pages or can someone deliver a dotpoint recap for me?
User avatar
ajmmck
Art Expert
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:28 pm
Location: Australia

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:51 pm

wottagunn wrote:This thread is being bumped every drymounting minute so I guess something is going down.
Should I bother reading all 26 pages or can someone deliver a dotpoint recap for me?
Trace jobs, melt downs, double standards, copyright infringements and call outs. Its been pitched to be the feel good movie of the summer
User avatar
trarex
Art Expert
Posts: 7364
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:51 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:54 pm

Image
"Lay off Detroit, Them peoples is living in Mad Max times." Moe Szyslak
User avatar
AliRock110
Art Expert
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:41 pm

Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:01 pm

Image

Dont own this artwork, realizes I'm in a poster forum full of unliscensed Art. So all I could do is post funny strips. I'm trying to change direction because I see people who are cool with each other in other threads act like it's ok to call each other names and crap on each other's values. So all I'm trying to do is change gears before this devolves any further. Everyone here on both sides is smashing their head on the roof of their glass house standing on the soapbox. Cmon guys, right now we're collectively on the 3rd panel. I just want to get to the 4th.
Post Reply