Creative Works and Copyright
04.8.09 | Posted in: Art & Design | By: Toshi JonesTags: Copyright, Joy Jones, Legal, Logos, Woolies
The issue of copyright infringement is rarely discussed by creatives until a copyright has been infringed upon. The images above display a recent issue involving the Woolies brand and musician Joy Jones. Woolies had commissioned the custom drafted logotype prior to the 2008 release of the 12″ single The Joy/This Too Shall Pass. Under U.S. copyright law, exclusive rights to any work of creative expression are owned by the author at the moment of creation. The question remains is the Joy Jones logo an infringement of copyright.
Since both logos are at their core illustrations, one must assess if there are identifiable components that make the two strikingly similar (Exhibit: A). Each of us have formed our personal opinions in the matter, now we want to hear what you think. Using the poll below give us your opinion.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Definately direct-eyes-on-inspiration with enough modification to merit classification as a new logo mark.
Google Jon Engle / stockart.com / logo lawsuit now for a much more interesting story of copyright infringement. More than 60 logos in dispute- most are direct copies. Jon first was portrayed as victim, now after closer inspection its looking like he is the ripoff artist.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
THIS IS A CROCK! PURELY UNIMAGINATIVE.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
This is complete plagiarism! It is an insult to ORIGINAL art and the artist who created the Woolies logo. I was around during the many multiple creative sessions that it took to create and perfect the Woolies logo. Mitchy Bwoy should be ASHAMED to call himself an artist when so much of HIS WORK DIRECTLY BITES the Woolies logo. How can one even question if this is plagarism when Mitchy Bwoy wrote in a letter to the owner of Woolies that he was apologetic for the theft and had stolen the image “under pressure”?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Obvious! Do whats right, duke…any respectable artist worth his/her weight would at the very least do that much.
What happened to the good ole days where copyright law didn’t mean shit and BITING, no matter what the “law” said, was absolutely UNACCEPTABLE?! Cats used to get called on that shit back in the day…THINGS DONE CHANGED – B.I.G.
Good luck wit that, Woolies!
April 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“DIRECT-EYES-ON-INSPIRATION”?!?! more like, “DIRECT-EYES-ON-IMITATION”…they say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but i’m not very impressed. stop perpetrating on our style MITCHY BWOY, you’re making us look bad…seriously.
BIG UPPIN’ THE
WOOLIES MASSIVE!!!
April 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It’s pretty obvious that one wouldn’t exist without the other. The rip-off didn’t even change the “es” at all and the creator of the Joy Jones logo should definitely face repurcussions. You can tell it’s not the dude’s design because it looks nowhere near as tight as the Woolies logo.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Mitchie Bwoy is obviously a talented artist. His album and product design is fairly well-known and respected, and that should not be in question–except of course as a matter of personal taste. Unfortunately, this time he made a poor choice and moved quickly from inspiration to imitation. If he had really flipped it, we would not be having this discussion. Let’s sincerely hope that he learns from this and moves on to his true work and style….
It’s also worth mentioning that while being a clear bite, he is certainly not unique in the current landscape of “copy and vectorize” illustrators. This is a post-post-post modern epidemic in loss of authenticity, craft, and diligence and worthy of a more serious conversation.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It sucks when your name becomes synonymous with BITER in my camp.
Keep the TUSKS out of your mouth Mitchy…
April 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Very obvious biting here!
I remember the days when biting would get you beat down. Maybe I’m old school, NOT ACCEPTABLE!
April 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
biters are the lowest form of life.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
a stone cold rip-off….this kind of blatent copyright infringement is unacceptable!!! Woolies should be able to collect something for copyright infringement, damages & emotional distress…
April 12th, 2009 at 3:19 am
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=2658
April 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
*In Graffiti BITING meant your a TOY, you would get CROSSED OUT and you would most likely catch a beat down…
*In Hip-Hop BITING meant your WACK and would get SERVED on the MIC or any CYPHER…..
*In B-Boying BITING meant you would would get CRUSHED in the CIRCLE BATTLING with your half ass moves…..
*In the DESIGN world you lose respect as well and well aside from REPUTATION it also means your ass gets SUED…
–M I T C H Y B W O Y that shit might fly in the U.K. but you would definitely feel the heat here in L.A.
Just because your across the pond doesn’t mean this won’t get back to you… TRUST.
I would say that it wouldn’t be good for the design community to really find out how you work….
April 13th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
That seems to be a pretty obvious rip-off…and a lazy one at that. If Mitchey just spend another hour tweaking it around we would have claimed “inspired by” rather than “ripped it off”. Shame.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I’m not a typographic expert, but I think it is pretty obvious that the type was plagarized.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
It looks like someone did not the difference between using art as a influence and copying the exact images.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I totally agree.