5 ms·

i can't even see the problem here if they were selling them for $0 profit. let's assume for a second they sold them for $5 each and that is the actual cost of p

i can't even see the problem here if they were selling them for $0 profit. let's assume for a second they sold them for $5 each and that is the actual cost of production. would ben show the same hostility to individuals who spent $5 to make the poster for themselves? that said, i'd think it was a silly response even if they were selling it for profit. do you really want to focus your creative energy defending your authorship of a white poster board with red lettering?

HectorRamos 15y ago
Even at 0 profit, you could say they were stealing profits away from the original author. However, they are not for sale anywhere in their original form. I'd like them to either actually put them up for sale, or encourage others to print them out, but I'd have to respect the original designer's decision not to see his work being duplicated elsewhere.
- catshirt 15y ago
  from where did you extrapolate his "decision not to see his work being duplicated elsewhere"? as far as i was able to tell he simply requested the profits were given to charity- of which there were none. moreso, and i recognize this is a touchy subject, i'm not sure it's even fair to suggest he conceived these designs.
  - HectorRamos 15y ago
    I based it on his reaction, which as you just said, was to request that any profit be given to charity.
irondavycole 15y ago
Promoting their own event is not without self-interest, even if the poster sales aren't directly profitable. Also, it's not authorship over "red on white" as a concept, it's authorship over this specific combination of type, size, layout, & copy that implies association with Facebook. If they just wanted to maintain the message, and not the association, they wouldn't have kept the visual style. Implying an association (with Facebook, or Ben) that isn't really there is the dishonest part.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- catshirt 15y ago
  no one, for all intents and purposes, would associate these signs with facebook.
  - irondavycole 15y ago
    And why wouldn't they? They're explicitly an homage to a photo that hundreds of thousands of people (especially those in the startup scene) saw.

HectorRamos 15y ago

Even at 0 profit, you could say they were stealing profits away from the original author. However, they are not for sale anywhere in their original form. I'd like them to either actually put them up for sale, or encourage others to print them out, but I'd have to respect the original designer's decision not to see his work being duplicated elsewhere.

catshirt 15y ago
from where did you extrapolate his "decision not to see his work being duplicated elsewhere"? as far as i was able to tell he simply requested the profits were given to charity- of which there were none. moreso, and i recognize this is a touchy subject, i'm not sure it's even fair to suggest he conceived these designs.
- HectorRamos 15y ago
  I based it on his reaction, which as you just said, was to request that any profit be given to charity.

irondavycole 15y ago

Promoting their own event is not without self-interest, even if the poster sales aren't directly profitable. Also, it's not authorship over "red on white" as a concept, it's authorship over this specific combination of type, size, layout, & copy that implies association with Facebook. If they just wanted to maintain the message, and not the association, they wouldn't have kept the visual style. Implying an association (with Facebook, or Ben) that isn't really there is the dishonest part.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
catshirt 15y ago
no one, for all intents and purposes, would associate these signs with facebook.
- irondavycole 15y ago
  And why wouldn't they? They're explicitly an homage to a photo that hundreds of thousands of people (especially those in the startup scene) saw.