Love the etching style you have, colours are spectacular, the flow is great, elements work beautifully.
Great job on this!

This is so cutesy its mean-ass!
Great colour combos, but I agree with Dusty, he could have been bigger.

Awesome illustration, great colours, tight layout. Simply excellent.

This is such a great illustration spoiled by the block…

I have to agree with theBrigand on this one.

Your typeography is kickass cool!
Godzilla needs a little work though.

This brought a smile to my face.
Great idea!

This is so cool.
Great idea, great colours and composition!
Two thumbs up!

Just to add to what TheBrigand said, a lot of people tend to forget about a little thing called “Intellectual Property”.

I wanted to post this yesterday in retalliation to mahspace’s “I just wanted the character on a T” rant.
It is a punishable crime under International Law to copy (which you did: the crest, the character, the font, even the slogan to a T) any work based on another artists design. EVEN if that artist is “anonymous” or even if you “changed his colour! Gave him more hair!”. You do not own the rights to that character / image and as such can not lawfully place it on an internationally recognized web site, in the hopes to sell it and make a profit.
All anyone would have to do in this kind of situation is look at creation dates on original files to prove ownership.

If you have questions about IP, I suggest looking at the following link.
There are two PDF documents which explain the difference between Copyright on IP as well as Industrial IP.
The Pedobear character in this instance, falls under both.

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

Consider yourself lucky that this t-shirt was removed, you could very well have been facing criminal charges for theft, loss of income, copyright encroachment, copyright fraud, making use of copyrighted materials… The list goes on, and on, not to mention that springleap.com would have faced all those charges with you for promoting and selling the item in question, which could have shut down the site and the business entirely.

Shot a lot, figured it out yesterday. My tardation kicked in and went into rambo-tard mode.
Used to working in MB’s & gigs… Itty bitty file sizes confuse me.

wipes drool off site

Ok this is probably going to get me banned from the site, but when I encounter such enormous stupidity I can’t shut my mouth. Mods feel free, just leave the posts up because they contain answers to legal questions and are useful as a resource for future debates.

You are SO wrong that you’re making yourself look like a drama/lolcow. This deserves an ED page.
Listen dude, your shirt was removed for IP.

Is the damage to your pathetic ego really that bad? Do you REALLY feel the need to drag yourself down further?

Lets answer your questions then, because apparently your lack a brain as well as dignity, creativity and originality.

1: Mona Lisa, painted in the 16’th Centuary (that’s the 1500’s because Im not sure you even know how to count) by Leonardo da Vinci (Pronunciation: Lee-a-nardo DaH Veen-see), Born:1452 Died:1519

This image was created MANY HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE COPYRIGHT WAS INVENTED.

Ergo it is not protected by copyright and can be replicated with the intention of generating a profit.
Had you bothered to google any of the questions you had asked you would have found the WikiAnswers site:
“”
*Is there any Copyright protection on da Vinci’s Mona Lisa?
In: Intellectual Property*
Answer

No. The copyright laws were not invented at that time. Which is why everyone prints the Mona Lisa on Birthday cards, postcards and sings songs about it. The song “Mona Lisa by Tony Bennett” has a copyright on it. Because Bennett wrote and performed it and made it famous.

However, just because the underlying work is “old” and not copyrighted does not mean you can take anyone else’s copy and use it! Each “new” copy of the Mona Lisa painting could have “creative” differences that merit separate protection. For example, you can’t copyright the Grand Canyon, but everyone who takes a picture of it owns the copyright of that picture.”“

So go ahead! Further rape and over use an iconic image just like the MILLIONS of other “artists” did and continue to do.
You’re SOOOOO original.

2: Vector packs and fonts.
HAD YOU BOTHERED TO READ THIS PAGE AND THE ANSWERS FROM THE POSTERS: You would have seen that this has already been answered FOR you TWICE! By the Brigand

““Using a vector graphic flower, arrow, star or blade of grass, or some other uncomplicated non-specific image from a stock library is one thing. Also one must adhere closely to whether that stock image can actually be used in such a manner.

Using a free font is also fine with consideration of the above.”“

AND 2: Nik
““dude, even with free downloadable fonts, you normally need to purchase a commercial licence for it.”“

Here’s an elaboration, and I must remember to use small words and short sentences so that you understand:

When you download fonts or vectors from a site and you’re not paying for them, chances are that those files are what are called “ROYALTY-FREE” fonts / vectors.
This means that whoever made those files are giving anyone who wants to use them, the rights to use them.

HOWEVER, before you download, you really should read the creator’s statements, because they will want written notification about what you are using the pack / font / image for and want to decide if they should charge you money.
Nice eh? Fine print = Legal stuff. Who would have thought?!

If you’re confused, here’s a little definition from Wikipedia:

““Royalty-free

Royalty-free describes material (typically graphics such as stock photography and icons, but also sound such as music loop samples) that may be used for profit, without paying royalties. Royalty-free media is usually acquired for a ‘one time only’ fee, although public domain imagery and many works created under a copyleft license are also usable without paying royalties or an initial fee.

In commercial design, publishing, advertising, web design, etc., images are used as a key to awaken interest in a text or to illustrate it, or may stand on their own. Picture editors rely heavily on the millions of images that are available from various sources. This saves time and the considerable expense of hiring photographers to shoot on location. It was once usual for a picture buyer to browse through a photo library’s stock or to have a selection delivered from which to choose. The Internet has drastically changed the way in which pictures are browsed; with today’s digital delivery methods, images may be searched for and acquired online.

The use of a stock photograph from a photo library may be also charged on a Rights Managed license basis for a specific, one-time use at a rate determined by a combination of factors: the time for which it is required, the purpose, the print run or circulation of the publication, territory, etc.

There is also “royalty-free” stock photography, particularly microstock photography. This does not mean that an image may be used without payment. What it means is that a one-time fee or subscription gives the right to use an image in a publication according to the terms agreed upon, with no license fees being paid for further use.

Many true free-picture agencies exist today. Organizations such as this strive to make available pictures to the Internet community, charging nothing for them but with the expectation that users will publicise the provider in every way possible. In this case the images are free for non-commercial use.

There are other websites that offer free images. These images are not to be considered as “Public Domain” images. It is important to read the Terms of Usage, and to remember that according to the copyright laws, the author is the copyright owner. The author has the right to do anything with the image, including later on removing it from a free picture website and start selling it. In doubt contact the author to ask for written permission.”“

I suggest you drop this and move on, or if you want to continue arguing EDUCATE yourself FIRST.

I don’t know about president, man… It would turn into a dictatorship and I’d imply breeding laws to prevent cousins making babies.
Thanks for the support though.

Artists in this country are especially naive about creative commons, I blame our VERY lax copy right enforcement laws and lazyness.
It upsets me to see South African “designers”, giving other South African designers (who actually have talent and don’t rip every damn image they see off of MTV) a bad name due to stupidity, ego and un-originality.
I’m tired of attitudes like this perpetuating the stereotypes, which I myself have encountered doing international work, that the Creative Community in South Africa DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
We are not a joke, and we have a hell of a lot more to offer than the world gives us credit for.

I get especially annoyed when I encounter people who blatantly copy other’s work seeking praise and recognition for it. (You’ve all seen what happens when someone thinks they’re entitled to selling said “work” in the last posts).

Copying is NEVER good. All that purveys about an individual is that they can trace and copy well.

…. My ego is now sufficiently buttered.
Thanks guys! :D

As I can count them:

1: Magenta
2: Mustard Yellow
3: Cyan
4: Purple
5: Pink
6: Black
7: White
8: Pale Pink (Highlight on the top of the characters’ head, near the crown)

Remember that gradients do not print well on shirts, it would be a new colour and a new “layer” to print, also the pink used on the characters’ fill is much darker than that of the fabric of the shirt, hate to say it, but if you didn’t fill that area and allowed the colour from the T itself to be the fill, you would loose quality and depth of the image. Not advisable.

Steal ideas to create profit often?

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pedo_bear

This is a 4chan meme, its very well known and wide spread.

I’m having issues resizing one of my preview images to meet the 26k limit.
Even on gif 4 colour it’s stuck at about 35k.
I’ve tried dropping the resolution of the pic, no glory.
Suggestions?