Llllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadies!

[FordPrefect]

It may not necessarily be Price's estate stepping in (although, legally, they may have the right to do so). Instead, it might be Zazzle. As one of the sources for PhotoStamps, they're wary of allowing celebrity images. This is after people made controversial stamps including stamps of the Unabomber and of Monica Lewinsky's dress.

Honestly, I felt banning celebrity images was kind of an overreaction, but there ya go.

Hmm.  Didn't know about the stamps.  I know it's not the Price estate stepping in (in such short notice).  If I were on their end and saw a celebrity on a t-shirt, then yeah, it would raise questions.  But... public domain, man!  May need some sort of exception?  Or maybe a cartoon/rotoscoped version would suffice/slip through.   

I think a drawing of Vincent Price would work.

[stansimpson]

It may not necessarily be Price's estate stepping in (although, legally, they may have the right to do so). Instead, it might be Zazzle. As one of the sources for PhotoStamps, they're wary of allowing celebrity images. This is after people made controversial stamps including stamps of the Unabomber and of Monica Lewinsky's dress.

Honestly, I felt banning celebrity images was kind of an overreaction, but there ya go.

Hmm.  Didn't know about the stamps.  I know it's not the Price estate stepping in (in such short notice).  If I were on their end and saw a celebrity on a t-shirt, then yeah, it would raise questions.  But... public domain, man!  May need some sort of exception?  Or maybe a cartoon/rotoscoped version would suffice/slip through.   

I think a drawing of Vincent Price would work.

Yeah, I have tomorrow off, so I'll prob do that.  Should be similar to my rotoscoped themes of TreacheRiffs.

[ShadowDog]

But... public domain, man! 

Yes, the movie is in the public domain, but you're not putting the movie on a shirt.  You're putting a still image on the shirt.  A still image, in fact, that's such a closeup it could be any still image of Price.  When you walk down the street with that image on a shirt and pass 100 people ... how many of them will be all like "Yo, that's from House on Haunted HIll"?  Maybe 5?  And that's generous.  However, 95 of them will recognize Vincent Price.  It'd be different if the title of the movie was right under his face but in this case it's not. 

The bottom line is just because a movie enters public domain doesn't mean every actor who appears in it loses all their image holding rights.  That's not fair to the actors, who worked hard to get their faces so well recognized.  You can use their image within the context of the movie (such as on a DVD package selling the movie) and for promotional posters and whatnot but the further away from that you get the more gray the area becomes.

[lmolson73]

But... public domain, man! 

Yes, the movie is in the public domain, but you're not putting the movie on a shirt.  You're putting a still image on the shirt.  A still image, in fact, that's such a closeup it could be any still image of Price.  When you walk down the street with that image on a shirt and pass 100 people ... how many of them will be all like "Yo, that's from House on Haunted HIll"?  Maybe 5?  And that's generous.  However, 95 of them will recognize Vincent Price.  It'd be different if the title of the movie was right under his face but in this case it's not. 

The bottom line is just because a movie enters public domain doesn't mean every actor who appears in it loses all their image holding rights.  That's not fair to the actors, who worked hard to get their faces so well recognized.  You can use their image within the context of the movie (such as on a DVD package selling the movie) and for promotional posters and whatnot but the further away from that you get the more gray the area becomes.

So why not have a shirt with just the text?  People who know Rifftrax will know what it refers to without the image, and people who don't follow Rifftrax won't know what it refers to even with the image. Less fun, but less of a pain in the ass as well.

[stansimpson]

But... public domain, man! 

Yes, the movie is in the public domain, but you're not putting the movie on a shirt.  You're putting a still image on the shirt.  A still image, in fact, that's such a closeup it could be any still image of Price.  When you walk down the street with that image on a shirt and pass 100 people ... how many of them will be all like "Yo, that's from House on Haunted HIll"?  Maybe 5?  And that's generous.  However, 95 of them will recognize Vincent Price.  It'd be different if the title of the movie was right under his face but in this case it's not. 

The bottom line is just because a movie enters public domain doesn't mean every actor who appears in it loses all their image holding rights.  That's not fair to the actors, who worked hard to get their faces so well recognized.  You can use their image within the context of the movie (such as on a DVD package selling the movie) and for promotional posters and whatnot but the further away from that you get the more gray the area becomes.

So why not have a shirt with just the text?  People who know Rifftrax will know what it refers to without the image, and people who don't follow Rifftrax won't know what it refers to even with the image. Less fun, but less of a pain in the ass as well.

But I want more fun!  Not less! 

[doggans]

I feel like without the Vincent Price image, the shirt would lose all humor. It would appear to be just another "gangsta" t-shirt, and not reveal itself to be the Obscure Geek Reference it truly is.

[ShadowDog]

I agree, I think it needs his face to be funniest.  Unless ... that drawing idea, maybe you could draw up a caricature of him like Rifftrax did.  Rifftrax used his likeness in their avatar series drawings and it was okay because it was a parody caricature.  I think you'd be covered there because they got away with it.

[stansimpson]

I agree, I think it needs his face to be funniest.  Unless ... that drawing idea, maybe you could draw up a caricature of him like Rifftrax did.  Rifftrax used his likeness in their avatar series drawings and it was okay because it was a parody caricature.  I think you'd be covered there because they got away with it.

Hmm... that gives me an idea.

Would this be alright?  And as to why Chris Elliot is modeling the value tee version, I have no idea.

[FordPrefect]

I agree, I think it needs his face to be funniest.  Unless ... that drawing idea, maybe you could draw up a caricature of him like Rifftrax did.  Rifftrax used his likeness in their avatar series drawings and it was okay because it was a parody caricature.  I think you'd be covered there because they got away with it.

Hmm... that gives me an idea.

Would this be alright?  And as to why Chris Elliot is modeling the value tee version, I have no idea.

I like it. 

[ShadowDog]

I like it, but now you're probably going to piss off Rifftrax.  LMFAO  Let me get out of this thread before the nuke hits.

[torgosPizza]

I'm fine with that, but that's a web-resolution image. It's going to look like crap blown up to shirt size.

[stansimpson]

I'm fine with that, but that's a web-resolution image. It's going to look like crap blown up to shirt size.

Thanks for being cool with it.  I think I got ahead of myself before asking permission.  I try to play fair (when it comes to RiffTrax stuff anyway ).  When I enlarged it for the shirt, I was expecting heavy pixelation, but it came out smoother on my computer than I expected.  I guess I'd hafta see the shirt to tell f'shure.

[Bob]

I'm fine with that, but that's a web-resolution image. It's going to look like crap blown up to shirt size.

Unless the shirt is for his Ken doll.....

[vampirehunter42]

This thread has taken a rather odd turn. But we all have learned a lot.

[gbeenie]

I'm fine with that, but that's a web-resolution image. It's going to look like crap blown up to shirt size.

Unless the shirt is for his Ken doll.....

I'm not a doll!