I think you’re missing my point. I did not see it as direct and specific as you did. Obviously, since that’s not what I drew. I didn’t see the theme as “optional.” It was about literature, so I drew literature. In my mind, that was on theme. I really think you’re reading too much into it.
I was another person who initially read the theme as strict. When I look at the whole of what Woot posted, though, I changed my mind and see the “general literature” theme interpretation more clearly. Here’s the full post from Woot…
November is National Literacy Month and this week’s derby is all about illustrating literary greats! Draw your favorite literary works, but remember that if your art is not parody it must reference works already in the public domain. Show off your smarts and reading skills and encourage others to soak in writings of excellent form, imaginative artistry or expression of ideas! Text is allowed, but just like Derby #679, we don’t need books published on shirts! Just a few guidelines for this one; No Mo Poe, and no cream shirts.
Submit your non-Literature designs through the standard submission portal.
In particular, the last line strongly supports the theme being literature in general. There’s even more support for that interpretation if you read each sentence as being independent, not just fleshing out the first sentence. Woot often has theme titles that are more specific-sounding than the supporting text, frequently to differentiate from past derbies or to include a pun. To me, it is not at all strange to read the theme as more general, and it’s not clear to me that they intended it to be specific.
Well, It wasn’t my intention for anyone to take this personally, nor was it my intention to specifically focus on entries in the last derby. I used the derby as an example for why future clarity would be preferable, and I think the discussion would healthiest for everyone if we stay focused on ways to make future derby themes more clear. I don’t want anyone to feel personally targeted, and certainly don’t have problems with past derby entries, as I indicated. We can agree to disagree about the interpretive nature of the previous derby, and use that as a great example of why more clarity in the future would be better for everyone.
@Narfcake FWIW, the unwritten ban on Calvin and Hobbes inspired designs isn’t because of litigation but rather out of respect to Bill Watterson.
REALLY? So he’s the only artist that they respect… hmmmm.
It’s because he has never sold official merchandise aside from books. He refuses to monetize his creation because he thinks it cheapens the characters. If you’ve ever seen C&H merch, it’s theft.
@ste7enl I didn’t know that. Never followed the details behind his work. It’s very interesting.
So that would be a good piece of info to include in the detailed “no-no” list. I would add that any time there is a big C&D that rips through the catalog, this should be added to the list. Bandai was going around suing for a while and any direct pac-man design would be rejected. Today’s winner goes against this, but it was mini-rule for a while. LotR did something a while back because most of the designs that directly referenced them were wiped out of the catalog. It’s instances like these that I am mostly talking about. I’m sure that there are more, @Narfcake could illuminate more…