Better Together

This is a parody, not meant to be a representation. That’s where the line is.
Look at this dorky shirt I bought last year from woot - http://shirt.woot.com/offers/a-new-hop
Clearly that’s a stormtrooper, but…
I think you get the idea.

I don’t know how some of the other sites get away with their designs when their characters are drawn in the original style and could be mistaken for that franchise’s work. While this dog is big and red, he does not look like the original cartoonish bright red Clifford. I love this.

I am generally fine with parodies or a redux of the original but I don’t see how this can in any way be construed as either. Darth cooking breakfast for 8 year old Leia and Luke, Cookie Monster after one more bender of milk and cookies those are what I want to see. It’s Emily Elizabeth laying on Clifford reading a book, something portrayed in many of the Clifford stories and cartoons. I in no way see how this would be protected under fair use. Just because it’s not drawn exactly like the original big red dog means that it’s not infringement. Anyway I’ll look elsewhere for a Clifford shirt if I decide to buy one.

Doesn’t look anything like Clifford and the girl he hangs out with.

This shirt’s artwork is way better than those crudely drawn books.

http://www.alcapones.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/clifford-big-red-dog.jpg

Really great- Love the style, and the blonde girl makes me think of my 3-year-old (not that the image looks 3) Might have to grab this- :wink:

With copyrighted characters there has always been an exemption for artistic recreations. Once upon a time owners of copyrighted characters tried to fight this exception without success. If you look around; recreated characters appear everywhere. The problem for people who make and distribute this content is if they try to pass it off as the original creators work or try to market it in the original context.

This recreated character shirt is fine provided it isn’t explicitly advertised as the original character and that it isn’t part of an animated series about a girl and her giant red dog.

A little light reading on the topic (wiki so take it with a grain of salt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

I’m just happy to see a dog for a change! I am not a cat lover and those get old fast.

No offense to the cat lovers out there (I used to like cats, if that’s any consolation), but there are a thousand cat shirts to every dog shirt.

This sentence makes no sense given the artwork of this shirt.
Time for the whole lot of you to give it up and get back to work.
Or go on facebook or something.

Who knew there were so many hardcore Clifford purists out there? :slight_smile:

I agree. The shirts look bad on me anymore. I’d happily pay a couple of extra bucks to get a shirt that didn’t feel like an old white undershirt. I have a E A Poe shirt that I don’t wear anymore after only a few washes, along with a few others. I’d consider this shirt, but am afraid of looking droopy and dorky in it.

srsly

I dunno why but seeing this gave me the feels.

Oh, and don’t any of you DARE mess with Thomas the tank engine or I’m seriously gonna lose it on someone! :wink:

Call me dense but how does what you reference have anything to do with the question at hand unless you think this is a genuine parody? Considering there nothing here out of the ordinary in terms of the original story lines, I would say it most definitely is not.

Hey it’s up! Looks great, congrats Jeff!

I was glad to see this too. This particular shirt is not the one for me, but I look every day here for a clever dog shirt, and I tend to find a ton of cat shirts.

More dog shirts please. And by the way, Woot - some of us big dog owners put shirts ON our dogs, so you might be able to sell 2 at once!! There’s your incentive.

I really don’t understand why this shirt exists. Where’s the parody? It’s just a clifford shirt, and the world needs another one of those like the world needs giant Winnie the Pooh sweatshirts on white trash grandmas. If this were Clifford eating Emily and the kids, or a normal size dog, with a giant red Emily, I could see the parody. This is just another (nicely drawn, mind you) clifford shirt.

By legal definition the characters on this shirt qualify as a parody: it isn’t attempting to be the same as the original in context or image. It is an artistic reinterpretation.

How is it attempting to be different in context? If it was drawn more in line with the original series it would be indecipherable to the drawings by Mr. Bridwell.

Simplification of The Supreme Court rulings define parody as “the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works” I just don’t see anything in the drawing that constitutes new commentary.