I started doodling a design based off of a concept that printed at shirt.woot (think Hokusai water nymph) earlier. It got me thinking about recycling concepts and I was wondering what you thought about it.
I've never really heard any compelling argument not to, but I've also never looked very hard into the issue. I know I've heard some dissent, though.
On the surface, it's beneficial to the artist. Some designs are permanently owned by the company that printed them, so revisiting the concept in a new way has a monetary benefit. Artists change over time and approaching the concept in a new way can be a good exercise, and you get to see what you've improved. And who knows, maybe some concepts are inspiring enough to the artist where it can't be contained to one design. I know I like to doodle water 'n chicks. :p
I don't really subscribe to arguments of "originality" for probably 99 percent of the ways it is used, so maybe someone will be bothered by it in ways I won't be.
The first example that pops into my head is always Tom Burn's "Communist Party," because it's the first time I noticed a recycled concept at different sites. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a monetary decision - nothing new was added, the design is done the same way, just in a new arrangement.
What is your perception of artists that recycle concepts? How do you personally feel about it?
I've never really heard any compelling argument not to, but I've also never looked very hard into the issue. I know I've heard some dissent, though.
On the surface, it's beneficial to the artist. Some designs are permanently owned by the company that printed them, so revisiting the concept in a new way has a monetary benefit. Artists change over time and approaching the concept in a new way can be a good exercise, and you get to see what you've improved. And who knows, maybe some concepts are inspiring enough to the artist where it can't be contained to one design. I know I like to doodle water 'n chicks. :p
I don't really subscribe to arguments of "originality" for probably 99 percent of the ways it is used, so maybe someone will be bothered by it in ways I won't be.
The first example that pops into my head is always Tom Burn's "Communist Party," because it's the first time I noticed a recycled concept at different sites. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a monetary decision - nothing new was added, the design is done the same way, just in a new arrangement.
What is your perception of artists that recycle concepts? How do you personally feel about it?
I've been wanting to revise and improve some of my existing designs that have been bought and perhaps submit to other sites, but I'm worried that the they may be considered too similar or whatnot...
If anyone has experience in this they'd like to share, I'd greatly appreciate it :)
Greedy Conquistador
vs.
Greedy Pirate
It's still largely a derivative, using a majority of the original as a base. However, I wouldn't have a problem re-drawing the concept, as it will inevitably turn out differently.
If you do toe the line, it seems as though it would be a good idea to make sure the new and old company are informed.
A: They don't have very much creativity
B: They're 'circumventing' their contract which gave rights over to the company
or
C: They're just in it for the paycheck.
That said, there is a fine line between a recycled concept and personal style- we all have things we enjoy drawing time and time again; there's a difference between two designs with robots or something on them, and then the two Communist Party shirts like mentioned.
So yeah, recycling ideas may make you look a bit like a tool, but I wouldn't call it unethical. It's your career so if you wanna shamelessly rehash a design, whose gonna stop you?
I just recently saw the re-worked design at another site and was a bit surprised, but then noticed that it's kind of different from the one at anothersite. I will go and find the thread, thank you for the suggestion.