New Items: Hoodie & Prints!

I'd love to know who is doing those Buffalo neighborhood type prints, seeing as they are a blatant rip off of the series of prints by Ork Posters (http://www.orkposters.com/). Shame on the artist for copying them and shame on BR for giving him or her an outlet to sell and make money off someone else's idea.

wow just went to that website and they are exactly alike - is it made by Ork?

There are a few differences that lead me to believe it isn't done by Ork. If it is, that is great, I've emailed them a few times asking if they'd be interested in doing a print of Buffalo but never heard back.

Put that print on a t-shirt or hoodie and I'm sold!

Imitation is the greatest form of compliment... Yes, please make it into a tee or hoodie before they get sued for copyright infringement!

At first I thought it was odd that you didn't mention who the artist was that created that print, but now I understand...

This is really shameful, and Buffalo Rising ought to be swift to remove this product from their store. You would think everyone would be more careful about this stuff nowadays, especially after the recent minor scandal over Artvoice's copyright infringement of the work of two local design artists, Hero Design Studio and Julian Montague.

This may not be outright copying as in the Artvoice case, but I think it goes way beyond "imitation as flattery".

Yeah I think everyone is overreacting a bit. This is not anywhere close to plagarism. Mimicking a style is not illegal, and I don't even think it's objectionable. No one would ever think of claiming a copyright infringement on the thousands of folk artists that write and perform in the style of Bob Dylan...

Where there COULD be copyright infringement is if the poster artist didn't pay for the typefaces: http://news.softpedia.com/news/NBC-Faces-2-Million-in-Damages-after-Copyright-Infringement-124097.shtml

Not a lawyer, but I've heard about several graphic artist who designed souvenir t-shirt who sued others for ripping off their designs/styles and won their cases.
.
While these prints are cool, they are a blatant rip off of another's intellectual property and I do hope the original artist knows about this and does something about it.
.
Another example of this site's lack of professionalism.

Norwood is right. It's on the artist. It is kind of lame though. You would think an "artist" would create their own work from their own ideas. I think the only way this is illegal would be if Ork Posters made a Buffalo print- but they didn't. Still lame on the artists part.

Lame or not, legal or not aside... I think its a cool poster, one which would not exist today unless someone other than Ork made it.

This is a tough one. Is this idea original? Absolutely not. Is this piece of work original? I would have to say yes.
I saw it and was so excited that Ork finally made a Buffalo poster. I soon learned it was made by a local artist. After much thought, the artist did all the research (of wards and districts) for this poster and a lot of time placing and sizing typography. The artist did the work but stole the idea. A very good idea to steal. Would Ork have ever made Buffalo prints? Not likely, so this artist did it and actually did a good job. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that there are a lot of people in this city who have never heard of Ork posters (I have personally been a fan for years) and will think this is the artist's original idea, when it is in fact not. I would definitely respect an inspired by Ork Posters in there.
The work is well done but the idea is not his own.

A few minutes of research on the web shows that 'ork' isn't really interested in doing any more cities. The author of the work is aware of 'copy-cats', and takes no offense to them (accept when they are done poorly).
****
If Ork were less 'artistic', and more of a business, they would have done this in a couple of cities, then actively sold some type of franchise agreement in every city where someone would come up with some money. They would have had to add a little logo or something to make it uniquely theirs.
****
Seems to me that anyone that finds this offensive hasn't spent much time in the business world. Good ideas get copied, especially those that are on the margin of just being profitable enough to make copying it worthwhile, but not a cash cow that warrants the original creator to patent or copywrite, or to actively persue a case where someone feels they've been impacted negatively. Looking at this as 'art' is exactly what the creator wants (charging a premium over the cost of a t-shirt), but in court, it would be viewed as a t-shirt with a map. Regardless of what the tv may be trying to tell you, it's still a free country. Thank God.

A true artist is able to utilize their talents to create a spark - something unique that is the manifestation of their own perspective, experience, belief, playfulness, or individual aesthetic. It is the result of profound thought, inspiration and introspection.

What this local "artist" has produced is not original by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, they have filled a niche by creating a "Buffalo Neighborhoods" design, but they are riding on the back of someone else's originality, utilizing someone else's work as a template. There is no originality, art, or creation in taking someone's idea and "making it their own". If we rewrite Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet - but change the names and the setting, it is not original. So, let's be clear about what constitutes originality, artistry, and a clever individual with access to Adobe Illustrator.

Did it ever occur to anyone here that Ork wasn't interested in creating a Buffalo poster because, and let's be honest here, Buffalo is a robust thriving city like the ones already produced? In fact, that's probably a good reason that Wichita, KS didn't get its own poster. But I digress...

Thankfully we live in a society in which we already have laws and systems in place that help to protect the intellectual property of those that have original thought - should one choose to exercise the right to protect their own property. However, and let's be clear about this, simply because someone has the right to do so, does not necessarily mean they want, or can afford, to do so.

Regardless, the core of this discussion has basically boiled down to the topic of originality and what this local person has done is not original.

This is art and not business as one commenter put it, but that still doesn't make it right. And let's not confuse what is morally correct with some skewed perspective on what is or should be acceptable. And in direct response to that particular commenter, let me say this: Should Michelangelo stamped any number of his creations with a logo? Should Leonardo da Vinci have signed on the Mona Lisa's forehead? There's really no need to be so ridiculous because, honestly, some artists can get by on their own merit - without a logo.

For the record, "Tattle-tailing" is the spoken mantra of the person with something to hide, someone who knows there is something intrinsically wrong, illegal, or immoral - and refuses to acknowledge that fact because they'd prefer keep such things in the dark. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those who want to see honesty, justice, and what is right prevail. You've got it backwards, friend.

We all struggle with wanting the city we all call home to be successful, for Buffalo to take the other foot out of its grave and to be known for something other than waterfalls, pathetic football, blizzards, and wings... but do we need to sacrifice our own sense of morality to do so? Do we need to grasp at any straw that falls into our lap in order to find out identity? We truly need to give credit those who actually deserve it and kindly ask those who do not, to please try again.

Interesting that no one seems to mind the 'buffalo hockey hoodie' that has no link to hockey other than; using the local teams blue and gold, placing a buffalo within a circle, and calling it a hockey hoodie. Clearly the business plan of the store is to generate as much revenue as possible, while paying out as little (zero) in licensing fees as possible.
****
We frequent the site, criticizing the way the organization generates dollars that keep it afloat would seem at least slightly hypocritical. I for one hope they sell out...or perhaps they already have.