Subeta -

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I want one

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

The thought of a copywritten hair-do made me crack up really hard xD
Silly subetans C:

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

The wig's cool and all, but is it really moral to do this? To use a copyrighted, well-known hairdo just so Subeta can make a profit?

I just don't know...I can just feel more problems stemming from this on the horizon...it just doesn't feel right. (No offense, Sweeny Todd fans and Rah.)

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Afterglow, give it up. The comparison to other sites is to justify and validate copyright laws, not to point fingers and say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Logic.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

YES!!! more hair wear is happy

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT!

AWAWAWAWAW why does it have to be the cash shop?
is flat broke

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

No it may not be Gaia, seeing as how Subeta is better. But what everyone is pointing out is that Gaia's items are more close to infringement than that wig is.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I'll point out that this isn't Gaia, now is it? This is Subeta, and making comparisons to other sites is moot.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I don't even think Demon Barber Costume would be an issue. That sounds like Gaia's items.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I thought it was Sweeney the first second I saw it, too, before reading these comments.

But hairstyles as copyright infringement? I can't believe it'd be suggested. If the Subeta staff was selling a "Demon Barber Suit" or someodd, and the outfit was identical, then it'd be understandable that some were upset, but that wouldn't happen anyways.

-shrug-

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I thought it was Sweeney the first second I saw it, too, before reading these comments.

But hairstyles as copyright infringement? I can't believe it'd be suggested. If the Subeta staff was selling a "Demon Barber Suit" or someodd, and the outfit was identical, then it'd be understandable that some were upset, but that wouldn't happen anyways.

-shrug-

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

ZOMG...Sweeney Todd lurv!!! 8DDD Iluuu!!!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

"While for Sweeney he not only darkened Depp's own brown locks but added a greenish tinge that would work well with that color desaturation process planned for the post production, as well as a small hair piece with a white streak that brings to mind not only The Bride of Frankenstein but also Dr. X."
(From Depp himself): "I was almost thinking about doing like a shock of white, white hair, but thought it would be too much."

Those are from page 54 in the Sweeney Todd hardcover book with a forward by Tim Burton. So, it's not infringement at all. Like Luxe Keith said, if it was called the "Sweeney Todd Wig" that would be a totally different story, but it's not called that, and as people have previously stated, you it doesn't scream OMFG SWEENEY TODD for everyone that looks at it. And look at Gaia items, they're worse cause of how close they are.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Haha. All you need now is to make a wearable razor and some stuff based off Pirelli.<3
-strokes AV-

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I want to see that movie soooo soo bad...I just cant seem to find an adult willing to take me...(I is under 17)

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Need!
I've seen this movie so many times now XD

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

-squeals- Sweeney Todd wig!! -faints- x3

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Gasp does anyone else see what I see! X33 I thought so

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I am going to have to second what Narcissaa has mentioned here. How many years has Gaia Online gotten by with making nearly exact replicas of popular items, actors, and clothing? Because they're not exactly identical. And I don't think this wig is any different, frankly. If we want to get technical, Sweeney Todd's hair was much wavier, even bordering on curly, whereas the wig is not so much. I don't see why it's such a big deal. o_o

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Unless the creator of Sweeney Todd's Character (including physical attributes) legally copyrighted them to include hairstyle, facial features etc.., The hair is up for grabs. It may be an exact replica of Sweeney Todd's hair, but as long as they are not calling it Sweeney Todd Wig, and the creator hasn't officially taken out a copyright on the physical attributes of the character they can replicate without penalty.

It may seem like OMG Taboo, but it really isn't.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

No one said you're doing anything wrong; I'm just explaining why people are reacting in kind to you. You don't have to love it or praise it, but there's something called tact that often your posts lack, as far as I've noticed.

Keith's pretty much covered the issue though, so I'm going to back out of this. It's moot.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

omg, sweeney todd wig! i want it!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

The wig's awesome. =D mini-wants I was rather disappointed in the movie, though. =/ It could have been done better. Much better.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

So long as I'm not saying anything nasty about the art or artist, or targeting anyone, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong here. Simple as that.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

No one said you were. However, you can refrain from praising without coming across with so much vitriol.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Quote:

; border: 1px solid ; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10;">
I'd like to point out, Luxe, that it was no flame against the art, artist, or anything. Just that the idea itself... I couldn't believe was used. The fact that it isn't original, it is being used for money on the site, it just appalls me is all.

How do you think we pay the artists, the staff members, for the servers, the programmers, etc?

We have to release things that people will buy. We are a company, and we do need to make money to be able to operate.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

And I am not obliged to say that I praise and agree with every piece of art that comes out, either, I might add. :

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I'd like to point out, Luxe, that it was no flame against the art, artist, or anything. Just that the idea itself... I couldn't believe was used. The fact that it isn't original, it is being used for money on the site, it just appalls me is all.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Quote:

; border: 1px solid ; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10;">-snort- ... Oh come on.

Didn't sound much like praise to me. I understand you're saying that you are trying to do the site a favor, but your message is lost in your bitter tone. People are going to react in kind.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Afterglow, it's ok, I'm not offended I appreciate the comments on the art, and I know that no one is trying to attack me or my art personally here

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Quote:

; border: 1px solid ; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10;">Sophiten, I'm think of Tealc. Specifically the most recent Stargate: Atlantis episode. I saw the grey streak and thought INDEED!

Okay... I am so in the Stargate fandom myself, and watched Friday's episode, but there is no way I could ever see that wig as Teal'c. xD But, I guess as long you are happy, indeed!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Streaks in hair (and unruly hair at that) are not uncommon. I have a chunk of blonde in my hair, as does plenty of movie stars. Does that mean that my hair is in infringment of someones copyright? No.

This item is going to stay in the cash shop (as long as normal items do). It is based on a character - yes, however parodies (and something as generic as hair) are protected by copyright laws.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Sophiten, I'm think of Tealc. Specifically the most recent Stargate: Atlantis episode. I saw the grey streak and thought INDEED!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

So, popularity determines whether something is infringed upon or not?

Frey, you can argue that anything on this site is profitable with gold accounts available, so that point is weak, in my opinion. Sure, this is directly buyable from the cash shop, but technically one could end up having to get a Gold Account to wear ANY HA item, depending on their layers. I wouldn't doubt people /have/ paid for GAs just for their avatars. In that sense, this is no different than the Rat's Nest wig, which caused significantly less commotion.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

You know, I never meant to have this as some insult anger fest. Calm down and discuss this rationally, please, and stop hounding me.

I'm only saying these things because there's an obvious copy here. I'm not saying Rah is horrible, or that it sucks, nor am I degrading it. It is just -too similar-, and there was bound to be something said about it.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Afterglow if you try to put words in our mouths then of course I'm gonna be on your back.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Quote:

; border: 1px solid ; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10;">
I question if this is copyright infringement or not.

It's not, and if you think it is perhaps you should educate yourself on what copyright infringement IS

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Quote:

; border: 1px solid ; font-family: georgia; font-size: 10;">Afterglow how DARE you say we can't see it as somethign other than Sweeney Todd. I personally saw it as a wig in the style of a character from the Stargate franchise and I totally understood the Cruella DeVil comparison.

Do not tell us what we can and cannot see in an item.

Wow. First, we need to step back. Geeze.

Secondly, exactly WHO are you referring too in Stargate? Because I honestly am not picking up the reference there. O.o

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Also, Gaia has long been making a profit from items that look VERY SIMILAR to copyrighted images. They got over the legal aspect by giving the items a different name. I remember the fuss over the ninja headband.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

See, that's what I thought when I drew it. Yes, I had just seen the movie, and I wanted to bring my joy of the character to subeta. I honestly didn't think just the hairstyle would be in breach of anything - I knew an entire outfit (razor included) would probably be pushing it, but I researched the idea of a white streak in hair and it's used quite often in cinema to display a 'streak of evil' - Frankenstein's Bride had one, as did Humphrey Bogart in something that I forget the name of now. So the idea of putting a white streak through dark hair isn't original in itself, which is why I thought it would be ok to draw

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Aaaand my sister is kicking me off subeta so she can work. Hope I didn't come off as a jerk, I was just saying. Rah the item is lovely and I have no issues with it itself. Just paying for it yes XD;

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Icky blank comment fail :C

Get off my back, narcissaa. I'm not insulting anyone here.

All we're saying is it'd be safer to take it out of the cash shop.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Aaaand my sister is kicking me off subeta so she can work. Hope I didn't come off as a jerk, I was just saying. Rah the item is lovely and I have no issues with it itself. Just paying for it yes XD;

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Afterglow how DARE you say we can't see it as somethign other than Sweeney Todd. I personally saw it as a wig in the style of a character from the Stargate franchise and I totally understood the Cruella DeVil comparison.

Do not tell us what we can and cannot see in an item.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

XD; I'm just saying. They look nothing alike...

BUT. As you were saying about the 'wendy girl' hair. There's a huge difference here. When that hairstyle came out, I doubt people went 'OMG I CAN COSPLAY AS A FOOD MASCOT!!' While her image is popular, she is not

It's not a matter of the hair style, hell I couldn't give a care if it was normal item. I'm just saying I dont think it's ethical for an item based off a highly popular film ATM should be in cash shop.

I think the item is awesome and the art is gorgeous, I just question why it's not a high rarity item?

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

The key is, Luxe, the site isn't selling those items for real money.

This is being sold for real money. And it can get the site into major trouble.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I'm not denying it's a Sweeney Todd hairstyle, but I'm sure there were people with this hairstyle long before and long after the advent of Sweeney Todd. I doubt you can copyright a single hairstyle or color feature.

Is every girl in red hair and braids going to be Anne of Green Gables or Pippi Longstocking or the Wendy's girl? If so, we'd better remove our braided pigtails now too!!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

I still don't agree with that. Even Rah admitted it was a Sweeney Todd hairstyle.

And there is no way it can be Cruella de Vil. They look nothing alike. And those other comparisons aren't valid. This is a -blatant- ripoff of the Sweeney Todd wig. It can't be looked at as anything else. Name doesn't have to be the same. It's the theft of the concept and profit of it that is the issue here.

If you want to make it different, invert the colors. That way it doesn't scream Sweeney Todd. Do something to make it original. There is no way this is original at all.

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm by

Luxe, I don't think that wig looks anything like the other two 'characters' you mentioned.

Logged Out

Leave a Comment