Free Graphics & Photos For Your Labels

[voodoocurt]

+1 for no ethics then.

 

[iijakii]

Somebody spends time to run the homebrewtalk website. Somebody pays for the hosting service. This website seems also to be entirely based upon a web php script package that someone has written. Do you know whether this is free open source software or not? How much time have you spent finding out if this php package is free? If the author is asking for donations, have you given any? Have you payed your premium membership fees to this forum to compensate the owners for their hard work? No? Then bite me.

I display their ads. Thanks.

 

[WhiskeySix]

Somebody spends time to run the homebrewtalk website. Somebody pays for the hosting service. This website seems also to be entirely based upon a web php script package that someone has written. Do you know whether this is free open source software or not? How much time have you spent finding out if this php package is free? If the author is asking for donations, have you given any? Have you payed your premium membership fees to this forum to compensate the owners for their hard work? No? Then bite me.

What a ******** thing to say. You are sponging here yourself. I agree with what the OP has posted. Using someone else's work without approval is theft. He has given some great FREE resources to use. All he asked is that you respect someone's work.

I PAID for my logo. Josh at Brew Brand Creative does amazing work. He gives good deals to members here and is a site supporter and a big help in this forum. Shameless plug there for you Josh.

 

[godfathermg57]

the ethics debate on intellectual property rights gets tiring. For people like the OP and WhiskySix, it should be fairly reasonable why they support strong IPR's with regard to artists work etc... that being said it's not the only ethical standard, and for most of humanity's history has not even been an enforced standard. It's not as clear cut as "it's just theft"; certainly the blatant use of other peoples work to make money without giving them any mentioned credit is considered bad, but the manipulation and appropriation of other work into yours is a stickier matter.

If I take a shot from a movie, posterize it in photoshop, map it to vectors and create my own image that incorporates it, am I stealing? Legally perhaps, but ethically it's more complex than that.

 

[Burro2882]

(insert pointless deep intellectual argument with obscure references)

This has been very entertaining.

 

[voodoocurt]

I deleted my original reply because what I had written was a little too mean spirited for Burro, whom I assume was speaking of a previous post I had made to Gregger, a fellow art professor. Who, I am sure, would get my "obscure references". So Burro, unless you can add something to the discussion, please don't post. Although, I understand if my "deep intellectual argument with obscure references" was a little over your head.


V

 

[Burro2882]

Nah, just a bit pretentious. That's all.

Oh and I wasn't actually singling you out. But obviously you felt that shoe fit.

 

[MetallHed]

Am I the only one who noticed this?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f46/villainy-new-label-216105/

From post 7:

Ha ha ha ha ha... I wish I had the talent too. But this (like all my labels) was just assembled from components found (stolen) from the Internet.

The villain guy:
http://jgmmad.deviantart.com/art/The-Villain-124856176

The border:
http://studiom6.deviantart.com/art/Tribal-Corners-Line-Brushes-88730960

The background:
http://shadowh3.deviantart.com/art/Wall-Texture-73682375

The font:
http://www.dafont.com/blood-crow.font

All put together with the Gimp.

That's how all of his labels were made (he makes a new thread for each one). Why the bad blood to the OP when he's, to me anyway, offering the same kind of resources you use to make your labels?

 

[MetallHed]

and I'll add a thanks to the OP!

I was looking for a new place for fonts.

:rockin:

 

[gregger]

and I'll add a thanks to the OP!

I was looking for a new place for fonts.

:rockin:

You are very welcome sir!

The main difference from using google to search for any and all images on the internet is some of the graphics/photos you find may not be intended for you to use freely.

The links I provided contain photos and graphics that you can use with wreckless abandon. My labels were made by using these same free fonts and graphic sites.

BTW all, I added software programs to the original post. And the photo above was my cinnamon, nutmeg, and vanilla stout. The cinnamon finish was delicious. It's all gone now.

 

[voodoocurt]

Nah, just a bit pretentious. That's all.

Oh and I wasn't actually singling you out. But obviously you felt that shoe fit.

Ohhh, then please enlighten us as to what post you were referring, so we can all share in the hilarity of your witty little meaningless comment.

Pretentious? I would rather be considered pretentious, than write cute little posts in an attempt to mask obvious intellectual shortcomings so you don't actually have to engage in a meaningful conversation because you fail to understand the words and references people make.

To the OP, I apologize for the short hijack and promise not to devote anymore time to Burro by searching this thread. You know what they say, "When you argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" Burro I concede to your experience. Goodbye and good riddance....



V

 

[cimirie]

the ethics debate on intellectual property rights gets tiring. For people like the OP and WhiskySix, it should be fairly reasonable why they support strong IPR's with regard to artists work etc... that being said it's not the only ethical standard, and for most of humanity's history has not even been an enforced standard. It's not as clear cut as "it's just theft"; certainly the blatant use of other peoples work to make money without giving them any mentioned credit is considered bad, but the manipulation and appropriation of other work into yours is a stickier matter.

If I take a shot from a movie, posterize it in photoshop, map it to vectors and create my own image that incorporates it, am I stealing? Legally perhaps, but ethically it's more complex than that.

It's really not more complex than that. You can rationalize all you want (and I have, many times so I'm throwing stones at myself too) but the fact is, if you take something that somebody else produced and used any part of it as your own without compensation, you are stealing.

Nobody has a hard time with concrete examples. Somebody takes the time and effort to widdle perfect walking sticks (cheesy I know but go with me). You like the walking sticks and think they would be the perfect piece with which to build a fishing pole. So you take one and make a kick ass fishing pole without telling the woodworker.

You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Yes it's cheesy, but it's the exact same thing. Now, the usage on such a small level nobody is going to care. We're not making money on it so who cares, right? Go ahead and keep on rationalizing. Lord knows I do on occasion (mp3s anybody). But don't for a minute think it's a defendable stance to take.

I'm not saying you can't do it or that you should feel bad about it (I don't and I'm probably a bad person because of it). But you give up your right to be offended when somebody who pours all of their effort into a craft is put off by people just taking things for their own use without thinking twice.

 

[sensibull]

You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.

 

[Burgs]

It's really not more complex than that. You can rationalize all you want (and I have, many times so I'm throwing stones at myself too) but the fact is, if you take something that somebody else produced and used any part of it as your own without compensation, you are stealing.

Nobody has a hard time with concrete examples. Somebody takes the time and effort to widdle perfect walking sticks (cheesy I know but go with me). You like the walking sticks and think they would be the perfect piece with which to build a fishing pole. So you take one and make a kick ass fishing pole without telling the woodworker.

You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Yes it's cheesy, but it's the exact same thing. Now, the usage on such a small level nobody is going to care. We're not making money on it so who cares, right? Go ahead and keep on rationalizing. Lord knows I do on occasion (mp3s anybody). But don't for a minute think it's a defendable stance to take.

I'm not saying you can't do it or that you should feel bad about it (I don't and I'm probably a bad person because of it). But you give up your right to be offended when somebody who pours all of their effort into a craft is put off by people just taking things for their own use without thinking twice.

The fishing pole example is insane. Completely disagree. Under that strange rationale - all innovation is theft and all innovators should feel terrible.

 

[Burgs]

Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.

good username to post correlation... +1

 

[Burro2882]

To the OP, I apologize for the short hijack and promise not to devote anymore time to Burro by searching this thread. You know what they say, "When you argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

My original intent was never to argue with you Voo. Maybe my original comment was an unnecessary attempt at being "witty" but it was not aimed at YOU alone. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and honestly i think your reaction has been a bit extreme to say the least. You brought it too a very personal level and that speaks to your immaturity and extreme sensitivity. You dont want to be brought to my level?? You are the one calling me names. I am writing this to you Voo, as I am SURE you are still searching this thread for my comment.

If anyone else thought my OC was a personal attack on them and their manhood I sincerely apologize. And to the OP, I apologize as well, as I think your intent was to be helpful and not start a thread where children would get into playground fights.

Voo, at least we agree on one thing. This forum isnt the place to do this. If you feel the need to continue your hissy fit, feel free to message me.

 

[cimirie]

Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.

In my example, you did steal the stick. It wasn't yours, you didn't get permission, you didn't pay for it, you stole it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that if you take a graphic that somebody spends 10 hours making and use it without permission or compensation, it's the exact same thing as taking a tangible product that somebody spent 10 hours making.

It doesn't matter at all how you use it. If you don't get permission and pass it off as yours, you have stolen regardless of your application.

And yes, Andy Warhol IMHO did steal. It takes nothing away from his talent. And in the end, the original owners gave implicit permission because they were better off because of what he'd done. Campbell's had a lawsuit drawn up that many legal scholars believed they could win, but they realized that while he had trademark infringement, they gained more as an American icon through his work than as a victorious lawsuit winner.

Your radio example doesn't apply because you mentioned these were found and discarded parts. Discarded implies dissolving of ownership. Therefore, if you use them, it's no longer theft. Those parts you use that you don't find, I'm sure you pay for.

The issue isn't application, it's origin. If you didn't make it from scratch, any piece you acquired elsewhere needs compensation or at least permission.

 

[cimirie]

The fishing pole example is insane. Completely disagree. Under that strange rationale - all innovation is theft and all innovators should feel terrible.

If they take something and actually use a piece of it in their "innovation" without compensation, permission, or credit, yes they should feel terrible because they are thieves.

 

[motobrewer]

\And yes, Andy Warhol IMHO did steal. It takes nothing away from his talent. And in the end, the original owners gave implicit permission because they were better off because of what he'd done. Campbell's had a lawsuit drawn up that many legal scholars believed they could win, but they realized that while he had trademark infringement, they gained more as an American icon through his work than as a victorious lawsuit winner.

baaaaahahahhaha!

can i get a citation please? oh, the citation can't be, "A$$, My"

campbell's never wanted to sue warhol, in fact, they commissioned a painting from him

also, you're stealing malt because you didn't grow and malt the barley yourself and are using it to make beer.

 

[cimirie]

baaaaahahahhaha!

can i get a citation please? oh, the citation can't be, "A$$, My"

campbell's never wanted to sue warhol, in fact, they commissioned a painting from him

also, you're stealing malt because you didn't grow and malt the barley yourself and are using it to make beer.

Now you're just intentionally trying to miss the point. If you don't create something yourself, and somebody else currently has claim to it, you must either (a) pay for it, (b) ask permission to use it, or (c) give credit to somebody else in order to use it. It obviously depends on the situation (tangible good, academic idea, or a photo) but there's no way around it.

If you want to call BS on the Warhol statement, be my guest. It came from a business law class dealing with trademaek infringement in college 10 years ago. I have no citation to provide (as i dont memorize textbook names 10 years after the fact) so if in your mind that in any way validates your argument, so be it. Congratulations! Campbell's did commission a painting from him of their dried soup and donated real soup cans for his gallery - 25 years after he did his first painting of soup, during which, pop culture advertising proved he was an asset. Business is about money. Who cares what he did as long as it makes me richer.

 

[riromero]

Okay, that’s one approach. The advantage to that type of zero-tolerance policy is there’s no grey area; either it’s theft or it’s not. The disadvantage is that common sense gets left out. So if you cruise over to the “DIY project” section of this site and see a cool design for a sparge braid, no fair using it yourself or even improving it without compensation to or explicit permission from the original author. I won’t even get into the entire beer recipe archive found here. It’s a clear rule, but no reasonable person would consider it misuse.

We’re all adults. We can decide for ourselves what’s reasonable use of information found on the Internet. If you personally want to use the zero-tolerance policy for stuff you come across, that’s fine. For me it seems reasonable that someone who posted a sparge braid design/beer recipe/image to a public forum without stipulating any conditions for it’s use won’t be harmed if I use it personally for non-commercial purposes. It seems reasonable to me that Disney won’t be harmed if some guy uses Jimney Cricket holding a beer mug as a logo for homebrew he shares with his friends. So I propose that everyone abide by whatever they best consider fair use. If it breaks your heart to see others engaging in what you consider blatant, immoral theft, then send them a private message specifically stating what you think is improper rather that casting vague innuendo about misuse found in this sub-forum in general.

That's it. I'm done.

 

[motobrewer]

If you want to call BS on the Warhol statement, be my guest. It came from a business law class dealing with trademaek infringement in college 10 years ago. I have no citation to provide (as i dont memorize textbook names 10 years after the fact) so if in your mind that in any way validates your argument, so be it. Congratulations! Campbell's did commission a painting from him of their dried soup and donated real soup cans for his gallery - 25 years after he did his first painting of soup, during which, pop culture advertising proved he was an asset. Business is about money. Who cares what he did as long as it makes me richer.

wrong again. the original campbell's painting was done in 1962. campbell commissioned him in 1964.

i hope information from one of the world's most established auction house is a good enough reference:

For their part, the Campbell Soup Company used the soup can as their company logo and corporate identity. After the paintings' debut and wide publicity in 1962-1963, the company appreciated that their most important product had been catapulted into a new realm. In October 1964, the company commissioned Warhol to make a larger 3 x 2 foot painting of a tomato soup can for Oliver G. Willits upon his retirement as Chairman of the Campbell’s Board of Directors.

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159344472

 

[gregger]

OP here. Every single one of you are wrong and right in one way or another. As a graphic artist, portrait/wedding photographer, and someone who teaches basic graphic art to young and old students, I'm cringing as I'm reading a few of these view points, and hell, my viewpoint is right and wrong to some as well.

I just want to say this so you would at least have the vast majorities' guidelines for our work... Of course it's ok to borrow other artists work. We consider our work borrowed when you ask us for permission. Sometimes, we also consider it borrowed when you take it without asking first, as long as you show us what you made with it in the end. But in any circumstance, if you "borrow" something that carries a price tag, without asking, you stole it. Stealing is illegal. If it carries a price tag, and you ask us to use a free copy of it because you only use it in your home brewery, we'll say yes, and email you a usable duplication (the only problem here is I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time). But remember - if it is on the internet to be sold - this is our income, and we sell this work for this very reason. We sell it to people who want it. But we'll be ethical and reasonable with you if you are with us. You aren't the decision maker when it comes to use of our work, we are (as well as the laws of course). Please ask, or use good judgment on your own.

Add the sites to your resources if you want. Use your own judgment and keep posting your labels for feedback. I'll probably think to myself "Wow, that's a great painting/photo/graphic on your label." I'll research and find the image, then the artist and look at more of their work anyway.

 

[Burgs]

If they take something and actually use a piece of it in their "innovation" without compensation, permission, or credit, yes they should feel terrible because they are thieves.

I feel you - if they go on to sell said "innovation" and make money w/ out giving credit. But I'd have to second riromero's plea for some common sense in this particular situation. It's homebrew we're talking about here man.

 

[freakshow10mm]

OP here. Every single one of you are wrong and right in one way or another. As a graphic artist, portrait/wedding photographer, and someone who teaches basic graphic art to young and old students, I'm cringing as I'm reading a few of these view points, and hell, my viewpoint is right and wrong to some as well.

I just want to say this so you would at least have the vast majorities' guidelines for our work... Of course it's ok to borrow other artists work. We consider our work borrowed when you ask us for permission. Sometimes, we also consider it borrowed when you take it without asking first, as long as you show us what you made with it in the end. But in any circumstance, if you "borrow" something that carries a price tag, without asking, you stole it. Stealing is illegal. If it carries a price tag, and you ask us to use a free copy of it because you only use it in your home brewery, we'll say yes, and email you a usable duplication (the only problem here is I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time). But remember - if it is on the internet to be sold - this is our income, and we sell this work for this very reason. We sell it to people who want it. But we'll be ethical and reasonable with you if you are with us. You aren't the decision maker when it comes to use of our work, we are (as well as the laws of course). Please ask, or use good judgment on your own.

Add the sites to your resources if you want. Use your own judgment and keep posting your labels for feedback. I'll probably think to myself "Wow, that's a great painting/photo/graphic on your label." I'll research and find the image, then the artist and look at more of their work anyway.

Get off your high horse and quit dictating how others should act.

 

[cimirie]

I feel you - if they go on to sell said "innovation" and make money w/ out giving credit. But I'd have to second riromero's plea for some common sense in this particular situation. It's homebrew we're talking about here man.

In one of my early posts in this thread, I mentioned that I wasn't trying to change behavior. As I said, I'm no stranger to an occasional lapse in my theory (some of my iPod content, my winter warmer label, etc). But I know that if I'm called to the mat on the subject, there's no place to justify my actions. I am looking for people to simply acknowledge the same.

The likelihood of people caring or even finding out is next to none. It doesn't change the actions.

 

[gregger]

Get off your high horse and quit dictating how others should act.

That's exactly what you're doing bud.

 

[gregger]

The likelihood of people caring or even finding out is next to none. It doesn't change the actions.

A+ statement. I understand that what I don't know, won't hurt me, and everyone wins. But I would definitely love to know when someone wants to or did use my labels for their home brews. Not for copyright reasons, but for "flattery".

 

[MeatyPortion]

I remember in basic training how, upon discovering that I could draw, my fellow recruits asked me to design tattoos for them. For free of course. I gave up on a career in art soon after that.

 

[gregger]

I remember in basic training how, upon discovering that I could draw, my fellow recruits asked me to design tattoos for them. For free of course. I gave up on a career in art soon after that.

Overloaded with requests I assume?