Gap accused of stealing Flickr photo for shirt designs

first_imgAll of the big clothing brands are tasked with coming up with new designs to go on their latest clothing ranges every year. So you’d expect designers to be hired, or existing images to be licensed for use as prints on such clothing. That’s not the case for Gap, who seem to prefer loading up Flickr and doing a search until they find an image they like.That certainly seems to be the case for a Thermal Body Double Gap is selling in its Baby range for $17. The print on the shirt is of a classic Jaguar, but where did the image come from? Hobby photographer Chris Devers can tell you, as he took the original photo and uploaded it to his Flickr account. The issue Devers has is Gap never asked to use the photo, they just took it.AdChoices广告This isn’t an accusation made without evidence. Here’s the images side-by-side:Further evidence comes from Bill Ricker who superimposed the shirt design over the photograph and it matches perfectly:Devers is awaiting a response from Gap explaining why his image is on its shirt:I have various thoughts about what’s going on here — for example, the mind-boggling idea that some unknown factory in southeast Asia somewhere is cranking out thousands of $16.95 tshirts with my photo on them on behalf of the Gap, and yet they never attempted to contact me about their use of my work — but I’m trying to keep most of my thoughts to myself until Gap has a chance to respond. It’s not just that one item, though, the same print appears multiple times across a $25 2-in-1 moto one-piece:We are also awaiting Gap’s explanation as to why it is using this image without any contact with the owner first.Read more at Steve Devers Flickr page and MediabistroMatthew’s OpinionIn case you are wondering, Devers has uploaded his image to Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license. That states the image can be freely copied, shared, and distributed as long as:Attribution is givenIt is noncommercial distributionNo alterations, transfroms, or build upon work is carried outGap fails on every condition. They haven’t attributed Devers, the image is being sold commercially, and they have altered the image.Unless Gap manage to produce an image that is exactly the same but from another source, they could be in trouble here. Devers could rightly get himself a copyright lawyer and go to court. Gap will have to remove the items from sale and compensation may be in order.There is a scenario where Gap is completely innocent, though. The company does employ independent designers to create new prints for its clothing. It’s not out of the realms of possibility that it was one of these designers that stole the image and presented it to Gap as his/her own work.Whatever the case, we would like to know the outcome of this complaint and hope Gap respond to Devers explaining what happened.last_img read more

Continue Reading