[pavel_lishin]

Not really. As far as I can tell, the original artist wasn't selling his works, right? And apologies in advance to all the designers reading this, but the posters are a sentence fragment in a standard font. They're not printing off bootleg copies of the Mona Lisa here.

I suppose I'm being immoral and disrespectful, myself. Should I send Dos Equis a letter of apology, see if KC Green sells prints of his comics, and try to track down both the artists working on the Spiderman show as well as the person who placed text on this image? http://imgur.com/3CHhp

Let me know if I'm factually wrong in any of my statements.

[j_c]

"But the posters are a sentence fragment in a standard font. They're not printing off bootleg copies of the Mona Lisa here."

---

A 63-year-old Picasso got out his pen and paper and sketched the woman, who passing by had asked for a quick self-portrait of herself.

It took him 30 seconds, once finished, he asked for 500,000 US dollars.

'Why? It didn't even take you a minute!' she replied.

'Madam, that sketch took 63 years."

And off he walked, with the sketch in his pocket.

[gonehome]

I think many people on hacker news recognize good design skill takes years to develop, but this is an extreme. They took a simple four word sentence and printed it in red. Do you think the public benefits by having this designer have a ~150 year copyright monopoly on something as simple as this sentence?

It's a simple poster people were excited about and when it was unavailable went out to make it themselves.

[angersock]

That's cool and all, but these folks are hardly Picasso, and the art in question could've been trivially generated by picking a few words at random from a database and adding color.

Don't treat this like a masterpiece.