[profsummergig]

I wanted to try out the tee-shirt hustle once.

There was a cool design (or at least I thought so) I came up with. Had about 100 of those printed.

Went to Amazon to get a seller account:

1) learned that if I had only 1 tee-shirt with a single design to sell, I couldn't get the account.

2) after researching the competition, discovered that many of the tee-shirt designs for sale were:

    a) clearly in copyright violation (e.g. Disney characters on some mom & pop store.
    
    b) their images on their store were just a photoshopped tee-shirt. I.e., not photos of the actual tee-shirt they had for sale. But the design photoshopped on to a photo of a blank tee-shirt.

Boggled my mind that Amazon was okay with this.

[riffraff]

Copyright violation on t-shirts seems to be the norm, it's not just Amazon. Basically every t-shirt seller out there will allow user-submitted design that infringe on someone's IP.

I'm not complaining, cause I love my Mario/Banksy crossover t-shirt, but it's just how it is, Disney & co just don't bother going after them, they're happy to sell you their official™ stuff through other channels.

[account42]

Ordering your own prints really should not be a copyright issue anyway even if the law currently might disagree.

[dlcarrier]

Copyright law only restricts commercial activity, so if you print a Nintendo character on your shirt, to wear yourself, there's no means for Nintendo to sue you over it. File sharing lawsuits are not over users downloading content, but over users seeding it, which is on by default in most file sharing clients.

If you hire someone to print it on the shirt for you, and then distribute the shirt, you would be liable for copyright infringement, not the printer, because the printer isn't supplying the artwork, you are. It's no different than placing phone calls to perform an illegal activity. The phone provider isn't guilty, but you are.

If you order a custom shirt, and provide unlicensed copyrighted artwork, but don't distribute it, then no one is in a position to get in trouble.

[mminer237]

> Copyright law only restricts commercial activity

That is just not true. A copyright gives the owner thereof exclusive rights to make a copy of his work. Neither the creator nor the copier have to sell anything.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

Noncommercial use is a factor to be considered for fair use if the copier is doing it for a protected purpose. (Creating a t-shirt for your personal use is not a protected purpose and can therefore never be fair use on its own though.)

The reason someone making a personal shirt doesn't get sued is because suing people is expensive, that harms goodwill, and Disney isn't getting any money from such a person anyway.

[dlcarrier]

I should clarify that noncommercial use something different: an exemption for commercial activity. What copyright enforcement can't recover is income from activity that couldn't have generated revenue, in the first place. If I draw a Nintendo character on my own T-shirt, and never sell that T-shirt, that's not a copyright violation, because there's no way I could have made money from it. Whereas, if I draw a character on a T-shirt, then give it away for free, it's noncommercial activity, but it could be subject to copyright, because I could have charged for it.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I once asked a laptop skin company to print a design that included the logo of the company I worked for, and they refused, unless I also provided a release from our Legal Department (which they would never do, so I gave it up).

So I assume that a lot of self-publishing type companies may refuse to do copyrighted stuff, even for one-off jobs.

[dylan604]

This is something I've just never understood. Of course, I didn't drink the kool-aid either. I understand when working for a company that gives away their corporate branded swag to employees that free stuff is tempting. I know some people whose entire wardrobe is company swag, and they don't wear it just at work but during off time during the weekends. (I understand young employees fresh out of school that might be the cheapest way to survive with free corp branded stuff is tempting.) However, being willing to pay to have swag produced is even further beyond my ability at comprehension. I thought people that bought company swag was out there, but paying for one off items is just cray cray to me

[ChrisMarshallNY]

It's nice to work for an organization that you're proud to be at; even as an older person. Pretty rare, but can happen. The mercenary approach that so many low-level employees have, is a bit depressing. When we spend the majority of our time somewhere, it's kinda nice to feel good about it (BTW: The company would have paid for it. It was for company gear, to help build the brand, when working with outside entities. I didn't use the laptop for personal stuff -I actually had a much better one, for my own work).

But it's entirely possible that I'm crazy, anyway. You're probably quite perceptive.

[account42]

The mercenary approach is a direct consequence of companies treating employees as replaceable cogs so I don't think its fair to blame the "low-level" employees for this.

[grogenaut]

I have a large sarcastic hilarious unique sticker on my company laptop for the last 7 years (transferred) it was worth the $40. Given wfh it was kinda like Pokemon the % of coworkers who noticed it. Basically creating company lore.

[account42]

I don't like company-branded swag either but the reason that gifts for employees are usually company-branded is due to tax reasons - the company logo allows it to count as advertisement which is a business expense rather than employee compensation.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

As a general rule of thumb, I don’t wear branded stuff; regardless of the brand.

In some cases, though, like at trade shows and tech conferences, we were required to wear it.

[joshribakoff]

That would be trademark not copyright violation.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

You are correct.

[masfuerte]

> Copyright law only restricts commercial activity

So torrenting movies is legal?

[bitexploder]

No, you are still reproducing a copyrighted work. It is a violation for torrents and t shirts. Commercial copyright holders tend to go after those that distribute or enable large scale infringement in some way. It most certainly restricts individuals from reproducing copyrighted works on a one off basis.

[ceejayoz]

Torrenting is risky because of seeding. You get in trouble for distribution more than possession.

[dylan604]

Why torrent at all? Just find a friend that torrents, and bring a USB stick to their place. Remember kids, fly low and avoid the radar

[xp84]

VPN is helpful, though I learned recently you've got to pick a VPN that allows you to open a port, or you're stuck behind NAT.