Dr Who Shirt Ripoff

Today I went to TeeFury and noticed something looked familiar.

Todays Tee design:

It reminded me of an old boxing poster tutorial on psd.tutsplus.com by James Davies:

I haven’t checked to see if the illustrations of the characters are stolen too, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Don’t get me wrong, I like the shirt, however, it is what it is.

Posted by Theoneandonlyjoe  |  20 Comments  |  in Advertisement, Design, Fashions, Not A Rip, Print, TV


  1. Anonymous 05/29/2012 10:13 pm
  2. anonymous 02/08/2012 8:41 pm

    the only rip off here is of Dr. Who

  3. Uhoh 11/22/2011 11:51 pm

    This is not a rip off…. Where are the moderators here?

  4. emmatater 07/30/2011 6:16 am

    Um.. the point is that it looks like that poster. As in, it’s based off of it or is in homage to it (as many other commenters have pointed out). Many t-shirt designs like this are similar; not because they ripped off of someone’s work but because it was an intentional homage to said work, and you need to tell the difference. Stop trolling and understand the terms of this site better.

  5. Anonymous 07/29/2011 12:17 pm

    I don’t think this is such a bad rip. This piece, however, is much more uncomfortably close to the original: http://10and5.com/2011/07/06/saatchi-saatchi-for-sasko-flour/

  6. Anonymous 06/29/2011 6:48 pm

    How about you stop wasting your time looking for ripoffs (nothing is original) and get on with what you do!

  7. betty jordan wester 06/18/2011 10:49 pm

    yeaaah, that’s what’s known as an “homage”.

  8. Anon1 06/01/2011 11:37 am

    Agree with above, and others. And we’ve had this before on here with tuts being used for artwork. Despite being a bit lame, its also got to be ok. To be honest I think its been well done here, and no ones been ripped off…

  9. Anonymous 05/27/2011 2:18 pm

    It’s a gray area, since the point of a tute like that is for people to reproduce the work.

    Lazy/uninspired/creatively bankrupt? Sure.

    Rip off? Not so much.

  10. enochjohnson 05/26/2011 3:33 pm

    …and if I use an art nouveau ornament style in a design i bet it’ll end up here saying I ripped off Alphonse Mucha.

  11. Stephen 05/25/2011 2:42 pm

    I agree, this is not a rip. I also agree that there needs to be someone moderating the posts to determine if posts are actual rips.

  12. Mork 05/25/2011 2:04 pm

    obvious troll is obvious.

  13. Marc 05/25/2011 9:22 am

    Have to agree with GP… if the source was a walkthrough tutorial site, obviously the intention was for people to follow the tute. The T designer has certainly taken it a lot further. Can’t see the problem.

  14. GP 05/24/2011 5:31 am

    I think the guy is saying that the T-shirt designer has basically just used the photoshop walkthrough to produce the T-shirt rather than come up with the design themselves by studying and parodying the original posters.

    However, the walkthrough writer must’ve intended that others would use their guide to produce their own work. You could argue that using it in such a commercial manner (particularly when the T-shirt designer has kept so much the same) is wrong but, really, you’d need to ask the tutorial writer if they were okay with it or not.

  15. Liz 05/23/2011 4:57 pm

    This is obviously parody, both of the original ad and of Dr Who, and thus not something for anyone to get upset over.

  16. headsign 05/23/2011 5:50 am

    Hommage is the wrong term. I would say “inspired by…” or “fueled with the ideas of…”, but I wouldn’t call it a ripoff, as the elements used in both cases are traditional for Boxing posters.
    As to Megan’s question: a hommage is an artwort which clearly refers to another artwork. Generally, it is assumed that the artwork, which is referred to, is so well-known, that about anybody will recognize the intention to refer to the original piece.
    “Inspired” means an artwork contains elements of another artwork. This is absolutely common in arts and should not be subject to blame.
    Ripoff happens when the design, the idea or/and the message are copied in a way that doesn’t add anything new to the artwork. A client’s brand name, for example, is the “passenger” of an artwork, so it can’t be something new. If that’s the main difference, one can safely call it a ripoff.

  17. tom 05/23/2011 5:45 am

    Megan’s right. This site is getting ruined by stupid posts like this one. Are there no moderators working here at all? Does no one look in on this stuff?

  18. Megan 05/22/2011 11:26 pm

    Could someone at YTWWN PLEASE make some kind of announcement about the definition of “homage”? Half the submissions lately seen to be people unable to tell the difference between rip-off and intentional homage.

  19. Jeremy Wilson 05/22/2011 10:39 pm

    Hello! Homage! Durr.

  20. GP 05/22/2011 10:18 pm

    The placement of the vs. does seem to point to the tutorial as being the starting point for the design.

    It is, otherwise, fairly easy to come up with something that looks similar just by using old boxing posters as an inspiration, e.g.
    (Just two random ones from a quick Internet search)

Post a Comment

  • What is this place?

    YTWWN is a blog where users have taken notice to a blatant rip off of a creative work, and shared it with us. Sharing and discussing the observations and casualties of improper use of creative property is what we're all about here.

    This is an open blog, so please, add to and join the discussion, but keep in mind that there is a fine line between a rip-off and similarity of ideas. Please read the 'About' page before posting.

    Please use some discretion before posting to help us keep this blog legitimate.

    We look forward to seeing what you have to share.