or is selling a t-shirt with Myra Hindley's face on it completely out of order?

[Liska]

Society 6 are selling this. I know it's art. I get it. But it's also total shit, and completely out of order. I've even tweeted it (first tweet in about a year). So cross.

I meant that I get that the site selling it have not just made a random design. They work as a platform for artists, so that artists can use art that they have already made, whether it's oils or line drawings, to put on items of clothing ('premium' clothing of course) or household things. My point was that you can make a portrait of anyone you like as a piece of art, and I get that, but putting this particular piece of art on a frigging t shirt is offensive and out of order.

I suppose I was expecting people to jump on me and say "but it's not a random design, it's from a piece of art". So I was pre-empting that because it's irrelevant.

As I said in my OP, it's also total shit.

Sorry, Boogers, I wasn't clear - I meant that it is mind boggling that someone would think it was a good idea. (Well, it is to me anyway). I'd misread your post as saying someone upthread thought it was a good idea. (Rather than just that I was overreacting and BU.) Confession - I'm actually at work, and supposed to be working, so I'm not being as clear as I'd like, or reading as carefully as I should!

A quick aside, can you only reproduce images of people who are dead or can you also reproduce images of living people?

Ooh, no idea. There must be some kind of permission required. Or is that just for photos? You can probably draw or paint whoever you like.

Liska I type one fingered on my phone so I can't type that quickly

So, say, Madonna circa 1993 or, say, Jeff Goldblum (!!) could be recreated as an image on a t-shirt?

It's terrible. Good on you for writing.

That the families get to see their children's murderer as a witty design on a t.shirt...It's just...shit.

Boogers AFAIK, yes.

What the actual fuck.

In that case, there are much better icons to stick on a t-shirt.

As I said before, what better way to get your company noticed than to use a contentious image and publicise it on social media.

@ Boogers - where did you read this?

And just in case you are thinking of popping Peter Sutcliffe's image on one of your t-shirts, can I just remind you that he removed the front teeth of the women he murdered so as they couldn't bite his dick when he forced it into their mouth?

evrybuddy did you not read the trial reports?

Having just googled it - I can find no reference to this act and I've never seen it reported anywhere - can you give a source?

Yorkshire Post would be a good place to start.

Can you post a link where you've seen this reported?

The hashtag #societysick was used on Twitter and by bloggers in late 2014 to successfully get Society 6 to drop this image from their babygrows and childrenswear - it didn't quite go the way we intended because they dropped the products but not the image.

Boogers the individual or the owner of the copyright of the image portrayed would need to pursue the artist/vendor/whatever. Taylor Swift is very hot on this, but not everyone has the resources/fanbase to track violations down, locate the person involved and then send out cease and desist letters.

I've nc'd for this because I was one of those bloggers and don't want my usual nn to be associated with my RL name.

It is tasteless, annoying and deeply unpleasant. However, controversy =attention and attention is what companies who perform these kinds of stunt really want, so I say ignore them.

At what point does the sexually motivated torture and murder of women and children become an acceptable image/ gothic fun. Jack the ripper t-shirts seem a popular item on the internet. All these products are vile, I suppose its even worse when the victims close relatives are still alive. Who buys this stuff from any time modern or historical?

Wow. Yes seen those now societysick. Unbelievable.

It is pretty tasteless. I think I'd favour ignoring and assuming that nobody (or such a tiny number) will buy it rather than drawing attention to it.

On living people's image the copyright holder would have a claim for breach of copyright. The person depicted in the image would only have a claim for passing off if they could show that people buying the item would think they had endorsed the product.

1, its awful
2, I saw a woman who looked very much like that, today. So much so I thought it was her. I didn't know about the t-shirt at the time.

That is fucking horrific.

It's awful to think that there could be young people walking about with that on their t shirt without knowing who it is.

Anyone involved in this needs a fucking slap upside the heid.

Is this real? Please say it's just a crap joke? Who would even wear that?
Yanbu

And to think I learned last night of how Billy Fury caught the chill that ultimately led to his death, by geting soaked walking home in the rain, carrying an injured bird to safety. What a contrast. How about having him on your t-shirt if you want an iconic image, rather than a serial killer.