Pineapple Express t-shirt design rip off?

Surprised this wasn’t already posted on this site figured I would at least help get the word out. Read up on the full story via
Original WOWCH Design

Original Design from WOWCH

Potiental Rip from Pineapple Express

Potential Rip from Pineapple Express

Posted by taddict  |  22 Comments  |  in Uncategorized


  1. Pete 11/10/2008 11:22 pm

    Both rip photographer Carl Roessler’s copyrighted image of the shark:

  2. joe get over it 11/03/2008 9:51 pm

    who the fuck cares this movie beats off in your soup motha fuckers

  3. Mordecai Chalk 10/28/2008 10:47 pm

    True story, I had a skateboard with a very similar picture on when I was about 6. 25 years ago. The only difference is the kitten was in a tub/boat.

  4. majik 08/27/2008 10:19 pm

    Fook, this is really scraping the barrel now guys. YTWWN has gone downhill lately.

  5. Anonymous 08/21/2008 10:24 am

    Second that.

  6. Kyle 08/20/2008 9:23 pm

    i prefer the pineapple express version.

  7. Anonymous 08/19/2008 10:13 pm

    A lot of idiots that dont read on this site. No one here claimed that they designed the original shirt. The only thing said was thet there happens to be 2 differnt versions of the same shirt. Someone ripped someone off. Something doesnt have to be sold to be a rip, the ripper doesnt have to make money to be a rip. The original doesnt have to be great to be a rip. A rip is a rip whichever way you want to look at it.

  8. Leopold Stotch 08/15/2008 2:41 am

    Based on my experience handing over art to movies/tv shows, this is what probably happened:
    Producer/director/art director tells assistant “go find a funny stoner shirt to put on the main character.”
    Assistant finds it, but boss, not giving a shit where it came from or who did it because he’s got bigger issuees to deal with, says “it’s close but I need it to look ‘aged’ or dirty, and can you flip it the other direction, thanks sport. Get me some coffee while you’re out too”
    Assistant does what he is told.
    No conspiracy, no controvery, no Universal selling shirts.

    If this person was smart he would look at the history of product placement in movies.

    Example A:After Travolta wore that ‘UCSC Bannana Slugs’ T shirt in Pulp Fiction, the UCSC store sold out within days and had back orders going on forever.

    Example B:After Office Space came out, Swingline got inundated with requests for red Swingline staplers, a colorway ironically enough, they never actually produced. Smartly, they quickly produced them and, voila, they’ve been selling them by the caseload ever since.

    See a pattern developing here? If you have any fiscal smarts, I would get that T Shirt large on your homepage pronto, with big 72 point type that says ‘As seen in Pineapple Express!’

  9. Chrizz TheJunction 08/14/2008 4:31 pm

    Lol does it really matter if it is exact or not?
    Cool shirt, cool that you noticed, everything cool ;)


  10. rek 08/13/2008 3:49 pm

    It’s a prop in a movie, probably created by some lowly costumer specifically for the character. Do you have any proof of claiming credit, or trying to profit from the *design*? Of course not. If anything you should be glad it’s there, it might get people to buy your “original” image hack.

  11. Alli 08/13/2008 1:15 pm

    I totally agree with Matthew. It is an exact copy, so it’s a rip… matter what your opinion of the image is.

  12. Ripoff Artist 08/13/2008 10:39 am

    So you stole two images, sloppily thwapped them together in photoshop, (and sold it to Urban Outfitters of all retailers) and you’re complaining because someone else stole two images, sloppily thwapped them together in photoshop and slipped it onto a b-grade actor in a b-grade film.

    I’m not going to say it isn’t a rip or that it isn’t a pretty decadent act. But this is pretty weak.

  13. matthew 08/13/2008 6:06 am

    i don’t understand how this ISN’T a rip. The director literally tried to pawn the tshirt off as his own idea…therefore ripping SOMEONE off. Just because there was no financial gain doesn’t mean it’s not a rip.

  14. Anonymous 08/09/2008 10:29 am

    Oh, sorry, didn’t realize this site is here purely to target stores selling rip off shit! That completely contradicts 99% of the posts I’ve ever read on this site! Funny that, but you’d know!

  15. rek 08/08/2008 7:45 pm

    Is Pineapple Express a store selling the shirt? No, so this doesn’t belong here.

  16. Manen 08/08/2008 1:05 pm

    The shirt and cat color, as well as their direction can just be a different model from the same company. How often do you see the same shirt in 15 different formats? If the director claimed it was custom made, though, that’s a different story and should be mentioned in the actual post (Not everyone has access to linked sites from work). I certainly wouldn’t call it a controversy or a rip. What’s to say WOWCH didn’t rip the movie instead? There is absolutely no information here.

  17. Anonymous 08/08/2008 3:49 am

    Ummm Manen… The two t-shirts are different, he’s not just wearing the original WOWCH t-shirt… ?! The point is that the WOWCH one came first, now there’s a very similar one featured in the movie that somebody in the crew (the director I think) has claimed to have designed for the character in the movie. What we’re trying to figure out is if the one in the movie is a rip.

  18. Logic 08/07/2008 7:34 pm

    Big deal, if the shirt exposed kids to crack or was caught defacing the Vatican,then it would be a controversy. This is another case of someone along the line gt lazy (probably) and life went on (hopefully).

  19. anon 08/07/2008 4:20 pm

    The controversy is that its not the exact same shirt. Same concept except cats are differnt color and the shark is turned the other way. Not an exact rip but definitlly a concept rip.

  20. Manen 08/07/2008 12:42 pm

    So…someone designs a T-shirt…and suddenly someone else is seen wearing it in a movie…how is this controversial? The wardrobe people probably just bought it and thought it would fit the character. What do you expect, companies would sue any actor wearing their clothes on TV or in movies? That makes no sense.

  21. Leopold Stotch 08/06/2008 7:50 pm

    I think he meant to say ‘conspiracy’.

  22. Logic 08/06/2008 3:55 pm

    That’s not a controversy.

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.