Everyone loves those retro birds
November 26th, 2007 by susie
Retro bird fabric from a 1969 apron kit. Le Sportsacs new handbag.
UPDATE:
The birds ” Flock of Fun” was done by the National Handcraft Institute in Des Moines, Iowa.
In 1969 CBS acquired the company.
2ND UPDATE:
Days after this post Le Sportsac removes retro bird bag from website.
URBAN OUTFITTERS LOVES THOSE RETRO BIRDS ALSO.
Being sold now at www.urbn.com
(16 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
I think this falls well into the “inspiration/homage” category. And it’s not like there was no design, nor thought, nor creative process invested in the handbag.
In any case, the handbag does a better job.
Alfonso. What creative process? Copy tree branches. Copy birds. All they did was change the color of the birds. Do you consider that a creative process?
lol i’m leaning in susie’s direction though it’s something worth getting grandma.
http://paidandpopular.blogspot.com
The design was overall cleaned up and turned into a more tightly-knit (and much more effective) pattern.
But more importantly, there is something to be said about a designer’s job of putting things together, without necessarily authoring said things. I think a bonafide ripoff would be an illustrator tracing the birds and branches and showcasing it as his/her own. In this case, the design isn’t in the illustration, but in its (way nicer, I might add) application.
Something I’ve noticed lately in this site and elsewhere is that sometimes people don’t seem to grasp the difference between ripping something off and using it as a design element. Unless there is someone out there (the designer, the manufacturer, an illustrator somewhere) actually saying that he/she/they came up with the illustration (ie. completely disregarding the existence of the apron), I don’t see how it’s a ripoff. Is it easy? Sure. Is it a cop-out? Arguably so. But, a ripoff? Hardly.
It is quite possible that, if asked, the designer or manufacturer of this handbag would point you in the direction of sixties-era cheap apron designs as an influence, or reference, or downright source (as it clearly is). Then again, said designer/manufacturer may claim authorship of the illustration, in which case, they’d be hacks and this would completely be a ripoff, I agree.
But without this knowledge, to say “Hey! Look at this handbag! These bastards ripped this off from my aunt’s old apron!! And to think they thought we wouldn’t notice!! Sneaky bastards…” is, in my opinion, quite on the naïve/reactionary side of things. Guilty until proven otherwise, that seems to be the motto.
As an example of the contrary, look at Frank Shepard Fairey. Now that guy would actually take the apron design, trace it (haphazardly, btw), put the word OBEY on it with a small star bearing the face of André the Giant, and actually tell you it all came out of his head. He does this on a regular basis, not only using other people’s stuff, but claiming every stroke as his own. When interviewed, he has the choice of citing his references, but chooses not to, and actually goes as far as saying it’s all his. And that’s what I mean by the difference between someone using something without immediately specifying where it came from, and ripping it off by calling it one’s own. The handbag designer/manufacturer doesn’t specify where the image/pattern came from, or who created it (let’s face it: the people interested in purchasing their handbags aren’t necessarily interested in learning about the design process behind the product). And that, to me, draws an inconclusive result.
Alfonso, The birds and branches are copied. TRACED and then applied into a pattern. It would be like taking the monkey face from Paul Frank and using it in a pattern. Don’t you get it?? The industry has lost it’s moral compass on what is a copy and what isn’t. This isn’t about if the consumer cares if it is a knock off or not, it is about taking from artists. To say you can use the artists work as a design element or homage is simply a joke. Someone , somehwere, designed this UNIQUE retro bird graphic and now it seems Le Sportsac is using it to make money. PEROID! Is that fair. If anyone were to use a element or homage of any of Le Sportsac designs what do you think would happen. You would be in court so fast.
NOTE: When this was presented on Youthougtwewouldn’tnotice. No where in the title does it state Le Sportsac stole apron graphics. It just displays both images. It is up to the public to conclude. So your theory on people being naive or reactionry is weak on your part.
Like I said: Guilty until proven otherwise.
I mention that the consumer doesn’t care to account for the lack of information on the page about the source of the birds. What we do not know is whether or not these bird illustrations were bought or stolen.
This is where you display your reactionary attitude:
To say you can use the artists work as a design element or homage is simply a joke. Someone , somehwere, designed this UNIQUE retro bird graphic and now it seems Le Sportsac is using it to make money. PEROID! Is that fair. If anyone were to use a element or homage of any of Le Sportsac designs what do you think would happen. You would be in court so fast.
You presume this company stole the birds. I realize many corporations take part in this type of behavior, but does that justify judging all corporations like that regardless of the facts (or in spite of a lack of facts)? I think not.
The only weak argument here is the excerpt I quoted above, in my opinion.
The interesting thing is I researched this fabric 5 years ago. It is not in Public Domain so if Le Sprotsac did in fact legally use the fabric then they found the 70 – 80 year old who created it. Which I doubt since countless fabric suppliers tried to find the artist 5 years ago and they had no luck. Someone had written a article about the little birds. Regardless on how they are using it, legally or not, FACT is they copied from the orginal. If the laws in place protected designers this website wouldn’t be here. No other industry is able to get away with so much design copy. Which is also why a new law is in front of congress called the Design Piracy law.
Found the company. The birds are called “Flock of Fun” and was put out on napkins, postcards, potholders and aprons.The company NATIONAL HANDCRAFT INSTITUTE Des Moines Iowa 50304. In 1969 CBS acquired the company and became publisher.
Oh, NOW you’re including your research… How convenient, don’t you think?
Even more convenient is how now, all of a sudden, I should take your word for it that “contless fabric suppliers tried to find the artist 5 years ago.” Seriously, how come you didn’t mention this the first time around, when I clearly stated (in my second comment) that the question is one of evidence and not one of whether the product uses the bird design or not (which it obviously does).
There are a few inconsistencies in your argument:
You say Le Sportsac must have found the 70-80 year old designer who created the birds to be able to use it legally, yet you also mention that said design was used by National Handcraft Institute (from Des Moine, Iowa, mind you) for printing on napkins, postcards, potholders and aprons. How do you know that said company (and, thus, CBS, its current proprietor, according to you) doesn’t own the full rights to the illustration? If that’s the case, it seems perfectly plausible to me that Le Sportsac may have acquired a license for this “coveted” (so you say) design from National Handcraft Institute / CBS.
On a related note, it seems rather unlikely that such a well-known brand as Le Sportsac would risk ridicule, embarrassment and a potentially high-profile lawsuit for a simple (if beautiful) piece of design. If, as you say, COUNTLESS fabric suppliers tried to find the artist as recently as 5 years ago, doesn’t it seem like a really retarded thing to do to steal this design and use it on a regular product for all the world to see? If these COUNTLESS fabric suppliers were so intent on finding the designer, don’t you think that means that there was considerable interest expressed by their clients (like, for example, other bag & accessory manufacturers)? And doesn’t that place the design right smack in the top ten list of shit that I really shouldn’t steal, because everybody’s paying too much attention to it, and thus everybody’s gonna know I stole it?
You can’t seriously expect me to believe all of this makes sense. To me, it seems as if you are just trying really hard to compensate for the fact that you over-reacted without necessarily knowing all the facts. But that’s just me…
I never over-reacted. I am a designer not a lawyer so I say what is on my mind without much thought or analyzing.I speak from my heart . I can understand how it might not make sense to you. I don’t make sense to most people. Plus, I am a little cautious about what information to let out.( I have a gut feeling that the birds have been used without authorization) This is all really very simple. I have been a huge fan of art that is very simplistic yet has magic. Charley Harper is a perfect example. Those birds fall into that category and I have always been very curious about them .
My initial research: In the fabric industry there are two major companies, 1 in New York and 1 in Los Angeles that take vintage fabric that has fallen into public domain. They then copyright it under their company name and print it on fabric. They are very aggressive and competitive at getting prints first that have fallen into public domain. They will not touch anything that MIGHT have a copyright. I have done business with both companies and that is who I consulted. This was about 5 years ago and I hadn’t given the birds much thought. Until I saw it on the Le Sportsac bag.
How I found company: Yesterday I emailed a few sellers on ebay and asked if they new anything about the fabric. I was defiantly surprised when someone emailed me back with information. I had never even heard of National Handcraft Institute.
You are correct that Le Sportsac has been around a long time. However, they just recently started putting graphics on bags. I have sent a email to the legal Dept at CBS. If I find that I am wrong. I will take down this post. My experience in the fashion industry has proven that the majority of companies don’t research where the design originated. Most just don’t care because no one ever holds them accountable.
This same bird pattern was also blatantly copied and put on a lamp shade sold not so long ago at the number one culprit of rip offs, Urban Outfitters.
Susie, I am a designer myself. And I don’t need to know much about copyright law to know that this entire argument has all been based on your hunch. And that is exactly what I’ve said from the beginning: that you presume it was stolen for no reason other than just because you want to think that. Now you confirm it with your “gut feeling”, and that’s fine.
Gut feelings are fun, and posting something up here based on a gut feeling (even though *I* wouldn’t do it) is OK, I guess. The gut feeling isn’t the problem. The problem is when you try to defend your post as something other than a hunch. *That’s* where you make a mistake, because you’re debating as if you know certain things, and now you’ve clearly confirmed otherwise.
I don’t think you should take this post down, although I suppose that may be your prerrogative. I think the discussion that has developed is good for the general conversation this site incites. To talk about just the cases where “we’re right and they’re wrong” is counterproductive. I believe it is a positive activity to discuss the times when our over-zealous desire to “stick it to the man” get the better of us, and we end up wasting time attacking something/someone without having all the facts.
Edie: I’d love to see that lamp!
My bad. Just saw the update with the lamp.
This is clearly a rip. Alfonso is probably the ‘designer’ who did it too. Moving other people’s stuff around doesn’t make it original, you dipshit.
Clearly somebody has yet to learn to comprehend what he reads. Dumbass.
Alfonso, you must be a designer for Hot Topic or UO or something. You have a shit attitude and lousy taste, that’s certain. If you weren’t a woman I’d punch you in the nose.
The artist of the National Handcraft birds was Henriette Ebeling. I worked as an illustrator at NHI in the mid 1970s and knew her. She was a crusty old thing who, during WWII, painted naked ladies on cigarettes for soldiers in New Orleans. I think she would not be surprised that her work has been copied; she had quite the attitude for an old lady back then.
[...] (via I Love Typography). Es bueno fiscalizar a la empresa privada, pero es importante no caer en la calumnia desmedida. La mejor manera de dar forma al futuro es [insertar luz aquí] (producto del simposio de diseño [...]