Need Help I suck at Photoshop...please help me

[Boudica]

I haven't read the whole thread, so in case it hasn't been said:
It's an outer glow layer style. take your transparent layer in photoshop, and click on the little "fx" icon in the bottom (aka layer style menu). Select outer glow, then dial it in from there. the default color is a light yellow, but you can change that to white. change the opacity etc.

 

[Notarealsignguy]

Their concept? We're talking about clients taking a concept created by one sign company over to another sign company to get produced for less money. First they visit the reputable sign company to figure out what they need, often requiring a bunch of leg work, multiple sketch revisions, etc. Then they literally send the resulting sketches (often digital files) over to rival sign companies to reproduce exactly. Some of those rivals aren't bothered by things like ethics or copyright law.

If the client created the artwork himself, including digital files, assets, etc then yes he owns all that stuff. But he does NOT own the sketches and digital files our company created, or all the leg work it took to make them. Many projects require us to survey buildings, job sites, existing sign structures, etc. If a client wants more than one sign company to bid on a project that's his prerogative. But he should make the other sign companies start from square one just like us.

Wrong, he clearly said his client was not happy and never said anything about price. Id also bet my lunch that at 70, he could give 2 shits about undercutting someone else on political signs. Whenever someone loses a customer they always use the simple minded excuse that they left because someone else was cheaper. Face it, many people are just bad at running a business or have a nose in the air attitude which is the real reason they lose customers.
Just because you put some swirly crap and fancy font on a piece of plastic, that you were paid for, does not make it yours. It is their company information, their colors, done at their direction and paid for by them. This isn't the same as someone expecting you to give them your files. Tell me something, you layout a wrap, you take their logo and phone number, add some text elements to a font that you did not create, then go to shutterstock and get some tacky backgrounds that you didnt create to lay this stuff on top of and fit it on a template that you bought from somewhere else. Is that YOUR design? Is it even a design? Some ladys head and name on a background you would really consider someone elses?
Id say 99% of competitors customers that we have picked up are because they did not like who they were dealing with before or did shoddy work. I am almost never the cheapest but rarely lose anyone.

 

[Bobby H]

Wrong, he clearly said his client was not happy and never said anything about price.

I wasn't even talking about the OP. I was responding to something Andy D wrote, which was more about the ethics of sign companies using designs and/or info from sketches made by other sign companies.

Just because you put some swirly crap and fancy font on a piece of plastic, that you were paid for, does not make it yours. It is their company information, their colors, done at their direction and paid for by them.

It's one thing if the client actually paid for the work. It's another thing entirely if you're bidding some kind of sign package and the client wants to show your sketches and bidding info to a rival sign company before you've been paid anything at all. By the way, clients don't often show up with all their colors, fonts, assets, etc all organized and ready to use. We actually do have to create a good bit of our work from scratch.

Something like a piddly little political sign isn't worth an investment of substantial design time unless you're making a giant number of them. But bigger, more permanent projects are worth a professional approach. The leg work that goes into those bids is valuable. And the design work is valuable too, especially if the person doing the work gives a damn about his job and taking some pride in his work.

Tell me something, you layout a wrap, you take their logo and phone number, add some text elements to a font that you did not create, then go to shutterstock and get some tacky backgrounds that you didnt create to lay this stuff on top of and fit it on a template that you bought from somewhere else. Is that YOUR design?

Uh, yeah. It is. The files and effort that went into creating them is ours. The client only owns any materials he provided to us. He's entitled to nothing else until he pays for it. By the way, we do not do vehicle wrap designs for free. If a client wants us to measure off his vehicle and generate a full wrap design for it he will pay a design deposit up front.

 

[Anastasi55]

yep. Definitely a simple Outer Glow effect.

I've had to emulate other designs as well throughout my career, whether it was a company logo for a presentation, or backgrounds for consistency. If a client came to me and said they didn't like a competitor's print quality/service/etc. but wanted to redo the project, I'd keep the customer happy...

 

[White Haus]

Well, that was interesting.

 

[JetPress]

Well, that was interesting.

Come for the tips and tricks. Stay for the drama.

 

[Baz]

Oh my lawd! (clutches pearls)

 

[Gino]

What a pathetic buncha garbage. I find it very hard to believe that copying a photoshop effect is plagiarism or illegal in any of the 57 states your great obama speaks about. What has happened here is quite evident. Ya have a buncha wannabees arguing with a buncha capable people who asked a simple question, but got bombarded with so much hateful bullsh!t, it ain't even funny. Am I wrong ?? NO, not at all. When that sh!tass in post #52 hasta bring me in to it from left field, it proves he/she has nothing to base anything upon. He/she is just looking for trouble.

Want trouble ?? Start by admitting to who you really are. Just try me, I ain't in the mood a'tall for your shenanigans.

 

[Boudica]

Get 'em Gino! Oh, and +1 for using the word shenanigans. I love that word.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

Just caught up on this tread... sounds like he got his file but it wasn't free...came with a price alright.

 

[Pixels Are Bad Mmmkay?]

The way I see it, this basically boils down to a question of what is a layout and what is an actual piece of intellectual property. First off, we don't even know what the layout of this sign even encompasses, because the entire image was not shown, only the relevant portion with a photo of a face and an added effect, plus a portion of what appears to be a letter Z outlined in purple. I highly doubt there's any real intellectual property rights being infringed upon here. The OP even states this in his original post, "I am having to copy a political sign LAYOUT originally done by another shop". I'm sorry, but to those who think that laying out a purple background, a head shot with a Photoshop effect and some white text with a purple outline added for contrast is copyright infringement, I disagree.

From LegalZoom...

"A layout design is not copyrightable, but a work encompassing layout design, such as a catalog, may sometimes be copyrightable as a compilation of photographs, artwork and text."

So unless someone can clearly establish what element here is cause for legal concern, this appears to be just a layout, a simple arrangement consisting of a photo and some text. Typesetting and arranging photos doesn't appear to constitute any level of infringement from what I can tell. In my opinion, unless a sign design contains original creative elements, it's fair game to reproduce. If the photo had been significantly altered from the original photo by the previous sign shop, then sure. But adding a fade and an outer glow in Photoshop? C'mon now.

Again, from LegalZoom...

"Logos can be copyrighted if they contain the required amount of creative expression. For example, a logo consisting of an original illustration of a fish would be copyrightable; a logo that consisted of a red letter A in a particular typeface would probably not be copyrightable."

This further reinforces the notion that unless a work contains a significant amount of 'creative expression', as they term it, it can't be, or at least 'probably' can't be, considered a copyrighted work.

 

[Johnny Best]

The way I see it, this basically boils down to a question of what is a layout and what is an actual piece of intellectual property. First off, we don't even know what the layout of this sign even encompasses, because the entire image was not shown, only the relevant portion with a photo of a face and an added effect, plus a portion of what appears to be a letter Z outlined in purple. I highly doubt there's any real intellectual property rights being infringed upon here. The OP even states this in his original post, "I am having to copy a political sign LAYOUT originally done by another shop". I'm sorry, but to those who think that laying out a purple background, a head shot with a Photoshop effect and some white text with a purple outline added for contrast is copyright infringement, I disagree.

From LegalZoom...

"A layout design is not copyrightable, but a work encompassing layout design, such as a catalog, may sometimes be copyrightable as a compilation of photographs, artwork and text."

So unless someone can clearly establish what element here is cause for legal concern, this appears to be just a layout, a simple arrangement consisting of a photo and some text. Typesetting and arranging photos doesn't appear to constitute any level of infringement from what I can tell. In my opinion, unless a sign design contains original creative elements, it's fair game to reproduce. If the photo had been significantly altered from the original photo by the previous sign shop, then sure. But adding a fade and an outer glow in Photoshop? C'mon now.



Again, from LegalZoom...

"Logos can be copyrighted if they contain the required amount of creative expression. For example, a logo consisting of an original illustration of a fish would be copyrightable; a logo that consisted of a red letter A in a particular typeface would probably not be copyrightable."

This further reinforces the notion that unless a work contains a significant amount of 'creative expression', as they term it, it can't be, or at least 'probably' can't be, considered a copyrighted work.

Thank you!

 

[Vinyl slayer]

Recreating something that has been done before is not a crime. it's not quite plagiarism, if you are RECREATING it. Nor is it a violation. I"m not a lawyer, but if your are asked to re-create something, that now becomes your talent duplication... fine line. there are intellectual property rites, then there is a commission of printing of artwork, that the OWNER, wishes to commission elsewhere. Printer get's the job... period. ?

 

[Mainframe]

Maybe the original sign man died or went out of business, or got another position someplace or just retired. Or maybe the original sign place is buried in gravy jobs and not returning calls for this type of work. I think this forum could use a "karen" tag icon, oops did I say that out loud? Don't freak people it's just comedy LOL

 

[netsol]

You ever work with the one that you added little weights to the cutting head to increase pressure?

andy, i just made a 2' x 8' coroplast sign with my gerber smc 4 (the one with the sliding counterbalance, not the 4b). we have tons of more modern equipment, but joseph gerber's design stands the test of time. how can you not love so simple a design.

i was just showing someone yesterday, the pin feed is always accurate. try a 30' cut with your friction feed plotter