Displate stealing artwork/ unlicensed prints.

[cmbgraphicdesign]

Name of Brand: Displate

 

 

Description of your issue:

As a graphic designer, I reverse image search my work every once in a while to see where it's being used. I've never been a fan of Displate as I've always known that a lot of the stuff on there is Unlicensed and stolen from fan-made art. Fan-made art is a bit of a legal gray area, as it's technically copyright infringing itself with the use of assets/images not owned by the artists (Me in this case), so Displate stealing artists work and selling it is the equivalent of infringing upon an already infringing art piece. It's not fun seeing your art stolen and sold on such a massive platform, but especially a platform that claims to be licensed work. I understand that a user not affiliated with Displate directly uploaded my piece, but it really seems like they need to be more diligent with what they allow on the platform.

 

 

Have you tried solving your issue through the brand's customer support channel? If so, what was the result?

I've submitted a takedown request through Displate, but not heard anything back yet. Like I previously stated, Fan-made art is technically not entirely legal, so there is a massive chance that I won't hear anything back from them, or that they don't remove the piece. For a company that blatantly sells unlicensed art, I doubt they care where it's stolen from.

 

What would an ideal resolution of your issue look like?

I understand that the LTT Displate store probably brings in a decent chunk of change, but it would be great for a large channel to possibly make a statement on Displates shady tactics, the stolen art, and the unlicensed work, etc. 

 

[cmbgraphicdesign]

Quick follow-up, I've seen Colton's comment on a previous Displate thread about systems Displate has implemented to 'combat' copyrighted and stolen art.

 

This doesn't seem to be working at all, or was never actually implemented as the majority of the products on the site is unlicensed art stolen from fan-made pieces.

[LogicalDrm]

As noted by LMG staff, Displate is not current sponsor. Shutting down LTT page on Displate doesn't have any effect on the company, just cash flow towards LMG.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1612195-weekly-sponsor-concerns-update-may-16th-2025/?do=getNewComment

[cmbgraphicdesign]

On 5/17/2025 at 11:37 AM, LogicalDrm said:

As noted by LMG staff, Displate is not current sponsor. Shutting down LTT page on Displate doesn't have any effect on the company, just cash flow towards LMG.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1612195-weekly-sponsor-concerns-update-may-16th-2025/?do=getNewComment

I mean, I'd argue that it does have an effect on Displate, having the store up indirectly supports the morals and practices of Displate. Yeah, it's cash into LMG's pocket, but the majority goes into Displate's pocket. Sellers on Displate only get "up to" 50%, meaning it's probably even less. 

 

Either way, as stated in the post, I'm not looking for LMG to remove their page, just hoping for them to be a little more transparent with the issues of the site. Maybe that could lead to more people speaking out, and some change actually coming to the platform.

[FlamingOtter]

On 5/16/2025 at 2:48 PM, cmbgraphicdesign said:

it would be great for a large channel to possibly make a statement on Displates shady tactics, the stolen art, and the unlicensed work, etc.

49 minutes ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

just hoping for them to be a little more transparent with the issues of the site.

Colton made a forum post 3 years ago. Whether that's a public/transparent/big enough statement or not is up to you.

[cmbgraphicdesign]

3 hours ago, FlamingOtter said:

Colton made a forum post 3 years ago. Whether that's a public/transparent/big enough statement or not is up to you.

Yeah. I mentioned it in a follow-up comment on my post. Very much like the Honey situation, where they knew of the issues years before they were exposed, they should make some sort of statement. I'm not talking a full on exposee video, but at least something to warn consumers, artists, and other content creators.

[Bitter]

Fan art isn't always or technically infringement or illegal, if it's a transformative work then it's legally fine under the fair use statute of copyright law but likely cannot be itself copyrighted by the artist doing the transformative work. That's the gray area, so technically speaking the originator would need to file the take down not the artist that did the transformative work to the content. I encourage you to do more learning on the subject as it will probably be very useful to know the particulars and your own rights in the matter. @cmbgraphicdesign

[FlamingOtter]

6 hours ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

Yeah. I mentioned it in a follow-up comment on my post.

I thought you meant another comment made by Colton instead of that post since you didn't mention that Colton has stated the reason why they paused their partnership there.

 

6 hours ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

Very much like the Honey situation, where they knew of the issues years before they were exposed, they should make some sort of statement. I'm not talking a full on exposee video, but at least something to warn consumers, artists, and other content creators.

I think the reason why they didn't made a more public statement than just a short mention in a forum post at the time is that they didn't know if Displate would deal with copyright infringement properly soon after Colton's post and they didn't want to burn that bridge just yet.

 

Now that we all see this Displate indeed hasn't dealt with this this properly for years, I think it's proper for LMG to call them out.

 

But like the Honey situation, LMG hasn't have a single sponsor spot for Displate since late 2020 even before Colton's post (I searched "displate", "this plate", "disc plate", etc on filmot.com), the LMG staff might think "our relationship with Displate has ended, let's just move on to managing current sponsors" and therefore didn't follow up. They might also not see that just selling Displate was already benefitting Displate. But given that they now also sell poster on lttstore.com, I think they are just 1 step away from deleting the Displate store and just have forgetten it.

[cmbgraphicdesign]

8 hours ago, Bitter said:

Fan art isn't always or technically infringement or illegal, if it's a transformative work then it's legally fine under the fair use statute of copyright law but likely cannot be itself copyrighted by the artist doing the transformative work. That's the gray area, so technically speaking the originator would need to file the take down not the artist that did the transformative work to the content. I encourage you to do more learning on the subject as it will probably be very useful to know the particulars and your own rights in the matter. @cmbgraphicdesign

I know my rights lmao, it's my job. What's transformative or not doesn't really matter in cases like mine, fan made movie posters / music covers, etc are all infringing if they directly use any copyrighted or trademarked assets or information, such as the title "Chromakopia" in my case. It's not even technically fair use, it's 100% illegal, just nothing is ever done about it, and it's often incentivised by the people who own the copyright.

 

Even then, what's legally classed as transformative is far from set in stone and is really taken on a case by case basis, the Prince portrait lawsuit for example.

 

With that being said, legal grey area or not, they stole my unlicensed art and are selling it. Saying they're infringing on me already infringing on the original holder is obvious exaggeration to prove that they're being twice over unmoral.

[cmbgraphicdesign]

5 hours ago, FlamingOtter said:

I thought you meant another comment made by Colton instead of that post since you didn't mention that Colton has stated the reason why they paused their partnership there.

 

I think the reason why they didn't made a more public statement than just a short mention in a forum post at the time is that they didn't know if Displate would deal with copyright infringement properly soon after Colton's post and they didn't want to burn that bridge just yet.

 

Now that we all see this Displate indeed hasn't dealt with this this properly for years, I think it's proper for LMG to call them out.

 

But like the Honey situation, LMG hasn't have a single sponsor spot for Displate since late 2020 even before Colton's post (I searched "displate", "this plate", "disc plate", etc on filmot.com), the LMG staff might think "our relationship with Displate has ended, let's just move on to managing current sponsors" and therefore didn't follow up. They might also not see that just selling Displate was already benefitting Displate. But given that they now also sell poster on lttstore.com, I think they are just 1 step away from deleting the Displate store and just have forgetten it.

I think quietly dissolving partnerships and moving on, in the Displate situation, and especially the Honey situation, is inherently the wrong thing to do. LTT knew about Honey's malpractice for years and sat idly by as hundreds, if not thousands, of other Content Creators were being scammed out of money rightfully theirs. Again, not saying they should make a massive exposee video Megalag style, but a more public statement should be warranted. 

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

I think quietly dissolving partnerships and moving on, in the Displate situation, and especially the Honey situation, is inherently the wrong thing to do. LTT knew about Honey's malpractice for years and sat idly by as hundreds, if not thousands, of other Content Creators were being scammed out of money rightfully theirs. Again, not saying they should make a massive exposee video Megalag style, but a more public statement should be warranted. 

Why should they throw shade publicly and draw attention to things like that? That's a real good way to push away other brands from even thinking about working with you if they have to think "oh are they going to throw up some publicity that could be negative for our brand if they decide to stop working with us?"

LTT didn't sit idly by either for Honey, they knew about X and talked to others about it and they knew too so there was no indication from their perspective anything else was happening. To blame LTT and not Mr. Beast and other YouTubers who worked with Honey that have much much much larger reaches is bullshit.

[Bitter]

8 hours ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

I know my rights lmao, it's my job. What's transformative or not doesn't really matter in cases like mine, fan made movie posters / music covers, etc are all infringing if they directly use any copyrighted or trademarked assets or information, such as the title "Chromakopia" in my case. It's not even technically fair use, it's 100% illegal, just nothing is ever done about it, and it's often incentivised by the people who own the copyright.

 

Even then, what's legally classed as transformative is far from set in stone and is really taken on a case by case basis, the Prince portrait lawsuit for example.

 

With that being said, legal grey area or not, they stole my unlicensed art and are selling it. Saying they're infringing on me already infringing on the original holder is obvious exaggeration to prove that they're being twice over unmoral.

If the website won't acknowledge your DMCA then you can go directly to the host and registrar. The host won't want to host that content for them and take the risk. The registrar can't directly do anything but will be sure to pass along your complaint with annoyance and reminder that they're violating terms of service. I've used both methods to get my partners content removed from websites in the past with pretty high rates of success.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Bitter said:

If the website won't acknowledge your DMCA then you can go directly to the host and registrar. The host won't want to host that content for them and take the risk. The registrar can't directly do anything but will be sure to pass along your complaint with annoyance and reminder that they're violating terms of service. I've used both methods to get my partners content removed from websites in the past with pretty high rates of success.

DMCA is generally pretty useless in the sense that it allows a counter notice or whatever.  So it creates a scenario in which an infringing creator can just sign off saying essentially so sue me.  At the same time you get the other scenario like YouTube where channels can literally be taken down by false claimants.  That's ultimately the issue with these kinds of sites where it allows for user uploaded content...ultimately it's a balance on how far you are willing to let things slide.

 

After all by that logic all the fanmade art should be taken down, and probably so should 90% of the stuff on the internet as it's all copyright stuff.  It's always been a balancing act.

 

9 hours ago, Lurick said:

Why should they throw shade publicly and draw attention to things like that? That's a real good way to push away other brands from even thinking about working with you if they have to think "oh are they going to throw up some publicity that could be negative for our brand if they decide to stop working with us?"

LTT didn't sit idly by either for Honey, they knew about X and talked to others about it and they knew too so there was no indication from their perspective anything else was happening. To blame LTT and not Mr. Beast and other YouTubers who worked with Honey that have much much much larger reaches is bullshit.

So just to be clear first, I don't have an issue with LTT using Displate because in my view unless it's an egregious thing it's just a line in the sand the Displate has chosen and it's a whole lot better than YouTube's system where it allows someone who doesn't even own the copyright to essentially exploit it.

 

In regards to why there is more pushback, it's because LTT holds themselves up as vetting sponsors/testing the services out/etc.  It would be akin to how not as many people held Mr Beast accountable for Honey, yet when it came to their lunchy or whatever it's called they completely held them more accountable.  Similar situation with LTT, if LTT wants to hold themselves up as properly holding sponsors accountable or only choosing sponsors that are trusted; then if those sponsors broke trust LTT should be held more accountable [e.g. LTT repeating the marketing of Honey without seemingly asking the important question, the other thing is is that LTT being more software related and not issuing any proper warning to all those who used Honey after LTT found out is effectively a betrayal in that it feels as though it was only done for the optics].

[cmbgraphicdesign]

On 5/23/2025 at 2:16 PM, Lurick said:

Why should they throw shade publicly and draw attention to things like that? That's a real good way to push away other brands from even thinking about working with you if they have to think "oh are they going to throw up some publicity that could be negative for our brand if they decide to stop working with us?"

LTT didn't sit idly by either for Honey, they knew about X and talked to others about it and they knew too so there was no indication from their perspective anything else was happening. To blame LTT and not Mr. Beast and other YouTubers who worked with Honey that have much much much larger reaches is bullshit.

You'd consider bringing attention to scummy practices as "throwing shade"? The only possible sponsors it would discourage from reaching out are ones that have something to hide... 

 

No where did I blame LTT, and this isn't a Mr. Beast forum, so obviously I wouldn't bring him up. Plus, there's no evidence that Mr Beast knew of what Honey were doing, LTT have known for years, even mentioning it here on the forum...

[cmbgraphicdesign]

22 hours ago, Bitter said:

If the website won't acknowledge your DMCA then you can go directly to the host and registrar. The host won't want to host that content for them and take the risk. The registrar can't directly do anything but will be sure to pass along your complaint with annoyance and reminder that they're violating terms of service. I've used both methods to get my partners content removed from websites in the past with pretty high rates of success.

It's been taken down, so no worry there for me specifically. The issue is much wider than just my work being stolen, I'm just one of thousands of artists who's work is being exploited and illegally sold on the platform.

[wanderingfool2]

On 5/24/2025 at 10:57 AM, cmbgraphicdesign said:

It's been taken down, so no worry there for me specifically. The issue is much wider than just my work being stolen, I'm just one of thousands of artists who's work is being exploited and illegally sold on the platform.

The issue I would say about this though is that it's a double edged sword.  YouTube can be a perfect example of how things can go wrong....were some channels get nuked because other channels claimed their content with a strike.  Larger channels don't have to worry as much, but smaller channels do.  That's why I think it's really a no win type of scenario...especially when it comes to something like fan-art.  I mean if we are being honest then, any fan-art should automatically be removed from the internet by providers such as instagram, twitch, etc...as they are clearly unlicensed and copyright infringement.

[cmbgraphicdesign]

On 5/27/2025 at 10:40 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

The issue I would say about this though is that it's a double edged sword.  YouTube can be a perfect example of how things can go wrong....were some channels get nuked because other channels claimed their content with a strike.  Larger channels don't have to worry as much, but smaller channels do.  That's why I think it's really a no win type of scenario...especially when it comes to something like fan-art.  I mean if we are being honest then, any fan-art should automatically be removed from the internet by providers such as instagram, twitch, etc...as they are clearly unlicensed and copyright infringement.

I myself mentioned that Fan-Art isn't technically legal, but here is the kicker: I don't profit off of it. I do it for fun, for practice, and to show my appreciation for the subject. 

 

People selling the work, often stolen, on sites like Displate do profit, and to say they're similar is like comparing apples to oranges.

[IkeaGnome]

2 hours ago, cmbgraphicdesign said:

I myself mentioned that Fan-Art isn't technically legal, but here is the kicker: I don't profit off of it. I do it for fun, for practice, and to show my appreciation for the subject. 

 

People selling the work, often stolen, on sites like Displate do profit, and to say they're similar is like comparing apples to oranges.

Does your username happen to match another cmbgraphicdesign that won't let people submit a contact form without stating a budget? I'd bet it does since pictures from your OP are on that site. 

Contact Me — CMBGRAPHICDESIGN

[wanderingfool2]

On 6/1/2025 at 7:43 AM, cmbgraphicdesign said:

I myself mentioned that Fan-Art isn't technically legal, but here is the kicker: I don't profit off of it. I do it for fun, for practice, and to show my appreciation for the subject. 

 

People selling the work, often stolen, on sites like Displate do profit, and to say they're similar is like comparing apples to oranges.

You are missing the entire point then.  I do find it funny that you are using the whole "apples to oranges" but you are refusing to see the heart of what I was saying which means all you are doing is yourself comparing apples to oranges.

 

Paraphrasing Tom Scott, copyright infringement is always drawing the line of where you currently stand.

 

As @IkeaGnome pointed out your "Fan-Art" that you don't profit off of literally has a contact me where you are asking for the persons budget.  So even if you claim you don't sell the art, the fact is you are using it for self promotion...which means yes you are making money from it.

 

Other than that as well, again you are missing the point as well.  Just because you think the "selling" is what makes it bad, you are being ignorant in regards to what I said in that it's a tricky balancing act.

 

Again, YouTube is an example of how terrible the copyright system can get.  You have people who can register their generic clip and then take down channels who use that "clip" despite it not being anything.  This pushes the hands way too much into the "copyright" holders hands.  Then you can get something like LTT.  How many user profile images are copyrighted work, what if the copyright holders start complaining.  Or all the instagram posts which are used for promotion that also contain copyrighted stuff.

 

It's a balancing act, and unless a company clearly shows that they don't care about copyright (e.g. Mega) then really I wouldn't be blasting them because really I'd rather too lax than too strict guidelines.