So most of my favourite faces have been copyright infringed & removed and now I’m having trouble finding faces I really like.
Does anyone know if any of the removed faces will be redesigned and re-uploaded with subtle variances as to not breach copyright?
From my understanding of copyright law, making subtle changes isn’t enough. If, for example, a face had spongebob flipping a burger. You couldn’t change it to spongebob jumping with glee. It would still be spongebob. What you could do is use spongebob colours, and make spongbob style arms for the hour and minute hands.
There are literally thousands of high quality custom designs available on Facer, so, why anyone would want a replica of a brand name watch defies logic. You won’t fool anyone into believing your smart watch is a Rolex.
4 Likes
I think everyone can understand why copyright infringed watch faces are removed by facer. If they wouldn‘t, the brand owners would react and go to court (The swiss watch association already did and that‘s the reason why facerepo were shut down).
We all love the amazing creations from TAG Heuer, Breitling, Rolex, Omega, IWC, to name a few famous brands.
But - when you have a closer look on watch faces here on facer (free and premium) you will see that there are a lot of creative and very nice looking faces. To be honest - i saw a lot that looked better than the above branded ones. There are really a lot creative, talented designer on this platform. And - smart watch faces do have extended possibilities compared to analog faces. You can create light effects, animations, customizations and much more.
I know we all are used to the existing brands and associate luxury and status symbols with them - but i think it‘s up to us to to leave this standard thinking and behaviour.
It‘s time to start into the future, leaving that analog aera behind and begin to create our own wonderful watch face world.
What do you think?
Greetings, GAUSS.
6 Likes
As much as I can really appreciate quality and the work someone has put into their watch faces, when I look for a watch face to wear I don’t look at how much quality is packed in it, but rather if I like it or not.
Because you like that watch face? 
Not saying people should start doing it and publishing them, but I myself made a replica (albeit heavily modified) and I’m keeping it to myself until and if I get word from the brand that it’s okay to publish it. The thing is I fell inlove with the face and I’ve seen thousands of faces since; not a single one has managed to knock the one I made from it’s current 1st place xD even though a lot of them I can objectively say they are of a much higher quality because the authors are just better at creating textures and images
TL;DR: Sometimes you just like a branded watch face more above all others you’ve seen. Although if you do make such a replica, keep it to yourself, that way you’re not harming anyone and you’re getting the one face you love.
@AllenMiquel, as much as I can appreciate a person recreating their favorite watch and wearing it if they choose to do so, there are copyright protocols here for a reason when it comes to making such a design available to others.
As Gauss said, many of these name brand watchmakers have a legal right to protect their respective properties. Regardless of intentions, anyone who recreates and publishes a copyrighted design violates the legal rights of these watchmakers.
Users choose various designs because they like how they look and possibly for functionality they may provide. To many users, quality is subjective, and I understand that. That has no bearing on the fact that a crap ton of unique and popular designs exist, and it makes little sense to yearn for a knockoff of an analog design when there are literally an endless supply of custom designs that are free or can be had for a small fee.
1 Like
No one has a problem when you don‘t publish your own creation of your beloved watch face. Keep it as draft for your own joy, sync it to your smartwatch and everyone‘s happy with it.
But the original posting isn‘t about this topic.
@ninjavendetta: I don‘t think the banned faces will find their way back in an overhauled version. The risk of getting totally kicked out as user after several copyright infingments is to high.
1 Like
I was specifically addressing the quotes I posted 
The rest of what you guys have said makes perfect sense and is obviously correct! But going as far as saying that making a replica defies logic might be a bit of a stretch
1 Like
Ok. That‘s right. BTW: I made such a copy of a beloved watch face as well in my early times here. 
But then i decided i could do better. 
1 Like
That’s good for you man. You very obviously have a lot of talent in graphic design 
I tried making a few watch faces after I finished my private one, and as much as I tried and they look “okay”, I still go back to the original one. I don’t know what it is about it but I just love it, and like, there’s not enough room in my heart for 2 xD
1 Like
Thank you for your nice words.
I know what you mean. Designing a new watch face is a lot of work and often the final result is not as harmonic as planned. The swiss watch association and their designers do have centuries of experience in development. Their works are beautiful.
Yeah. It would be very interesting to see a documentary of the whole design process for one of these huge rl brands, like how a particular watch face comes to fruition. For starters the designers are probably paid very well xD but then I also imagine they probably come up with dozens of designs just to pick one from the pile.
I know a little bit about the design process of rl watches. Often it takes about one year of development for one watch face until it‘s ready for manufacturing. They create and discuss in fact dozens of drafts.
@AllenMiquel, perhaps my comment was too strong, but I stick to that sentiment. A smartwatch is not just a time-telling device; it is an interface. This is a striking distinction and is surely one that is noteworthy in this conversation.
Honestly, there is no win-win situation when it comes to publishing knockoffs or facsimiles of brand name watch designs. I mean to say that when it comes to design, standard layouts of watch faces means there is the potential for non-intentional mimicry of design elements. Good designers who want to make their own brand will strive to minimize the outright copying of a design, intentional or otherwise.
Designers who are new to this business and have yet to develop solid design skills tend to do a lot of copying the work of others. They have to start somewhere, right? As their skills become sharper, they should be opening up their canvasses to new ideas and not sticking to exact copies. Taking a look at my own assortment of designs, I have yet to truly stick with one type of display. I am still learning, and I am not afraid to take on a wild and crazy idea. If nothing else, this design ethic brings some unique vision to my watchmaking. At least I hope so, lulz.
1 Like
@ircrotale – Sorry, I don’t see how any of this pertains to my post lol. There were only 2 specific and kind of outrageous things I wanted to address;
-
The fact that just because there are thousands of watch faces that means you are bound to find more than 1 that you’d like to wear, which in my case at least is just false sadly. I wish there were others. I can objectively say a lot of them are really nice and well done, but as far as wanting to wear them… that’s a different story.
-
When you said wanting a watch face replica defies logic
This one would only really make sense if you could actually find the watch face you love from X brand on Facer, say, Hamilton shows up and creates the pilot face I love… In that case yeah, creating a replica makes little sense… but as it stands, the face I love wasn’t on facer, so I created it. How is that not logical?
Now as far as publishing knock-offs and what not, again, you both are absolutely right You shouldn’t do it unless you have permission to (provided the face isn’t already on Facer made by the original brand) or you own the design.
Maybe so yeah
Weighing in…
You cannot just revise a design, graphic, logo, animation, photo, etc with “subtle variances” and expect it to pass inspection.
I see what everyone’s saying, but watches/faces are art. Art is like music, or food. You can’t say chicken is better than fish, because that’s just your opinion and taste.
I’ve purchased watches made of cheap plastic and terrible components for $20 because I liked how it looked.
@GAUSS is right, if you want to do remakes, make 'em and leave 'em in your drafts and sync whenever you want. If that’s all you want it for, then there’s no need to publish it.
But I see what @ninjavendetta is saying, maybe they can’t create the face they’re looking for so they were hoping the ones that made it thru for a little bit, would be revised and brought back. They won’t. But maybe if you refine your search (and search deep enough) you might find something that at least captures the essence of the faces that got banned.
There’s gotta be one in here I bet!
1 Like
hi, my view about replicas is that creating them is it’s own art form. I’m not a fan of “cutting” pictures to make them though (or using cut parts for originals for that matter). But I love the art of drawing accurate replicas from scratch using photoshop (or whatever program). There are artists respected and even commissioned by major watchmakers to paint/draw frameable renditions of their watches. I consider photoshop created replicas to be in a similar category of art. The waters are only muddied because this artform is also functional, I think the brands’ make the mistake of lumping smart watch faces with actual cheap knockoffs. Though I do understand the reasoning behind careful managing and protection of a brand.
Also my entire interest in mechanical watches and any knowledge I have about them comes directly from researching a watch and making replicas. I didn’t know a thing about the dozens of brands I now follow closely before getting into face making. And no one who is considering buying a $1000-$500,000 watch is ever going to be dissuaded from making that purchase because they could get a $300 smart watch and download the face instead. Yet, someone who stated off with the smartwatch could very well become inspired to get the real thing one day. Anyway though my main motivation is now original designs I still love the art of drawing replicas! To me it’s also a matter of respect to make a replica 100% accurate and not take liberties with the design especially if you’re leaving someone else’s name on it!
2 Likes
No. Making a copy of someone else’s art is illegal. Regardless of how much skill it takes to do so.
2 Likes
I agree with @Rator. It only means the one cloning is a good crafter, a good copyist and skilled in his work but he is not an artist in the way i understand it.
Art means playing with reality, bending it, form it in a new shape or, even better, creating something totally new. Art can be performed without knowledge, without special skills. If you are skilled - great. In that case you could become a master artist.
But cloning?
Beside the fact that it is illegal it doesn‘t mean you create something new. It‘s an imitation, a copy. Nothing else.
Maybe a well made, up to perfect copy, but never an original.
Don‘t get me wrong, please. It‘s great when people are good in their work and they do have my respect but i will never see this work as art. The true artist was the man who invented the original watch face.
3 Likes
But that’s just it, a watch and a watch face are two different things. A clone of a watch would be a watch. Is a photorealistic portrait or still life not art to you? To create a digital face out of nothingness requires as you say, playing with reality (blank pixels), bending it, forming new shapes, crashing light/shadows, depth, etc… how is creating a “painting” using the digital medium any different than painting a picture of the exact same subject on a canvas? It would not even be a question if it wasn’t that our medium is also functional. As I said, I’ve seen extremely detailed and accurate reproduction paintings and/or drawings of independent watchmakers’ watches that are celebrated by said maker as artistic achievement.
I agree there is a difference between art and craft. I think what we do is a mix of both, but as someone who is a professional in the creative arts (jazz musician) I say without any doubt that photorealistic drawing from scratch in Photoshop anything at all is no less of an art than any other medium one may choose.
Of course obviously I have no intention of publishing or even making any replicas in Facer