Plagiarists are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

[Miller]

Here's a heartwarming little story for y'all. Seems there's this fellow, name of Todd "Goliath" Goldman, who purports to be an artist. He's got a gallery show going on in LA right now. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Todd_Goldman_Make_Everyone_Die.jpg) one of the more famous painting being displayed at the show.

Problem is, it's famous at the moment because it was originally drawn six years ago. By someone else. (http://www.purplepussy.net/d/20010919.html) The image was stolen directly from a webcartoonist named Dave Kelly. And by stolen directly, I mean that the dumb cocksucker straight up traced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goldmantrace.png) that motherfucker. That's really extraordinarily shameless. Apparently, this isn't the first time Goldman has come under fire for plagiarism. He's previously been accused of stealing the design and concept for his character Eve L. (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/152/st3266~Eve-L-Doesn-t-Play-Well-with-Others-Posters.jpg) from another webcartoonist, Roman Dirge, inventor of Lenore, the cutest little dead girl (http://community.livejournal.com/lenore_comics/). And others have noted similarities between his Goodbye Kitty (http://www.blueq.com/modules/ecs/images/125837550_m.png) and Neko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neko_animation_steps_-_falling_asleep.png), an animated character from an open source computer app dating back to the late '80s. Goldman has built a career out of selling these characters on t-shirts and as original works of art, with his name attached. The dick.

In the area of things Goldman is known for that he actually invented himself (so far as anyone knows), his most high-profile success has been a line of t-shirts with cutesy, quasi-feminist slogans like, "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them." Hence the title of this thread, which in the spirit of Todd Goldman, I shamelessly stole from this site (http://www.kellyhills.com/blog/?p=732).

I first heard this story courtesy of Randy Milholland, creator of the indescribably awesome webcomic, Something Positive (http://www.somethingpositive.net/). Since Goldman appears to have a special fondness for stealing from webcomics, the webcomic community has taken special glee is spreading this information far and wide, even working it directly into (http://www.starslipcrisis.com/d/20070409.shtml) a few strips. (http://www.pvponline.com/article/3253/mon-apr-09) Dave Kelly's website (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2416213&perpage=40&pagenumber=1), naturally enough, has the best source of links to other comics and message boards where folks with an interest in either webcomics or basic integrity have been tearing into Goldman like a pack of piranhas skeletonizing a cow. And by God, I can't think of a more deserved fate for this prick. Except maybe being literally skeletonized, instead of merely figuratively.

[Miller]

A few more examples of Goldman's creativity. (http://taxidermied.livejournal.com/42521.html)

[Sampiro]

I've always said plagiarists are stupid.

And I resent your repeating it without my express permission.

[Sampiro]

I have to admit though that this is the most blatant case I've ever seen. Did he honestly think he would get away with it?

[lno]

C'mon, Miller, you left out the best parts. When people called him on it, Todd sent them pornography and said that Dave Kelly was a pedophile.

[magellan01]

Unbelievable. No moral compass and dumb as charcoal to boot. I hope he gets his ass sued and I'm asked to sit on the jury. Uh, wait, to make sure I'm not excused from the pool let me just say: "Well, the drawings aren't identical. And the changes are an artistic commentary on the originals. I'd have to see what the artist has to say for himself before I'd be able to form a fair opinion."

;)

[Lute Skywatcher]

Found here (http://www.fleen.com/archives/2007/04/10/posted-verbatim/):Here’s my inspiration! Every month I paint the works of a pedophile. This week, I chose the work of Dave Kelly, he’s a huge infantilist furry. This is someone who draws baby anthropomorphic animals either wetting themselves or jacking off. I’m not kidding. Once again, his name is Dave Kelly and this is his FTP full of his lovely art, there are even some photos of the artist himself, handsome fellow isn¹t he?

http://seth.beepboopinternet.com/davekelly/ (NSFW!)

Next month, please look for my special pedophile/serial killer series when I recreate the works of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Once again thanks for your support and please help me with my cause by spreading the word and showing the world just how creative pedophiles can be.

Do it for the kids.

Todd

[Miller]

Wow, I'd missed that aspect of this story! This guy is just all class, isn't he? Thanks for the additional info, lno and Lute.

[lavenderviolet]

Geez. What a creep. I am horrified that he was able to get away with this for as long as he did. Please tell me that someone has alerted the gallery and had them pull the plug on the "show". I haven't had a chance to read all the posts about this on the other sites yet, but I definitely hope the Something Awful folks make an example out of this uncreative twerp. :)

[MovieMogul]

Here (http://www.miketyndall.com/todd_goldman/)'s a good summary of all the suspicious examples in Goldman's work.

I was in Vegas last month and was in a gallery that saw this stuff for sale. Pretty amazing what some of it ran for--have to wonder how the gallery owners (presumably one or more chains) are feeling about this now.

[Squink]

Unbelievable. No moral compass and dumb as charcoal to boot.Reminds me a lot of British Intelligence (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0205plagiarism.htm).

[Papermache Prince]

Stupid? How about stealing an essay from that obscure publication, the Wall Street Journal? That's what a producer for CBS News did for an essay on libraries for Katie Couric (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18045526/) - now that producer is unemployed.

[Justin_Bailey]

This is the jackass who created "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them."?

He deserves to be stoned just for that. What a horrible line of shirts and they've infected my line of sight for too long!

OK, I only see one like once a month, but still, they're annoying.

[magellan01]

Reminds me a lot of British Intelligence (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0205plagiarism.htm).

What? You're comparing an artist tracing over another drawing for financial gain with an intelligence agency including what academics thought on a subject (which has nothing to do with this OP by the way)?! Don't you know anything about intelligen—

(checks poster's name)

Uh, never mind.

[threemae]

Yeah, artists stealing other artists ideas? What a sonnabitch!

Just like this no talent hack motherfucka:
http://help.com/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

[Kimstu]

You're comparing an artist tracing over another drawing for financial gain with an intelligence agency including what academics thought on a subject (which has nothing to do with this OP by the way)?!

Um, the point was that the British intelligence agents who prepared the report didn't just "include what academics thought on a subject". They flat-out copied material from academic papers without crediting their sources.

Surely even you can understand that this is problematic not just in terms of abstract ideals about intellectual property but in practical terms of the reliability of intelligence. Readers of intelligence reports need to know as much as possible about the sources from which the report is drawn (except where revealing sources would compromise security requirements) so they can estimate how trustworthy the report is.

If intelligence agencies are cobbling reports together with plagiarized material from openly available published research, some of it out of date, then they're giving a false impression to their readers about the truthfulness and reliability of their information. Considering the magnitude of the decisions that are based on the information in intelligence reports, this is not a good thing.

[magellan01]

Yeah, artists stealing other artists ideas? What a sonnabitch!

Just like this no talent hack motherfucka:
http://help.com/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Please, go on. Who did he steal from? And can you provide an example of a piece of art he stole from?

[Kimstu]

I think threemae whooshed you, magellan.

[nameless]

Obligatory Timbaland crack goes here, but I'm so tired of that whole debacle.

[Larry Mudd]

I think threemae whooshed you, magellan.
Did somebody say "Whoosh?" (http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/WHAMM.gif)

[Queuing]

So, while you have shown a convincing case, why is the only reports on blogs and live journals? Things like that?

Is it just being ignored by "real" media? Or is it just not that "important" according to them?

Just wondering.

[Miller]

Yeah, artists stealing other artists ideas? What a sonnabitch!

Just like this no talent hack motherfucka:
http://help.com/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Except, Lichtenstein didn't steal other artist's ideas. He appropriated their images, but in the process of doing so, he completely recontextualized them. The art was the same, but the idea was entirely different: he wasn't trying to communicate remotely the same message as the sources from which he drew. The artist who originally drew this (http://help.com/wiki/Image:Roy_Lichtenstein_Drowning_Girl.jpg) did so with the intention of telling a story about that character and whoever the hell Brad was supposed to be. Lichtenstein's painting of that same panel has nothing to do with the drama between the woman and Brad: it was a statement that there is no functional difference between commercial and fine art. Although Lichtenstein didn't credit the artists he borrowed from, he did not claim that the paintings were original images. Indeed, the entire point behind what he was doing would be lost if he had invented (or claimed to have invented) the images himself. One could even make a credible case that, ultimatly, his work was a boon to the artists from which he borrowed, (and other comic artists in general) because his own success lent credibility to the entire field of comic art, which historically had been viewed as a worthless artistic backwater for children and imbeciles. Would we have had Art Spiegelman without Roy Lichtenstein? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not something that can be cavalierly dismissed. Certainly, Spiegelman would have faced a much higher barrier to success if Lichtenstein had not prepped the world for the idea of comic art as legitimate, "high" art.

And, of course, Lichtenstein never tried to defend his art by accusing his sources of pedophilia. That's also a pretty important distinction.

[magellan01]

Kimstu,

That is a completely different issue, and I think (hope) you know it. Artists create. What they create defines the brand that is them. They then capitalize on this brand to make money, in direct proprtion to the strentgth and exclusivity of their brand.

Should the intelligence people have credited the original authors? Absolutely. Is the transgression more weighty due to what was at stake? Absolutely again. Does this have squat to do with the OP? Nope. If this was a thread about intelligence or Iraq or The Downing Street memo or Bush or Blair or Powell or etc, this would al make sense. But it isn't. And doesn't. Junior was just trying to bust my balls, which is fine. It gave me an opportunity to give hime a little backhand.

In other news, the sun just rose someplace.

[Larry Mudd]

Except, Lichtenstein didn't steal other artist's ideas. I'd bet my eye teeth that threemae understands this and did not seriously intend to make any sort of real analogy there.

[Miller]

So, while you have shown a convincing case, why is the only reports on blogs and live journals? Things like that?

Is it just being ignored by "real" media? Or is it just not that "important" according to them?

Just wondering.

Goldman's had a reputation for a while as a plagiarist. Roman Dirge has complained about the theft of his Lenore character before, but didn't have the resources or a solid enough case to take it to court, and a lot of his other thefts are from sources with no clear ownership. News of the Kelly theft is pretty recent. Kelly himself ("Shmorky" from Somethingawful.com) only posted about the theft four days ago, and news of it has propagated mostly through the webcomic community to date. It's hard enough to get the mainstream media to take comics seriously as an artform in general: it's doubly so when it comes to webcomics, which are viewed as especially ephemeral. I suspect that the Los Angeles media will eventually cover it to some degree, particularly if Kelly decides to sue, but I'd be surprised if it ever makes the national news.

[Miller]

I'd bet my eye teeth that threemae understands this and did not seriously intend to make any sort of real analogy there.

Could be, but I've seen that argument raised in other quaters as a defence of Goldman, so I figure it's worth addressing up front.

[Kimstu]

Should the intelligence people have credited the original authors? Absolutely. Is the transgression more weighty due to what was at stake? Absolutely again. Does this have squat to do with the OP?

Both topics have to do with plagiarism committed apparently by people with, in your own words, "no moral compass and dumb as charcoal to boot".

Yes, there are different reasons to criticize plagiarism committed by artists and plagiarism committed by authors of intelligence reports. That doesn't mean that one type of plagiarism can't remind you of another.

Junior was just trying to bust my balls, which is fine. It gave me an opportunity to give hime a little backhand.

Well okay, if you're pleased with how you think you came out of that exchange, I'm happy for you.

[Squink]

I'd bet my eye teeth that threemae understands this and did not seriously intend to make any sort of real analogy there.Now if he'd said Warhol (http://www.warholprints.com/portfolio/Campbell.Soup.I.html), we'd have to take him seriously.


Kimstu, I too am happy for magellan. :p

[magellan01]

Yes, there are different reasons to criticize plagiarism committed by artists and plagiarism committed by authors of intelligence reports. That doesn't mean that one type of plagiarism can't remind you of another.

Wow! I didn't realize that different types of plagarism might be related by some...some common denominator. If only I could think of what it is... Of course I never said that one couldn't remind you of another. But does that mean that every example or issue with plagarism would be equally appropriate to bring into the discussion based on this particular OP, does it? Here, let me help you: no.

Well okay, if you're pleased with how you think you came out of that exchange, I'm happy for you.

Well, Im happy that you're happy. I'm happy that you went out of your way to put your two sense in and came to the defense of a bit of trollish stupidity. Congratulations. I look forward to your dislike of me causing you to rally to similar defense in the future.

SUCH IS MY POWER, my little marionette.

[TwoTrouts]

Thanks for the info on this! Now I understand the last panel for today's Two Lumps (http://www.twolumps.net/) webcomic!

[Yllaria]

the webcomic community has taken special glee is spreading this information far and wide, even working it directly into a few strips.

The Clan of the Cats one is here (http://www.clanofthecats.com/) (If this is days later, you may have to flip back a cartoon or two,)

[RTA]

Well, the drawings aren't identical. And the changes are an artistic commentary on the originals.

That's right.

To use the old cliche, I think he is simply "holding a mirror up to society". Yes his work is dumb and tasteless, but he didn't come up with that stuff on his own, so - ?

Look at the title of his gallery show: "Stupid Factory". If a culture is spawning that sort of imagery, and people like it and are paying good money for it, what's to stop an artist from saying "look, here's what's going on - Here is the sort of stuff that people today are thinking about, producing, selling, laughing at." (Sounds like art to me.)

Appropriation is common in art. Would we have a Lenore, the dead girl in pigtails, without "Nightmare before Christmas"? Maybe, but I think probably not. So should Tim Burton sue Dirge? If he wants to, I think he could - same as the other web-cartoonists here, with Goldman. Lotsa luck, fellas.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

C'mon, Miller, you left out the best parts. When people called him on it, Todd sent them pornography and said that Dave Kelly was a pedophile.

Egad. I had to dig through the SP forum thread to find that bit, but man what a wanker.

As someone there said, his lawyer must be hitting himself in the head with a hammer.

[Miller]

That's right.

To use the old cliche, I think he is simply "holding a mirror up to society". Yes his work is dumb and tasteless, but he didn't come up with that stuff on his own, so - ?

Look at the title of his gallery show: "Stupid Factory". If a culture is spawning that sort of imagery, and people like it and are paying good money for it, what's to stop an artist from saying "look, here's what's going on - Here is the sort of stuff that people today are thinking about, producing, selling, laughing at." (Sounds like art to me.)

Okay, if he's just commenting on this stuff, what's the commentary? How is Goldman's "Make everyone die" image different from Kelly's? What changes, either in content or context, has he made to the image to differentiate it from the original? From where I'm sitting, he hasn't. Mechanically, the images are functionally identical. Textually, they are completely identical. For Goldman's images to be commentary on Kelly's image, there'd have to be some element to it to differentiate it from Kelly. I don't see that at all.

Moreover, if Goldman were trying to make a comment on this aspect of culture, shouldn't he have chosen an aspect that people are actually aware of? How is Goldman's praying kitty supposed to be taken as a comment on Kelly's praying kitty, when virtually no one has ever heard of Kelly's comic? This is a six year old image from a webcomic that's been dead for two. The fact that anyone recognized it at all to get word back to the original artist is pretty surprising. It seems clear that this image was chosen, not because it illustrated some aspect of culture that Goldman wanted to comment on, but because it was obscure enough that he thought he could claim it as his own and get away with it.

Appropriation is common in art. Would we have a Lenore, the dead girl in pigtails, without "Nightmare before Christmas"? Maybe, but I think probably not. So should Tim Burton sue Dirge? If he wants to, I think he could - same as the other web-cartoonists here, with Goldman. Lotsa luck, fellas.

That's an absurd comparison. We're not talking about two artists working on the same general themes or in the same genre. We're talking about someone who takes entire character designs and gags, virtually unchanged, and markets them under his own name.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Chicago Flame (http://media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper519/news/2003/09/30/Features/Cartoonist.Pokes.Fun.At.Self.And.Spread.Smiles-506946.shtml) (bolding mine)
Todd Goliath has been drawing stupid illustrations since he was a kid. Now, as an adult, he still draws stupid illustrations.

"I started by producing T-shirts, now it's blown up out of control," Goldman said. "We've been approached by every production company around, from Disney to Comedy Central. There's a lot of exciting crazy stuff happening."

Other characters created by Goldman include Goodbye Kitty, Eve. L, Trendy Wendy and Jack the Nerd.

"Goodbye Kitty is a spoof off of Hello Kitty and we always have new characters lined up. We're coming out soon with a fat guy named Meatball," Goldman said.

"I'm just wacked out of my mind. Things just come to me really quickly. I have complete ADD so I've never finished a book before. I haven't really watched cartoons or read comic books. It's just my witty sense of humor and my love to draw," Goldman said.

Goldman's love for drawing cartoons and a desire to make people smile are his true inspirations.

"The whole point of it is that it puts a smile on your face, my job is to make you laugh especially with what's going on in the world today. There's so much drama, I've decided to make fun of it and not take life so seriously," Goldman said.Not a thing about his work being directly copied from elsewhere.

[mobo85]

I can't stop laughing at the Something Awful thread about all this. People are reposting other poster's words and/or artwork and adding the word "TODD" to it, playing on Goldman's apparent not-giving-a-crap-about-actually-drawing-something-himself. This could be the "all your base are belong to us" of 2007.

[RTA]

How is Goldman's "Make everyone die" image different from Kelly's? What changes, either in content or context, has he made to the image to differentiate it from the original?

Well, one is the original, and I assume it exists only on some servers somewhere and in people's memories. The other was appropriated in order to have something physical to sell for money. Once upon a time it was a little picture file someone made for fun. Now it's a painting someone made for sale. So there's your answer.

Just as with the previously mentioned Lichtenstein's comic paintings. Once there were some images in some obscure '50s pulp comics, then a few years later they were recreated in another medium, and now each is worth millions.

(Not like I am comparing Lichtenstein to Goldman. Goldman comes across to me as a cynical hack laughing all the way to the bank. I suspect that this is the source of much of the animosity directed towards him - not from you necessarily, but in general.)

I'm reminded of two things. The first is the great comic master R. Crumb, in the movie Crumb, bitching about how the whole "Keep on Truckin'" thing was such a headache for him for 10 years after he had drawn it.

The second is Milhouse, from "The Simpsons", complaining to that kid from Shelbyville how HE was the one who invented carrying your backpack over one shoulder. The moral of both stories is, you simply have to copyright your stuff and be vigilant, or stuff will happen.

[Mrs. Millamant]

Well, one is the original, and I assume it exists only on some servers somewhere and in people's memories. The other was appropriated in order to have something physical to sell for money.

If the original was drawn and scanned, then it existed (or contines to exist). But even if it was entirely digitally created, that doesn't mean that it is fair game--or do you think that copyright does not apply to any web content?

you simply have to copyright your stuff and be vigilant, or stuff will happen.

I am not an intellectual property lawyer, but it is my understanding that ownership exists the moment you create something original--while you can register works for copyright, that is not necessary for you to retain your rights to your own work. And it certainly means that someone else is not allowed to trace your work and sell it for money, particularly if they make no acknowledgment they they stole your work. (Lichtenstein didn't claim he was producing original work--that would have been beside the point of what he was doing.) Unless Goldman produced the art with studied reasons as to why the addition of a lightbulb and removal of a bow were significant artistic decisions, he's a fucking plagiarist.

[Miller]

Well, one is the original, and I assume it exists only on some servers somewhere and in people's memories. The other was appropriated in order to have something physical to sell for money. Once upon a time it was a little picture file someone made for fun. Now it's a painting someone made for sale. So there's your answer.

So, the answer to, "How are these two images different," is, "Todd Goldman is getting paid for one?" Yeah, see, that was already covered in the OP. Sort of the entire point of the thread, right? Dave Kelly made this image. Todd Goldman took it, without permission or attribution, and is now profiting from it. There's a highly technical legal term for that: "stealing."

Just as with the previously mentioned Lichtenstein's comic paintings. Once there were some images in some obscure '50s pulp comics, then a few years later they were recreated in another medium, and now each is worth millions.

Read my previous post about Lichtenstein. They aren't remotely the same situation. Lichtenstein took individual images out of a whole, and by recontextualising them, created a wholly different meaning for those images. Goldman has not recontextualized the works he has stolen. He has not taken just the image itself, but the idea behind the image as well. Further, while Lichtenstein did not always credit his sources, the fact that he did not originally create the designs himself was implicit in the art. It was the entire point of it. Goldman has presented the images he has stolen as being entirely his, and has explicitly denied being inspired or influenced by other artists.

(Not like I am comparing Lichtenstein to Goldman. Goldman comes across to me as a cynical hack laughing all the way to the bank. I suspect that this is the source of much of the animosity directed towards him - not from you necessarily, but in general.)

Well, duh.

I'm reminded of two things. The first is the great comic master R. Crumb, in the movie Crumb, bitching about how the whole "Keep on Truckin'" thing was such a headache for him for 10 years after he had drawn it.

I don't see the relevance.

The second is Milhouse, from "The Simpsons", complaining to that kid from Shelbyville how HE was the one who invented carrying your backpack over one shoulder. The moral of both stories is, you simply have to copyright your stuff and be vigilant, or stuff will happen.

The original image is under copyright, and it's creator is being vigilant. Do you understand how copyright works? It's not like a patent, where you have to have it recognized by a government bureau to receive your copyright. The act of publishing is by itself enough to establish copyright. The minute Kelly put that image on the internet, he held the copyright to it, and continues to hold it to this day.

[whole bean]

funny Lenore should be brought into this as I have often thought she bore an uncanny resemblence to Clara (http://users.aol.com/emarko/c.html) , Kate (http://users.aol.com/emarko/k.html) , andZillah (http://users.aol.com/emarko/z.html) of the Gashcrumbly Tinies

[Miller]

funny Lenore should be brought into this as I have often thought she bore an uncanny resemblence to Clara (http://users.aol.com/emarko/c.html) , Kate (http://users.aol.com/emarko/k.html) , andZillah (http://users.aol.com/emarko/z.html) of the Gashcrumbly Tinies

Hmm. I don't really see it. Certainly, it's hard to do a gothic-themed comic and wholly escape from Gorey's shadow, but Dirge's work has an anarchic quality that's quite different from Gorey's careful, Edwardian lines. And, of course, Lenore has a distinct personality and supporting cast, whereas the Tinies as a whole are just a collection of unfortunate methods of dying, and not so much characters per se. As I've said re: Lichtenstein, I don't have a problem with an artist copying the style of another artist, so long as he does something to make it his own. I've seen other artists copy Gorey's style much more directly, but in the service of a project that was otherwise very much their own.

[RTA]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on matters pertaining to the history of Pop art, as well as on what was going on in Lichtenstein's head back then as opposed to Goldman's now.

Goldman has presented the images he has stolen as being entirely his, and has explicitly denied being inspired or influenced by other artists.

Here’s my inspiration! Every month I paint the works of a pedophile. This week, I chose the work of Dave Kelly, he’s a huge infantilist furry.

The minute Kelly put that image on the internet, he held the copyright to it, and continues to hold it to this day.

Then Kelly can sue. But he won't see a dime over Goldman's painting - it's called artistic license. Artistic license says that you can make a painting of a bag of McDonald's fries, or of Ronald McDonald, or of Ronald McDonald dropping bags of fries on Osama Bin Laden from his biplane, or of Ronald McDonald getting it on with Osama, etc., then laugh at the McDonald's lawyers (if they even show up).

Now if Goldman is putting Kelly's image on t-shirts and selling that, certainly the courts can get in on that. But the artists have to get involved - nobody's going to do that for them, and no web mob can shame the shameless into stopping. But one painting? ... Come on. Has that painting even sold yet?

[Starving Artist]

As I've said re: Lichtenstein, I don't have a problem with an artist copying the style of another artist, so long as he does something to make it his ownActually, more than a few of the comic strip artists whose drawings were appropriated by Lichtenstein resented it. I've often wondered how, in that light, he was able to get away with such blatant copying, but I suppose it's because copyright laws in those days were less punitive. Also, he was a highly trained and skillful artist in his own right. Still, he came in for a fair amount of criticism from the original artists, art critics, and at least some of the public as well for his appropriation of others' work.

[CalMeacham]

I like Lichtenstein's comic-influenced work*, but I've always been annoyed by critics who say things like "Lichtenstein improved the composition and made it more visually appealing, when that's a slur on the original artist, who not only set up the original that Lichtenstein copied, but did a hell of a lot of other panels, for a fractioon og his compensation. Lichtenstein didn't "improve" anything, as far as I could see, in works like "OK, Hotshot! I'm Pouring!" -- all he did was make it neater and more stylized.



* Except for "Hey, Mickey! You've Causght a Big One!", which proves that Lichtenstein can't draw Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck , even to save his life. Most uncharacteristic og him.

[whole bean]

Hmm. I don't really see it. Certainly, it's hard to do a gothic-themed comic and wholly escape from Gorey's shadow, but Dirge's work has an anarchic quality that's quite different from Gorey's careful, Edwardian lines. And, of course, Lenore has a distinct personality and supporting cast, whereas the Tinies as a whole are just a collection of unfortunate methods of dying, and not so much characters per se. As I've said re: Lichtenstein, I don't have a problem with an artist copying the style of another artist, so long as he does something to make it his own. I've seen other artists copy Gorey's style much more directly, but in the service of a project that was otherwise very much their own.
I think you're right, and I did not mean to imply that Lenore was lifted. I honestly thought it was funny that Lenore, a character who upon first seeing on someone's t-shirt I thought was a tiny, should be lifted. It's almost like I predicted it, except with only part of the cast, and characters in the wrong roles, and with the timing wrong . . . but other than that. I should just stop.

[Miller]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on matters pertaining to the history of Pop art, as well as on what was going on in Lichtenstein's head back then as opposed to Goldman's now.

I don't need to read minds to recognize a clear difference between Lichtenstein's work and Goldman's theft. It's apparent from simply viewing them.

Then Kelly can sue. But he won't see a dime over Goldman's painting - it's called artistic license. Artistic license says that you can make a painting of a bag of McDonald's fries, or of Ronald McDonald, or of Ronald McDonald dropping bags of fries on Osama Bin Laden from his biplane, or of Ronald McDonald getting it on with Osama, etc., then laugh at the McDonald's lawyers (if they even show up).

No, artistic license says that you can ignore facts, history, or general reality if it will make a better story. It's got nothing to do with copyright. William Wallace boning the Queen of England in Braveheart was artistic license. Tie Fighters screaming past the camera in Star Wars was artistic license. Copying another artists work with virtually no change and presenting it as your own isn't artistic license. It's theft, and it's precisely the reason we have copyright laws.

Now if Goldman is putting Kelly's image on t-shirts and selling that, certainly the courts can get in on that. But the artists have to get involved - nobody's going to do that for them, and no web mob can shame the shameless into stopping. But one painting? ... Come on. Has that painting even sold yet?

Wait a minute. If I steal someone else's image and put it on a t-shirt and sell it for ten bucks, that's illegal. But if I put exactly the same image on canvas and sell it for ten thousand, that's okay? And it only becomes illegal when someone buys it? So long as I can't get a buyer, the law can't touch me?

Truly, you must be one of the foremost legal minds of our generation.

[Miller]

Actually, more than a few of the comic strip artists whose drawings were appropriated by Lichtenstein resented it. I've often wondered how, in that light, he was able to get away with such blatant copying, but I suppose it's because copyright laws in those days were less punitive. Also, he was a highly trained and skillful artist in his own right. Still, he came in for a fair amount of criticism from the original artists, art critics, and at least some of the public as well for his appropriation of others' work.

Oh, yeah, no doubt. Which is why I said that I didn't have a problem with it. But then, he wasn't copying my art. ;)

[Ludovic]

I like Lichtenstein's comic-influenced work*, but I've always been annoyed by critics who say things like "Lichtenstein improved the composition and made it more visually appealing, when that's a slur on the original artist, who not only set up the original that Lichtenstein copied, but did a hell of a lot of other panels, for a fractioon og his compensation.Og COMPENSATE!

[Miller]

Og COMPENSATE!

That explains the hammer.

[Mrs. Millamant]

Artistic license says that you can make a painting of a bag of McDonald's fries, or of Ronald McDonald, or of Ronald McDonald dropping bags of fries on Osama Bin Laden from his biplane, or of Ronald McDonald getting it on with Osama, etc., then laugh at the McDonald's lawyers (if they even show up).

The comparable situation would be if Kelley owned McDonald's and then Goldman opened up a store that was identical to a McDonald's, selling virtually identical products, while claiming that he came up with this whole "McDonald's" thing by himself. And then, when called on it, possibly* making the claim that it was ok to do so because Kelley is a pedophile.

*I haven't seen that the email in question has been linked to Goldman with absolue certainty; if he did indeed send it, it was unquestionably an idiotic move. But then, it's idiotic to trace someone else's art and pretend it's all your idea to begin with.

[Lute Skywatcher]

No, artistic license says that you can ignore facts, history, or general reality if it will make a better story. It's got nothing to do with copyright. William Wallace boning the Queen of England in Braveheart was artistic license. Tie Fighters screaming past the camera in Star Wars was artistic license. Copying another artists work with virtually no change and presenting it as your own isn't artistic license. It's theft, and it's precisely the reason we have copyright laws.See also Vanilla Ice's defense of the "Ice Ice Baby"/"Under Pressure" issue.

[garygnu]

Must...
resist...
urge to turn previous posts purple and sign them -TODD

[Dunawake]

Must...
resist...
urge to turn previous posts purple and sign them -TODD

-TODD


:p

[MovieMogul]

Dave Kelly follows-up:Okay guys, the story will go up on the Las Vegas Sun paper (and also the website) soon. When it does, we'll know more, but still not the whole story. That will come later....

I was interviewed twice by them today. The news was that fast. There's no news right now. We may have to wait another day or two, but this will be over soon.

Thank you GOD.

[mobo85]

Thank you GOD.

So He is killing everybody?

[Weirddave]

Here's a heartwarming little story for y'all. Seems there's this fellow, name of Todd "Goliath" Goldman, who purports to be an artist. He's got a gallery show going on in LA right now. Here's one of the more famous painting being displayed at the show.

Problem is, it's famous at the moment because it was originally drawn six years ago. By someone else. The image was stolen directly from a webcartoonist named Dave Kelly. And by stolen directly, I mean that the dumb cocksucker straight up traced that motherfucker. That's really extraordinarily shameless. Apparently, this isn't the first time Goldman has come under fire for plagiarism. He's previously been accused of stealing the design and concept for his character Eve L. from another webcartoonist, Roman Dirge, inventor of Lenore, the cutest little dead girl. And others have noted similarities between his Goodbye Kitty and Neko, an animated character from an open source computer app dating back to the late '80s. Goldman has built a career out of selling these characters on t-shirts and as original works of art, with his name attached. The dick.

In the area of things Goldman is known for that he actually invented himself (so far as anyone knows), his most high-profile success has been a line of t-shirts with cutesy, quasi-feminist slogans like, "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them." Hence the title of this thread, which in the spirit of Todd Goldman, I shamelessly stole from this site.

I first heard this story courtesy of Randy Milholland, creator of the indescribably awesome webcomic, Something Positive. Since Goldman appears to have a special fondness for stealing from webcomics, the webcomic community has taken special glee is spreading this information far and wide, even working it directly into a few strips. Dave Kelly's website, naturally enough, has the best source of links to other comics and message boards where folks with an interest in either webcomics or basic integrity have been tearing into Goldman like a pack of piranhas skeletonizing a cow. And by God, I can't think of a more deserved fate for this prick. Except maybe being literally skeletonized, instead of merely figuratively.


-Todd

ETA. Teach me not to read the thread. I see it's been done. Oh well. Great minds I suppose.

[RTA]

But if I put exactly the same image on canvas and sell it for ten thousand, that's okay? And it only becomes illegal when someone buys it? So long as I can't get a buyer, the law can't touch me?

Yes. No it does not. And my point is that if there is no demonstrable profit, what is the target for any lawsuit? That he did a painting of something he saw on the web, and acknowledges the source, yet he should be punished for painting a painting and letting people see it?

I'm not saying that Kelly can't or shouldn't sue if he thinks he has a case. The court system exists for such disputes, and it would be a hundred times more proactive than stirring up outrage among a few likeminded webcomic advocacy groups. But will he see any money, I really doubt it. If anything it would encourage Goldman don't you think? ... DNFTT.

Truly, you must be one of the foremost legal minds of our generation.

Well you're no lawyer yourself, so foo on you. And I mean that in a dismissively non aggressive, we're-just-talking kind of way.

[Miller]

Yes.

So, copyright laws don't apply to t-shirts? Fascinating. What other mediums are immune to copyright laws?

No it does not. And my point is that if there is no demonstrable profit, what is the target for any lawsuit?

Whatever other assets the target has, as deemed appropriate by the court, of course.

Oh, and incidentally, the painting in question has been sold. Not that it remotely matters.

That he did a painting of something he saw on the web, and acknowledges the source, yet he should be punished for painting a painting and letting people see it?

He stole the painting, and he did not acknowledge the source. And he's since profited from the theft. He's received money from work someone else did. Even if the situation makes suing impractical, there's still the moral implications of what this chickenfucker is doing. He's a thief, a liar, and a libeller. What he's doing here is absolutely indefensible, as you are so amply demonstrating in this thread.

I'm not saying that Kelly can't or shouldn't sue if he thinks he has a case. The court system exists for such disputes, and it would be a hundred times more proactive than stirring up outrage among a few likeminded webcomic advocacy groups. But will he see any money, I really doubt it. If anything it would encourage Goldman don't you think? ... DNFTT.

DNFTT? We're talking about real life here, RTA. Not the internet. Different rules apply.

[Steve MB]

That he did a painting of something he saw on the web, and acknowledges the source, yet he should be punished for painting a painting and letting people see it?
The overlay makes a convincing case that he traced the artwork directly, not merely reproduced something he's seen. He most certainly did not acknowledge the original source.

[Starving Artist]

One thing that I think should be pointed out and which I don't believe has been mentioned here so far is that it's illegal to copy someone else's work (barring its having fallen into the public domain) without their permission. Period! Simply giving attribution does not legally permit someone to reproduce, much less sell for profit, copyrighted material created by someone else.

[Mrs. Millamant]

Well, he's since acknowledged (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2007/apr/12/566637041.html) that, at the very least, the image was brought to him as an idea by one of the artists working for him and he copied it without checking where that other person got it from. So at best, he's an idiot.

Of course, that leaves aside the question of all of these. (http://www.miketyndall.com/todd_goldman/) (Warning: massive page with lots of images; slow to load.) The full press release from Goldman is at the bottom of the page.

[Larry Mudd]

Artists and bloggers say Goldman has taken characters from other cartoons. Goldman disputes that, saying that some of the characters in question are his own and have been licensed, and that in the past year he has sent 50 cease-and-desist letters to artists doing knockoffs of his work.

"It's frustrating to have my whole career, my creativity, being questioned because of one mistake," he said.Yes, the one little mistake of consistently being a hypocritical thieving bastard. :rolleyes:

[JustAnotherGeek]

www.twolumps.net

today's comic. ( http://www.twolumps.net/d/20070411.html )

Priceless.

[Morbo]

Well, one is the original, and I assume it exists only on some servers somewhere and in people's memories

The original was published in 2004 in the comic anthology "Keenspot Spotlight."

Well, he's since acknowledged that, at the very least, the image was brought to him as an idea by one of the artists working for him and he copied it without checking where that other person got it from.

||| Read ||| : one of the artists working for him got tired of watching him profit from his plagiarizing, so that artist set a trap for him. :)

[Lute Skywatcher]

www.twolumps.net

today's comic. ( http://www.twolumps.net/d/20070411.html )

Priceless.PvP, 9 April (http://www.pvponline.com/article/3253/mon-apr-09)

[Little Nemo]

Let's hear what Todd Goldman has to say: "I made a judgment error and did not research the background of this particular submission." See? He's innocent. He just happened to run across this web comic and naturally assumed it had been put online for the purpose of having its picture traced and its caption copied word for word so other people could sell it. Granted a little background research would have cleared up that misapprehension but it's a mistake anyone could have made.

As for numerous other allegations of plagiarism, Goldman goes on to explain: "This is just a bunch of hater artists trying to take me down." Bastards and their damn intellectual property rights. Do they have any sympathy for how difficult it is to be a cutting edge commercial artist with no personal creativity? You have to spend hundreds of hours looking for works by other artists who are both talented enough to copy but obscure enough so you don't get caught. Or at least small enough that you can outlawyer them and still make a decent profit after paying legal fees.

[Dan Norder]

And my point is that if there is no demonstrable profit, what is the target for any lawsuit?

1) But there WAS profit.. Both direct in selling the paining, and associated profit for it being part of an exhibit selling other works.

2) His distribution of it hurts the potential profit of the person who fucking CREATED the thing in the first place.

3) It's horribly immoral thing to do even if there were no applicable law (but of course there is).

4) If you don't know shit about copyright law you should shut the fuck up and such matters.