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.
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 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.
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.
I’d bet my eye teeth that threemae understands this and did not seriously intend to make any sort of real analogy there.
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.
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.
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.
Well okay, if you’re pleased with how you think you came out of that exchange, I’m happy for you.
Now if he’d said Warhol, we’d have to take him seriously.
Kimstu, I too am happy for magellan. 
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, 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.
Thanks for the info on this! Now I understand the last panel for today’s Two Lumps webcomic!
The Clan of the Cats one is here (If this is days later, you may have to flip back a cartoon or two,)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not a thing about his work being directly copied from elsewhere.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
Well, duh.
I don’t see the relevance.
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.