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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
Og COMPENSATE!
That explains the hammer.
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.
See also Vanilla Ice’s defense of the “Ice Ice Baby”/“Under Pressure” issue.
Must…
resist…
urge to turn previous posts purple and sign them -TODD
Must…
resist…
urge to turn previous posts purple and sign them -TODD
-TODD
Dave Kelly follows-up:
So He is killing everybody?
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.
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.
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.
So, copyright laws don’t apply to t-shirts? Fascinating. What other mediums are immune to copyright laws?
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.
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.
DNFTT? We’re talking about real life here, RTA. Not the internet. Different rules apply.
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.
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.