David Mack: Professional Tracer (minor New Avengers spoilers)

13»

Posts

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Sars_Boy wrote: »
    KVW wrote: »
    I like Mack as much as the next guy and I don't like lumping him in with guys like Greg Land for the ol' tracing / plagerism category, but the entire issue was one big cut and paste affair. I could have "drawn" this issue of New Avengers based on how much he stole from other artists. There was no "referencing" done here. He traced the images and changed a few lines for different clothing or opened a hand or closed a mouth. That is not what original work is called. It's stealing and he deserves just about everything he gets for trying to pull something like this off. It doesn't end with his cover swipe. Check out these images from the entire issue.
    1207009279964gw0.jpg

    1207004646579cq9.jpg

    1207005058647at9.jpg

    1207005244644dq4.jpg

    1207004856213op6.jpg

    1207005324812br8.jpg

    1207005182942tx5.jpg

    1207005494347ox2.jpg

    1207005345723yr3.jpg

    Most are from the same issue of Gen 13. He didn't even try to find other's to "reference".
    are you saying that none of these are valid examples of Mack copying someones work?

    I fail to see how these have anything to do with Mack's "theme"

    Wow, uh... I made a wrong turn somewhere. Sorry, I was only looking at the pics in the OP. And no, I'm saying those are blatent copyings. They ALL are. I'm also saying that, while I find his Daredevil explanation a stretch, it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the nonsense he claimed about Echo.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • KyleWPetersonKyleWPeterson Registered User
    edited April 2008
    All the Rage (I think?) used to do a swipe file of the week. There are tons of them.

    Kyle

    KyleWPeterson on
  • Synthetic OrangeSynthetic Orange Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    Rob Liefld.

    He was sentenced to be Rob Liefeld, a horrible fate.

    Synthetic Orange on
  • AlgertmanAlgertman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    All the Rage (I think?) used to do a swipe file of the week. There are tons of them.

    Kyle

    It's the weekly Lying in the Gutters column and they usually try to do one every week.

    Algertman on
  • BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    I remember a couple of the J.G. Jones 52 covers were swiped from movie posters.

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    I remember a couple of the J.G. Jones 52 covers were swiped from movie posters.

    Like the Doc Magnus cover? That fell under the auspices of legal parody, I thought.

    Anyway, I'd say Rob's fate has more to do with an overall lack of skill rather than a habit of swiping poses, so I'm guessing that nothing actually comes from this Mack thing.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • AlgertmanAlgertman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    I remember a couple of the J.G. Jones 52 covers were swiped from movie posters.

    Like the Doc Magnus cover? That fell under the auspices of legal parody, I thought.

    Anyway, I'd say Rob's fate has more to do with an overall lack of skill rather than a habit of swiping poses, so I'm guessing that nothing actually comes from this Mack thing.

    There was a cover that had Starfire, Animal Man, and Adam Strange on the cover. Starfire's pose was traced an Daredevil, or Elektra movie poster.

    Algertman on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Oh yeah, I remember that.

    Don't think it's as bad as this, though, since the pose was taken from a different medium.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • KVWKVW Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Has anyone been caught copying from another artist before? What were the repercussions, if any?

    I mean, while Greg Land copies porn faces, it's not as though porn and comics are even remotely the same field.

    Greg Land does more than copy porn faces.
    landcopiestravischarestfo5.jpg

    The original is Travis Charest, which predats Land's work, obviously.

    spideylandea4.gif

    Spidey movie poster, which was on the very next page in the same issue he traced it.

    tracehitchmp3.jpg

    Land tracing Bryan Hitch.

    tracemcdanielda2.jpg

    Land tracing McDaniel's Nightwing.

    There are numerous other instances of Land tracing other peoples work and sometimes even his own (there is such a thing as self plagerism) and even images that have parts missing where he forgot to trace, such as legs that should continue after some foreground obstruction, etc.

    KVW on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So, my question becomes... is tracing a common enough occurance that it should just be ignored? Or is the indignation I'm feeling somehow justified?

    I mean, I have no artistic ability... I can't imagine what it must be like to draw a whole issue and come in under the deadline. So, is this really not a big deal?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • KVWKVW Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I don't think it's a common occurance, but it's also hard to prove it is a full blown copying or if it's just "referencing".

    For instance, no one will ever accuse Romita, Ramos, Bagley, Immonen, Yu or any other extremely stylized artist of tracing or "referencing". It would be painfully obvious if their style drastically changed. Same for dozens of other artists. I don't think Mack typically does this because he doesn't usually pencil comics. It's more the painted style his Daredevil and other work uses. I think he was rushed to pencil this, couldn't get in a groove and took shortcuts and got caught. Land, however, came in with a referencing style that you could plainly see. It was merely references at first and I don't think his Sojourn run has any tracings in it, but as time went on and he became more high profile, I'm guessing he relied more and more on it to get the job done and eventually became the tracer that he is today.

    As to why Marvel doesnt do anything about this? I'm guessing it comes down to money. Land "draws" a book and it typically sells well. Hell, I enjoyed his UFF run, despite vehemontly disliking his methods, so I've probably got no right to complain either. But as long as people are buying it and theres only that minor internet audience complaining on message boards, why should anyone bother repremanding him for tracing?

    Mack's crime is far worse in my opinion simply because he's ripping off almost an entire issue and passing it off as his own work. At least Land does some kind of work to trace and touch up pornos and the occasional stealing of work for a panel or two. Maybe artists should be required to submit their photos and references for every page they draw whenever they complete a commission. Some sort of policing is going to have to be set up if this worrying trend continues.

    KVW on
  • Vargas PrimeVargas Prime King of Nothing Just a ShowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Was the question ever answered about whether Mack actually told the artists he "referenced" what he was doing?

    Because really, if he didn't at least drop Adam Hughes an e-mail prior to sending out those pages of Echo, it doesn't matter what kind of skrull-imitation excuse he throws out there, it's ripping off another artist.

    And, of course, as people have countered before, making the Daredevil argument sounds good, but the Echo/Fairchild/Rainmaker thing doesn't really hold up, being different universes and all.

    Vargas Prime on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Hughes' girlfriend/manager said that no, Mack did not tell Hughes.

    Munch on
  • HawkstoneHawkstone The state of intoxicationRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    So, my question becomes... is tracing a common enough occurance that it should just be ignored? Or is the indignation I'm feeling somehow justified?

    I mean, I have no artistic ability... I can't imagine what it must be like to draw a whole issue and come in under the deadline. So, is this really not a big deal?

    Well, like I said before legally he is stretching it but is probably in the clear. Morally If any of my commisioned works had that level of immitation in them I would feel like a hack at the least and possibly a thief. There is a difference between inspiration and immitation and flat out using someones work as a crutch or stealing someone elses talents. The repetitive "borrowing" I have seen here says that you are probably justified and Mack should be at least a little ashamed. The concept he provided to explain the use of others work doesnt hold up under the execution, I was prepared to give him a free pass if he had grabbed from diffrent places, and made it clear that was his proccess but, he seems to have pretty much lifted an entire issue of gen 13 with some rearrangement, added a few other swipes and passed it off as his work.

    Hawkstone on
    Inside of a dog...it's too dark to read.
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    Has Mack ever done anything like this before? I don't mean using the odd unauthorised photo reference, but basically creating an entire book using references from other peoples works?

    I ask because if he has, then the explanation is total BS and I'll join the haters. But if he hasn't, and this is unusual for him, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he couldn't reveal the reasons for it without spoiling the whole point of the book).

    I don't really understand why you continue to support the guy after the sheer volume of the plagiarism has been made apparent. The DD thing could be an interesting homage, but wholesale copying of Gen 13 is well beyond the scope of rationalization.

    august on
    Pac Man's character is difficult to explain even to the Japanese -- he is an innocent character. He hasn't been educated to discern between good and evil. He acts more like a small child than a grown-up person. Think of him as a child learning in the course of his daily activities. If someone tells him guns are evil, he would be the type to rush out and eat guns. But he would most probably eat any gun, even the pistols of policemen who need them.
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited April 2008
    august wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    Has Mack ever done anything like this before? I don't mean using the odd unauthorised photo reference, but basically creating an entire book using references from other peoples works?

    I ask because if he has, then the explanation is total BS and I'll join the haters. But if he hasn't, and this is unusual for him, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he couldn't reveal the reasons for it without spoiling the whole point of the book).

    I don't really understand why you continue to support the guy after the sheer volume of the plagiarism has been made apparent. The DD thing could be an interesting homage, but wholesale copying of Gen 13 is well beyond the scope of rationalization.

    Because I see his explanation and think "huh, interesting concept, fuck-awful implementation". Everyone else seems to see his explanation and think "KILL THE LIAR! KILL HIM NOW!!!".

    I'm not really defending him even, just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Everyone else has pretty much decided he is just lazy, got caught and tried to cover it up with excuses. I'm willing to accept that he had an interesting idea and then fucked it into the ground with some truly awful decisions (like not clearing it with the other artists ahead of time, which was a stupid fucking move).

    As I said, if this is the one and only time he does something like this, given the reasons provided I'm willing to forgive and forget. If this becomes a trend then that shit isn't cool and I'll be the first to call for blood. And I'm talking about the stealing of interior art here, the photo reference covers stuff doesn't really bother me. It's a bit naughty perhaps but not on the same level as taking other peoples comic art and passing it off as your own.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Toji SuzuharaToji Suzuhara Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Am I the only one who's really annoyed by everyone saying "tracing" every three sentences? You don't know if he's tracing anything. Anyone can copy a drawing freehand without the aid of tracing paper and graphite transfers or a lightbox (which Mack uses, as it is a legitimate art tool, just like tracing paper), but calling everything tracing just ridiculous. It's really obvious what Mack photo references and what he doesn't. Go back to Daredevil 16-19, and you can see that all of the figures in his watercolored pages are appropriated directly from photographs. It's been how he's worked forever. It's not like it's strange or anything considering his penchant for collage art. Collage art has historically been the appropriation of found images to create a new composition, and there are plenty of "high" artists who have had legal action brought against them for claiming the new piece as their own. Which brings me to the second piece of annoying terminology being thrown around here: stealing. Mack copying Adam Hughes' drawings is copyright infringement, not stealing. There is a huge difference. Stealing implies that Mack is removing something. Hughes' drawings are still there in the pages of Gen 13, and no one is going to think they aren't his.

    I'm not saying that Mack should've copied Hughes' figures, though. I don't know about you guys, but as soon as I picked up the issue and flipped through it, I knew the drawings were beyond his skill level. but considering how he has worked in the past... I thought it was kind of supposed to be obvious that he was either drawing from cooler photographs or some other source. It was, perhaps, not the best idea to copy from another comics artist, and an even worse idea to backpedal, but I don't know why anyone is surprised by him referencing other sources. It's his thing. The majority of the argument going on here is about how shitty it was of him to copy from Adam Hughes, and it was, but the rest of it complaining about his reliance on photos is kind of blind. Hopefully after this he'll do what Alex Ross does and shoot his own photos of people in costumes to copy.

    Long story short, don't call it tracing if you don't know that it's traced, and copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing.

    Toji Suzuhara on
    AlphaFlag_200x40.jpg
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Am I the only one who's really annoyed by everyone saying "tracing" every three sentences? You don't know if he's tracing anything. Anyone can copy a drawing freehand without the aid of tracing paper and graphite transfers or a lightbox (which Mack uses, as it is a legitimate art tool, just like tracing paper), but calling everything tracing just ridiculous. It's really obvious what Mack photo references and what he doesn't. Go back to Daredevil 16-19, and you can see that all of the figures in his watercolored pages are appropriated directly from photographs. It's been how he's worked forever. It's not like it's strange or anything considering his penchant for collage art. Collage art has historically been the appropriation of found images to create a new composition, and there are plenty of "high" artists who have had legal action brought against them for claiming the new piece as their own. Which brings me to the second piece of annoying terminology being thrown around here: stealing. Mack copying Adam Hughes' drawings is copyright infringement, not stealing. There is a huge difference. Stealing implies that Mack is removing something. Hughes' drawings are still there in the pages of Gen 13, and no one is going to think they aren't his.

    I'm not saying that Mack should've copied Hughes' figures, though. I don't know about you guys, but as soon as I picked up the issue and flipped through it, I knew the drawings were beyond his skill level. but considering how he has worked in the past... I thought it was kind of supposed to be obvious that he was either drawing from cooler photographs or some other source. It was, perhaps, not the best idea to copy from another comics artist, and an even worse idea to backpedal, but I don't know why anyone is surprised by him referencing other sources. It's his thing. The majority of the argument going on here is about how shitty it was of him to copy from Adam Hughes, and it was, but the rest of it complaining about his reliance on photos is kind of blind. Hopefully after this he'll do what Alex Ross does and shoot his own photos of people in costumes to copy.

    Long story short, don't call it tracing if you don't know that it's traced, and copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing.

    Speaking as someone who does have art training:
    1) Lightboxing is tracing. If you're taking your pencil/pen/whatever and TRACING THE LINES of another image, you're tracing. That's life.
    2) If you're taking someone's work, and passing if off as your own (e.g. tracing someone's images), that's stealing, not copyright infringement: the reason is simple, you're not simply selling another copy of artist X's work, you're STEALING THE CONTENT, pretending it's your content, and selling it as your own. We're not talking about legal terms here, anyway, but rather the moral terms. This is stealing someone else's work, the same way it'd be stealing for a scientist to appropriate another's work and publish it as their own.
    3) No one, to my knowledge, cares about reference photos alone; hell, Ex Machina is something like 100% photo referenced, but to photos the artist poses and takes himself. The problem is that photo referencing without attribution is stealing because you're taking their work, claiming it's yours, and then selling that work of "yours" as your own.

    Long story short, don't deny it's tracing if it's tracing, and don't deny it's theft if it's not theft.

    mattharvest on
  • AlgertmanAlgertman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Long story short, don't call it tracing if you don't know that it's traced

    But we do know it's traced.

    Algertman on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    august wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    Has Mack ever done anything like this before? I don't mean using the odd unauthorised photo reference, but basically creating an entire book using references from other peoples works?

    I ask because if he has, then the explanation is total BS and I'll join the haters. But if he hasn't, and this is unusual for him, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he couldn't reveal the reasons for it without spoiling the whole point of the book).

    I don't really understand why you continue to support the guy after the sheer volume of the plagiarism has been made apparent. The DD thing could be an interesting homage, but wholesale copying of Gen 13 is well beyond the scope of rationalization.

    Because I see his explanation and think "huh, interesting concept, fuck-awful implementation". Everyone else seems to see his explanation and think "KILL THE LIAR! KILL HIM NOW!!!".

    I'm not really defending him even, just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Everyone else has pretty much decided he is just lazy, got caught and tried to cover it up with excuses. I'm willing to accept that he had an interesting idea and then fucked it into the ground with some truly awful decisions (like not clearing it with the other artists ahead of time, which was a stupid fucking move).

    As I said, if this is the one and only time he does something like this, given the reasons provided I'm willing to forgive and forget. If this becomes a trend then that shit isn't cool and I'll be the first to call for blood. And I'm talking about the stealing of interior art here, the photo reference covers stuff doesn't really bother me. It's a bit naughty perhaps but not on the same level as taking other peoples comic art and passing it off as your own.

    The Gen13 stuff does not factor into his or anyone else's possible rationalization and I'm puzzled why you keep avoiding it.

    He takes Adam Hughes' art and passes it off as his own. From Gen13. There is no homage.

    august on
    Pac Man's character is difficult to explain even to the Japanese -- he is an innocent character. He hasn't been educated to discern between good and evil. He acts more like a small child than a grown-up person. Think of him as a child learning in the course of his daily activities. If someone tells him guns are evil, he would be the type to rush out and eat guns. But he would most probably eat any gun, even the pistols of policemen who need them.
  • Toji SuzuharaToji Suzuhara Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Speaking as someone who does have art training:
    1) Lightboxing is tracing. If you're taking your pencil/pen/whatever and TRACING THE LINES of another image, you're tracing. That's life.
    2) If you're taking someone's work, and passing if off as your own (e.g. tracing someone's images), that's stealing, not copyright infringement: the reason is simple, you're not simply selling another copy of artist X's work, you're STEALING THE CONTENT, pretending it's your content, and selling it as your own. We're not talking about legal terms here, anyway, but rather the moral terms. This is stealing someone else's work, the same way it'd be stealing for a scientist to appropriate another's work and publish it as their own.
    3) No one, to my knowledge, cares about reference photos alone; hell, Ex Machina is something like 100% photo referenced, but to photos the artist poses and takes himself. The problem is that photo referencing without attribution is stealing because you're taking their work, claiming it's yours, and then selling that work of "yours" as your own.

    Long story short, don't deny it's tracing if it's tracing, and don't deny it's theft if it's not theft.

    1) Yes, it is, but we don't know if he lightboxed the Adam Hughes drawings, unless he said he did.

    2) It's still only copyright infringement. Just because "stealing" has more emotional resonance with you doesn't mean it's the right word. In your scientist analogy, I'm assuming you mean the copying scientist publishes before the original scientist? If so, yes, that's stealing and it's a flawed analogy.

    3) Many of the Newsarama posts were talking about photoreferencing. Ex Machina is referenced from photos that Tony Harris shoots himself, so it's different. I already addressed that. Mack's practice has always used copyrighted photos. Forever. It's been there and obvious for years.

    Toji Suzuhara on
    AlphaFlag_200x40.jpg
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    2) It's still only copyright infringement. Just because "stealing" has more emotional resonance with you doesn't mean it's the right word. In your scientist analogy, I'm assuming you mean the copying scientist publishes before the original scientist? If so, yes, that's stealing and it's a flawed analogy.

    If you're talking violation of law, it's not theft. If you're talking social discussion of a topic, it's theft. Since no one here has, to my knowledge, suggested criminal prosecution I would think it should be obvious that we're not talking about legal terms here.

    He stole the person's work. He's not guilty of a criminal instance of theft, but that doesn't mean he's not a thief.

    mattharvest on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited April 2008
    august wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    august wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    Has Mack ever done anything like this before? I don't mean using the odd unauthorised photo reference, but basically creating an entire book using references from other peoples works?

    I ask because if he has, then the explanation is total BS and I'll join the haters. But if he hasn't, and this is unusual for him, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he couldn't reveal the reasons for it without spoiling the whole point of the book).

    I don't really understand why you continue to support the guy after the sheer volume of the plagiarism has been made apparent. The DD thing could be an interesting homage, but wholesale copying of Gen 13 is well beyond the scope of rationalization.

    Because I see his explanation and think "huh, interesting concept, fuck-awful implementation". Everyone else seems to see his explanation and think "KILL THE LIAR! KILL HIM NOW!!!".

    I'm not really defending him even, just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Everyone else has pretty much decided he is just lazy, got caught and tried to cover it up with excuses. I'm willing to accept that he had an interesting idea and then fucked it into the ground with some truly awful decisions (like not clearing it with the other artists ahead of time, which was a stupid fucking move).

    As I said, if this is the one and only time he does something like this, given the reasons provided I'm willing to forgive and forget. If this becomes a trend then that shit isn't cool and I'll be the first to call for blood. And I'm talking about the stealing of interior art here, the photo reference covers stuff doesn't really bother me. It's a bit naughty perhaps but not on the same level as taking other peoples comic art and passing it off as your own.

    The Gen13 stuff does not factor into his or anyone else's possible rationalization and I'm puzzled why you keep avoiding it.

    He takes Adam Hughes' art and passes it off as his own. From Gen13. There is no homage.

    For fucks sake, do you even read what you're bitching about?
    David Mack wrote:
    In this issue I was returning to the character, but she was now an Avenger. A member of a super team, and around a variety of super hero characters with a multitude of abilities. So I wanted her to be visually different this time. I wanted her body language to feel colored by the accents of all the other styles and super moves that she would have absorbed. Where I had painted her realistically before and drawn and painted her as a variety of iconic fine art imagery throughout the ages that she had absorbed, I now wanted to embrace the comic book super hero aspect of her, and draw her in a kind of iconic comic book style and figures. I didn't want it to be overly glaring at first, but something that would seem absorbed into her and that you would catch after the fact. So, like I drew her in references from my favorite fine art masters in the past, I referenced her from some of my favorite comic book artists in this story.

    His favorite comic book artists. Including whoever the Gen13 guy is. Whether or not you accept the explanation, it is addressed.

    You don't believe him, not a problem! I could care less! I am not even trying to change anyones mind, I just explained (at your request) why I personally wasn't that bothered by it and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was done with this topic until you specifically asked me to explain my point of view, which I have now done.

    Can we move on now?

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Yeah, sorry. I read about the DD stuff, but assumed he wouldn't be ridiculous enough to rationalize stealing a large portion of a single issue of Gen13.

    My bad.

    august on
    Pac Man's character is difficult to explain even to the Japanese -- he is an innocent character. He hasn't been educated to discern between good and evil. He acts more like a small child than a grown-up person. Think of him as a child learning in the course of his daily activities. If someone tells him guns are evil, he would be the type to rush out and eat guns. But he would most probably eat any gun, even the pistols of policemen who need them.
  • HawkstoneHawkstone The state of intoxicationRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Speaking as someone who does have art training:
    1) Lightboxing is tracing. If you're taking your pencil/pen/whatever and TRACING THE LINES of another image, you're tracing. That's life.
    2) If you're taking someone's work, and passing if off as your own (e.g. tracing someone's images), that's stealing, not copyright infringement: the reason is simple, you're not simply selling another copy of artist X's work, you're STEALING THE CONTENT, pretending it's your content, and selling it as your own. We're not talking about legal terms here, anyway, but rather the moral terms. This is stealing someone else's work, the same way it'd be stealing for a scientist to appropriate another's work and publish it as their own.
    3) No one, to my knowledge, cares about reference photos alone; hell, Ex Machina is something like 100% photo referenced, but to photos the artist poses and takes himself. The problem is that photo referencing without attribution is stealing because you're taking their work, claiming it's yours, and then selling that work of "yours" as your own.

    Long story short, don't deny it's tracing if it's tracing, and don't deny it's theft if it's not theft.

    1) Yes, it is, but we don't know if he lightboxed the Adam Hughes drawings, unless he said he did.

    2) It's still only copyright infringement. Just because "stealing" has more emotional resonance with you doesn't mean it's the right word. In your scientist analogy, I'm assuming you mean the copying scientist publishes before the original scientist? If so, yes, that's stealing and it's a flawed analogy.

    3) Many of the Newsarama posts were talking about photoreferencing. Ex Machina is referenced from photos that Tony Harris shoots himself, so it's different. I already addressed that. Mack's practice has always used copyrighted photos. Forever. It's been there and obvious for years.







    1) I would love to be the one to back you up, but its simply imposible to reference draw free hand with that kind of precision, not one line is even a milimeter out of place. I understand you want to think the best of people but as someone who draws semi proffesionally, I can tell you its traced.

    2) Copyright infringment would be using the characters in gen 13 without permision, selling a copy of someone else's work is considered "theft of intellectual property" again sorry, but I have a acedemic background in this backing me up.

    3) this I agree with, but he obviously went a little to far in this case...its a slippery slope when you engage the creative process in this way. If I turned in something like this back in college I would be at least failed and maybe expelled if I did it as a proffesional I would run the risk of being sued. But as I said before the nature of it being a comic book sort of protects him.

    Hawkstone on
    Inside of a dog...it's too dark to read.
  • humblehumble Registered User
    edited April 2008
    he isn't selling anyone else's work though

    he is tracing some of theirs and then adding or changing it, i would say thats closer to copyright infringement then stealing

    humble on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    humble wrote: »
    he isn't selling anyone else's work though

    he is tracing some of theirs and then adding or changing it, i would say thats closer to copyright infringement then stealing

    So he is tracing someone elses work and, until recently, has passed it off as completely his own.


    Sounds like stealing to me.

    The Muffin Man on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    humble wrote: »
    he isn't selling anyone else's work though

    he is tracing some of theirs and then adding or changing it, i would say thats closer to copyright infringement then stealing

    You can say it all you want, that doesn't make it true. You're using the terms "copyright infringement" and "stealing" incorrectly.

    mattharvest on
  • Toji SuzuharaToji Suzuhara Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Here is a link to a court case where Jeff Koons (!) did essentially what Mack did, was sued for copyright infringement, and lost.

    Rogers v. Koons.


    Also, again, stealing and theft require depriving the owner of property or its use.

    Double also, appeals to ethos like "as an artist" don't really work too well when talking to a fellow artist. Instead, they come off as patronizing (not that they wouldn't be, anyway).

    Toji Suzuhara on
    AlphaFlag_200x40.jpg
  • HawkstoneHawkstone The state of intoxicationRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Here is a link to a court case where Jeff Koons (!) did essentially what Mack did, was sued for copyright infringement, and lost.

    Rogers v. Koons.


    Also, again, stealing and theft require depriving the owner of property or its use.

    Double also, appeals to ethos like "as an artist" don't really work too well when talking to a fellow artist. Instead, they come off as patronizing (not that they wouldn't be, anyway).

    Sorry if you are offended but it was intended to place some frame of reference to my arguement and to attempt to be polite as opposed to "omg you so wrongs"

    and as to the court case again I would argue from what I have learned that your are missing the part where the same "characters" appear in each work, yes he changed the puppies but the people remained intact, my arguement for theft of intellectual property only applies to the appropriated Gen 13 work.

    Hawkstone on
    Inside of a dog...it's too dark to read.
  • Toji SuzuharaToji Suzuhara Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So you're saying that the photographer owned the rights to the people as "characters", and Jeff Koons was in trouble for using their likenesses because the photographer owned the likenesses of the people?

    No.

    Jeff Koons was sued for copying the forms. Changing the appearance of the puppies wasn't enough to make it new.

    Toji Suzuhara on
    AlphaFlag_200x40.jpg
  • HawkstoneHawkstone The state of intoxicationRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So you're saying that the photographer owned the rights to the people as "characters", and Jeff Koons was in trouble for using their likenesses because the photographer owned the likenesses of the people?

    No.

    Jeff Koons was sued for copying the forms. Changing the appearance of the puppies wasn't enough to make it new.

    In a way yes, in order for it to become an offical copywrite issue there has to be something tangible to copywrite weather it be a character, method of creation, a logo etc... Most cases like this go the theft of intellectual property route because something like a pose, or a page layout in a comic is too intangible to get a win in court since the person in question didnt for example use the same characters which are obviously copywrited by their respective companies. However if the go with theft of intellectual property there is more freedom for interpretation of the law. Perhaps the people here are using theft as an emotional buzz word but what I am implying is that its not totally without merit legally to say so. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, but I just wanted to put it out there that the majority opinion does have some value in this case.

    Hawkstone on
    Inside of a dog...it's too dark to read.
  • humblehumble Registered User
    edited April 2008
    humble wrote: »
    he isn't selling anyone else's work though

    he is tracing some of theirs and then adding or changing it, i would say thats closer to copyright infringement then stealing

    You can say it all you want, that doesn't make it true. You're using the terms "copyright infringement" and "stealing" incorrectly.

    no im not

    he isnt stealing the art, then reselling it as it is as his own.

    he is tracing it and altering it, when he traces it and changes rainmaker to echo that moves from stealing to copyright

    humble on
Sign In or Register to comment.