Terry Doyle

When I first became aware of Lichtenstein's comic panel pages, back in the 1960s (I think), I thought they were pretty cool images - and I found comfort in the idea that they kind of showcased/helped legitimize the stuff I collected to an adult audience. Had absolutely no idea (at the time) that they were direct swipes from the published works of others. Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others. Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

Came across this on the internet . . . The celebrated American artist Richard Prince has been ordered to destroy works worth tens of millions of dollars after a court ruled that the paintings, which reworked a series of photographs by the French photographer Patrick Cariou, had breached copyright. A New York federal court has ruled that Prince and his gallery infringed Cariou's copyright when he produced a series of works in a 2008 show using 35 pictures from the book Yes, Rasta, published by Cariou in 2000, "in their entirety, or nearly so". Prince adapted the Cariou works by adding, in one instance, an electric guitar and some splodges for eyes. The ruling, which may lead to an appeal, stands to cost Prince and the Gagosian, one of the world's leading contemporary galleries, with outlets in London and New York, potentially huge sums. Eight of the works from the exhibition, which was entitled Canal Zone, have together sold for more than $10m (£6m). Seven others have been exchanged for other works of art for between $6m and $8m. Prince has often made a virtue of his appropriation art. His images are sometimes taken from old advertisements in magazines. He told Art Forum magazine in 2003: "I had limited technical skills regarding the camera. Actually, I had no skills … I used a cheap commercial laboratory to blow up the pictures … I never went in a darkroom." Prince's lawyers had told Deborah Batts, a federal judge sitting in Manhattan, that Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians, taken over six years, were "mere compilations of facts … arranged with minimum creativity … [and were] therefore not protectable" by copyright law. Of the electric guitar he added to one of the photographs, Prince testified: "He plays the guitar now. It looks like he's always played the guitar, that's what my message was." The lawyers claimed "fair use" of the images. But the artist admitted that he used the photographs as raw materials and intended to sell the images. He and the gallery were found to have acted in bad faith by not asking permission to use Cariou's photographs or withdrawing them from sale when the photographer sent them notice. The judge ruled that rather than simply adding elements to an original work, a new piece should create something "plainly different from the original purposes for which it was created". He cited a landmark case in which the American artist Jeff Koons created an exaggerated sculpture based on a postcard of a couple with their arms full of puppies. Koons lost that case. The judgment stated: "In a number of his paintings, Prince appropriated entire photos, and in the majority of his paintings Prince appropriated the central figures depicted in portraits taken by Cariou." Another New York gallery owner, Christiane Celle, cancelled a Cariou show, saying she did not want to exhibit work already shown at another gallery. Ahead of a ruling on damages on 6 May, Prince and the Gagosian have been ordered to destroy all the paintings and exhibition catalogues that they hold and to tell buyers that the paintings were not lawfully made and cannot lawfully be displayed. The ruling stated: "It is clear that the market for Cariou's photos was usurped by [Prince and Gagosian] … the court finds that Prince has unfairly damaged both the actual and potential markets for Cariou's original work and the potential market for derivative-use licences for Cariou's original work."

I hear you, Gene.

Did any further acts of plagiarism ensue?

Bought this one on eBay the other week for the modest sum of £90 . . . Splash page to a weekly episode of THE SPIDER storyline, "The Spider v the Sinister Seven", illustrated by Reg Bunn. This was a UK series and the artwork is dated for March 16, 1968. Artwork has a large image size of 19" x 15". Interestingly, SUPERMAN creator Jerry Siegel is credited as being the scriptwriter for this series. Cover to a recent reprint volume of The Spider's adventures.

Both very nice, especially the Ghastly. (thumbs u

Spectacular example - Raboy was a superb strip-illustrator and it's always a joy to see his OA.

Resident Crank says . . . Was it something I said?

wow, very nice John Thanks, Sorry if my posting art got in the middle of something else. John Sorry about the 'something else' deflecting attention from your super Buscema page. Excellent example, congratulations. (thumbs u

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you truly don't have the capacity to understand why such images would elicit the responses you got then I'm sorry for wasting your time trying to explain it. I understand the responses (to some degree, anyhow). But this thread is not the place for that. This thread is for sharing your art. If someone wants to whine about explicit images, they can start their own thread here (it's very easy to do) and rattle on until their keyboard gives out. This thread is not the place for that, though. Also, the level of some of the "responses" goes far beyond just not liking a certain type of art. When you drag in and insult innocent people, who have nothing to do with anything, plus claim someone is lying, when it is easy to see they are not, then make personally insulting claim about a person, based on nothing but a piece of art you didn't like, that's not just someone responding they don't like a certian kind of art. I understood what you were saying, but you don't seem to have gotten what I was saying. Is this one clear enough? It's not about someone just not liking a piece of art in my personal collection. It's not about someone feeling the need to say they don't like it. It's about the kind of behavior that seems all too commonplace around here, that ruins fun threads over some miserable crank wanting to make others miserable and doing anything they can to do so, which folks are willing to just let slide (including the moderators) as merely "responding to a piece of art." What has happened here is far beyond that. And if you are incapable or unwilling to see THAT, then I don't know what else there is left to say... other than, "it's just par for the course around here." Quite the drama queen, aren't you?

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be. What you posted was a link. A link that said, "Not Just a Bloodsucker" Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off. My bad . . . Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago. My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? You're right . . . I should have re-posted the whole link for you. Here you go: Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW) Happy now? More hits the merrier, eh?? Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough. I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics. Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title. Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link. Happy now? Good boy. So, when you wanted to claim I hadn't warned folks of the kind of art this was, you didn't so much lie, as speak out of ignorance and then had to backpeddle. Okay, if you say so. But again, you didn't have to repost the link. Just correcting your post with the correct information would have been plenty. Unless you wanted to repost the link yourself, for your own reasons. Maybe you want it to get more hits? Please show me, in any of the posts I've made, where I call you a liar and claim you didn't warn folks about the 'art' you were providing a link to? All I said was that you posted a link (yes, it had a NWS label) that gave a brief description. Wasn't your link (that offered the briefest of description) designed to arouse curiosity and get people to look? So, yes, I was aware of the NWS label when I clicked on to your link. But, as I suggest, I was intrigued. Which was what your link was designed to do. I'm not a prude, but I wasn't exactly impressed with the image that confronted me. As this is a forum, in which we exchange thoughts and opinions, I exercised my right to respond to the 'art' you wanted people here to look at. My response? "Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p". That's an observation, not a direct attack (and nothing to do with whether or not the 'art' carried a NWS tag). You took exception. Fine. Don't have a problem in the world with that. Things get bad when, by your own admission, you start injecting sarcasm and accusations into your replies. So, by your own hand, you escalate matters. So if you take offence at any of my subsequent comments, you played a big part in the way this discussion deteriorated. You posted a link to a controversial image. You shouldn't be too surprised when your controversial image elicits controversial feedback. If you were hoping for lots of positive responses, perhaps you should clean up your act and post something that conforms more to the traditional idea of 'Comic Book Artwork' (and I'm struggling to see how a sleazy pin-up can be classed as comic-book art?). Maybe I am a bit of a dinosaur on this one . . . I just happen to like comic-strip illustration. If I want to look at pornographic images, there are other avenues for that sort of thing. Nothing against tastefully executed pin-up or good girl art (Gene Parke's Elvgren paintings are exquisite, for example), but the art you showcased is just plain sleazy, in my opinion. You said something to the effect that you only bought the piece because you wanted an example of the artist's work - and it wasn't normally the type of image you go for. Well, I happen to like Steve Ditko. But I wouldn't buy a Ditko original that wasn't for me. I'd wait for the right example to surface, at the right time and at the right price. Briefly looking through your CAF galleries, I notice that you have lots of pieces labelled NWS. So, if you don't normally collect this type of stuff - why so many NWS examples (a total of 39 images)? And don't worry . . . I've absolutely no intention of looking at any of your (many) NWS pieces. One dissappointment is enough.

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be. What you posted was a link. A link that said, "Not Just a Bloodsucker" Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off. My bad . . . Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago. My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? You're right . . . I should have re-posted the whole link for you. Here you go: Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW) Happy now? More hits the merrier, eh?? Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough. I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics. Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title. Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link. Happy now? Good boy. So, when you wanted to claim I hadn't warned folks of the kind of art this was, you didn't so much lie, as speak out of ignorance and then had to backpeddle. Okay, if you say so. But again, you didn't have to repost the link. Just correcting your post with the correct information would have been plenty. Unless you wanted to repost the link yourself, for your own reasons. Maybe you want it to get more hits? It's your (ahem) 'art' . . . so the number of hits pertains to your own CAF. Nothing to do with me. Anyways, I'm off to bed now (I'm in the UK and it's late over here). If you have any more miserable excuses to come up with, you'll have to wait until tomorrow before I respond. Goodnight Mr T and pleasant dreams (maybe wet ones, given your unhealthy interest in cartoon sleaze?).

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person. Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7): "No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!" Which merited a warning from one of the mods. Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . . Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy. First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant. And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it. It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around it would seem. I apologize for not liking your sleazy piece of 'art' (or feeling disdain at the miserable sod who's forced to draw this type of cr*p for the gratification of people like you) is a real bad thing. I'm so sorry . . . (sarcasm alert . . . I'll come down to your level). Please forgive . . . So many misconceptions. I hardly know where to begin. How to you know the artist is a "miserable sod?" Personally, the only one I've seen fit that catagory here is you. Thanks, but I'm not an artist. You probably think that my gift of the Invisible Girl art pointed to artistic qualities on my behalf . . . but, no. Suggest you look up the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes".

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be. What you posted was a link. A link that said, "Not Just a Bloodsucker" Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off. My bad . . . Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago. My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? You're right . . . I should have re-posted the whole link for you. Here you go: Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW) Happy now? More hits the merrier, eh?? Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough. I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics. Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title. Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link. Happy now? Good boy.

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person. Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7): "No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!" Which merited a warning from one of the mods. Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . . Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy. First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant. And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it. It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around it would seem. I apologize for not liking your sleazy piece of 'art' (or feeling disdain at the miserable sod who's forced to draw this type of cr*p for the gratification of people like you). I'm so sorry . . . (sarcasm alert . . . guess I'll have to come down to your level of low wit, so's you'll understand me, yah?). Please forgive . . .

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person. Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7): "No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!" Which merited a warning from one of the mods. Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be. What you posted was a link. A link that said, "Not Just a Bloodsucker" Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off. My bad . . . Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago. My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? You're right . . . I should have re-posted the whole link for you. Here you go: Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW) Happy now? More hits the merrier, eh??

Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p. Thanks for drawing extra attention to the piece. It's appreciated. Not about getting hits??? Guess "sarcasm" is another thing that confuses you, huh? Ah, you're a master of the lowest form of wit. It figures . . . Apology accepted. (Note: This is more sarcasm. I don't want to confuse you any more than you already are.) You're welcome!

Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p. Thanks for drawing extra attention to the piece. It's appreciated. Not about getting hits??? Guess "sarcasm" is another thing that confuses you, huh? Ah, you're a master of the lowest form of wit. It figures . . .

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be. What you posted was a link. A link that said, "Not Just a Bloodsucker" Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off. My bad . . .

Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p. Thanks for drawing extra attention to the piece. It's appreciated. Not about getting hits???

That's nothing new around here. Unfortunately, the kind of attitude he displayed has become all too common around here. It's why I hardly post anymore. Par for the course, I guess. Not quite . . . If you're posting 'art' on this forum, you're (presumably) looking for feedback, no? You want to highlight something, by way of a link, you shouldn't be too surprised if you don't find universal acclaim. Sure, you're entitled to collect what you want . . . but if you want to flag up something potentially controversial . . . Maybe feedback isn't what one is looking for. Maybe they just want to share their enjoyment of the artform (in all its many faces). Maybe they don't care about what people don't like, as they are free not to view it. You didn't like the Vampi piece or Infectious Lass? Fine, you don't have to. But to rail on them and make a big stink like a whiny brat? Totally uncalled for (not the least of which is because the link I gave was noted with a "NSFW," so you knew it wasn't going to be CCA approved, and on the other he noted exactly what it was going to look like). There was no "controversy" here, until you manufactured one. And then to drag in innocent people, who have nothing to do with anything, only to then personally insult them, well, as I said, that pretty much speaks to the kind of character you must have. This thread is for people to share their love of the artform. I doubt anyone expects every person to like every piece posted (I know I haven't). But I don't think it's expecting too much, that they shouldn't have to be concerned about getting belittled and ridiculed here for what they enjoy by some smarmy, loud-mouthed, crank on this one thread. Then again, given the level of them that seem to congregate here, perhaps it is expecting too much... even if they just want it for one little thread. After all, miserable people can't let anything good stand, can they? Oh dear, you're sounding very upset. Now, I'm confused . . . Not so long ago you were publically thanking me for drawing attention to your sleazy image. It was all about getting hits for your Vampi pic, no? Sorry for having an opinion. Next time you post a piece of art, maybe you should clearly state that you're not interested in any views that don't applaud your (ahem) 'taste' in art. I'm almost tempted to say that instead of getting your rocks off to (sleazy) cartoon images, you should go out and get laid? But I suspect you'd be socially inept in the presence of a real-life woman . . .

First of all we had Vampi sucking her own t*t and f*ngering herself . . . Now we have 'Infectious Lass' shaking snot off her arm . . . Wonder what's next up? Mr Fantastic seeing how big he can elongate his d*ck . . . I think we'll leave you to handle that one, seeing as you have such a vested interest in seeing it. Nah, I don't collect sleaze. That's your bag. Please don't commission one of your 'artist' ( ) friends to do the Mr Fantastic scene . . . it was just an off-the-cuff joke, y'know? You know, I was all set to say something here, but instead I'll simply let your last sentence there speak for me. The fact you'd insult the artists I work with in this way, pretty much says all that needs to be said about the kind of person you are. So, thank you, once more. Once more, you're welcome.

That's nothing new around here. Unfortunately, the kind of attitude he displayed has become all too common around here. It's why I hardly post anymore. Par for the course, I guess. Not quite . . . If you're posting 'art' on this forum, you're (presumably) looking for feedback, no? You want to highlight something, by way of a link, you shouldn't be too surprised if you don't find universal acclaim. Sure, you're entitled to collect what you want . . . but if you want to flag up something potentially controversial . . .