Romita Experts: Is this Romita Sr Art?

[comix4fun]

Doesn't look like Romita art to me. Face shapes do not look like Romita, and expressions don't look romitalike.

 

 

He's credited with the story, and there was an interview with him talking about the swipe a while back. He confirmed working on this story, but it's unknown if he worked with an inker on it.

 

Also this was in the years before he took over Spider-man at Marvel. He did a bunch of romance books the eyes are his for sure. The rest? Anything can change given a few years.

 

I still don't see it as Romita pencils. Now I could buy that he inked someone else.....

 

 

It's hard to say, I am not familiar enough with Romita's romance work to be 100% sure. This was about 3 years before he started on Spidey.

 

Bernie Sachs is credited as being the inker on the story. His inks have been known to change the look of the underlying pencils.

[devilsrain]

Well you cant deny the evidence of his borrowing (swiping) from others. At the very least you can say during his "abstract expressionism period" he used other peoples art as a template for his own.

[rednalsram]

I believe that was Carmine Infantino. It bares a resemblence to is Elongated Man work; comparing the layouts, and composition, and jesturing.

 

This is the page from DC's Secret Hearts #88 from 1963 that could be JR SR art. Is it Romita?

 

I'm curious because it's the source of a Lichtenstein swipe -- one that sold for $42.6 million at auction last month in fact.

 

[comix4fun]

 

One more comment - I have never heard a single attorney claim Lichtenstein was doing anything illegal. .

 

 

I posted a direct link to an article by an attorney saying exactly that. Under the current and past applicable law these are all copyright violations. He argues that laws should be loosened, but he doesn't shy away from calling a spade a spade.

 

 

[comix4fun]

I believe that was Carmine Infantino. It bares a resemblence to is Elongated Man work; comparing the layouts, and composition, and jesturing.

 

This is the page from DC's Secret Hearts #88 from 1963 that could be JR SR art. Is it Romita?

 

I'm curious because it's the source of a Lichtenstein swipe -- one that sold for $42.6 million at auction last month in fact.

 

 

That last panel is the one that looks least like Romita, the pose.

 

I will try and get in touch with John and ask him.

[markseifert]

[

Bernie Sachs is credited as being the inker on the story. His inks have been known to change the look of the underlying pencils.

 

Right. The author of Deconstructing Lichtenstein also credits the original as Sachs, but I've been presuming that was perhaps the only credit he could find.

 

If Romita is on record talking about the piece as someone else mentioned, I'll try to do a little googling later.

[comicartcom]

I saw your link.. that's the only time I have ever seen or heard of an attorney who has taken that position and he is taking current laws - some of which were written after the time period - to make his point, which doesn't work. He is one person not "most people". You'll have to come up with more than that to back up your "most people" statement.

 

Keep in mind.. One attorney argues that a specific law makes his point while another attorney argues that the same law is the basis for a completely opposite point.

 

If you look at the complete history of art, it backs up Lichtenstein, not an attorney looking to change case law or apply existing case law to situations that preceded it. You must look at everything in complete context, not with a narrow field of view that exaggerates one point of view and excludes others.

 

through the 1970s/80s you could freely reprint Bogey's and Marilyn's and James Dean's image. Today it's only possible to do so with licensing. Things change. If Congress wishes to make laws supporting the opinion of that attorney you example, they can, but it doesn't open people from the past to lawsuits, no matter how any attorney would like you think so so he can make his fees.

[comicartcom]

and.. the inking on that page is most likely Bernie Sachs

[comix4fun]

Thinking about what you were saying these things struck me.

 

.

 

Warhol iconized a Campbells soup can, Marilyn and other subjects.

 

Campbell's Soup had been in the cultural milieu, and omnipresent since before turn of the century.

 

Campbells Soup and Marilyn were already Icons when Warhol chose to use their images. He could not have hid their origins if he wanted to. He didn't want to, he wanted to make a statement and did so effectively.

 

Panel 4, from page 4 from Secret Hearts #88? This was used without permission, without consent, and without attribution. Something in me tells me you use a cultural icon known to everyone if you are trying to make a statement, and you use a little known, little seen comic panel if you are trying to NOT have it be found easily.

 

.

Futhermore, some comic artists were fully aware that their work was sourced and were very proud that what they did could be the basis for fine art. Keep in mind - this was the 1960s. People were not litigious then as they are now looking to sue for some perceived slight

 

And several never found out, several more only recently found out.

 

"looking to sue for some perceived sleight."? Taking an image, passing it off as your own with minimal contextual changes, giving no credit or compensation to the source material which is under full copyright protection and then selling that image for millions of dollars?

 

Had any of those people in the 1960's had any idea what was really happening I can guarantee you the line to file suit would have been around the block.

 

 

 

.

the list of artists who have copied others is infinitely long since the dawn of time and includes hundreds or thousands of comic artists who have used everything from ancient art, to easel paintings to previous comic art for their own source material.

 

And not a single one of them is going to get a pass or high praise for creating something new and different. Their work is exactly what it is and the fact that one sells in a comic shop for $3 and another sells in a gallery for $3 million doesn't change the basics of the act undertaken.

 

Frankly, there is "influenced by" and then there is "swiped from". One is creating something new out of something familiar and the other is creating something familiar and calling it something new.

 

 

[comicartcom]

buddy.. you're looking at the subject from an extremely myopic viewpoint

[comix4fun]

I saw your link.. that's the only time I have ever seen or heard of an attorney who has taken that position and he is taking current laws - some of which were written after the time period - to make his point, which doesn't work. He is one person not "most people". You'll have to come up with more than that to back up your "most people" statement.

 

Keep in mind.. One attorney argues that a specific law makes his point while another attorney argues that the same law is the basis for a completely opposite point.

 

If you look at the complete history of art, it backs up Lichtenstein, not an attorney looking to change case law or apply existing case law to situations that preceded it. You must look at everything in complete context, not with a narrow field of view that exaggerates one point of view and excludes others.

 

through the 1970s/80s you could freely reprint Bogey's and Marilyn's and James Dean's image. Today it's only possible to do so with licensing. Things change. If Congress wishes to make laws supporting the opinion of that attorney you example, they can, but it doesn't open people from the past to lawsuits, no matter how any attorney would like you think so so he can make his fees.

 

 

I have a pretty good idea of what attorneys do already.

 

I can guarantee you that it's more than me and that one other attorney that have a philosophical issue with what Roy did here. Given the debate it's a rather strong contention outside of the buyers and sellers of said "art". Although this is progress, you want me to come off of my "most" claim and I got you to come off of the "never heard any attorney say that" claim.

 

The law used in the article is not simply the law of the 70's and 80's. Derivative works and how they violate copyright have been around since at least the early '50's if not well before that time period. Congress doesn't have to pass anything regarding derivative work and copyright violation now to cover Lichtenstein. They already existed, they are the US Constitution. That's 80 years after England's law went live, and 100 years prior to the Berne Convention.

 

Don't mistake likeness rights with copyrights though. Those are two very different things with very different sets of criteria. Licensing falls under trademark protection more than it does copyright. We need to keep our apple and orange bushels to themselves.

[comicartcom]

no you did not get me to "come off of the "never heard any attorney say that" claim"

 

I never have heard a single attorney make the claim that your exampled attorney writes. Period.

 

Open your mind to other points of view and take everything in..

[markseifert]

Derivative works and how they violate copyright have been around since at least the early '50's if not well before that time period.

 

Up in GA, someone posted a scan of correspondence between Jerry Siegel and Harry Donenfeld, with Jerry bringing a similarity in composition between an early Batman cover and a Catman cover to his attention (a matter that Siegel had no direct stake in, obviously) -- so certainly, it's an issue that has been on people's minds since the beginning of the industry.

[comix4fun]

buddy.. you're looking at the subject from an extremely myopic viewpoint

 

I think you might be understating where I am coming from in this debate.

 

I've studied art a significant portion of my life, but I have also studied the law the entirety of my adult life. Some of my very closest friends are creators. Creators are the people that move culture forward and record and reflect on what our civilization was, is, and can be. Creators are also the people that get stepped on first when there is a dollar to be made. Their rights are trampled and destroyed before anyone knows what happened. I've represented several when it came to protecting these rights. I've seen a creation taken and used for personal profit without compensation or credit before. That's not myopic, that's reality.

 

Some would say it's myopic to toss around words like "iconography" to describe Lichtenstein when words like that only tend to cloud what we see with our eyes and cloud the rights of the originator of the image. For one it's a waste of syllables. "Swipe" is just one, easier on the tongue and pretty damn accurate.

 

The most myopic viewpoint I can imagine is standing behind the foundation without the slightest twinge of recognition that Kirby, Abel, Giordano, Novick, Andru, Tuska, Kubert, Romita, Sekowsky, Sachs, Kane, Heath, and dozens more don't deserve the credit and compensation they deserve for works they created. These are their images, regardless of what garish coloring job was laid over it, regardless of what minor changes (many for the worse) were laid over it, and regardless if it was blown up large enough to be seen from space.

 

The comics industry spent the better part of the last century taking from creators and giving little in return, not even returning the pieces of paper with their creations on them until it was too late for many of them. Simply because there are words like "iconography" to support taking an image, a creation, or a page of artwork from a creator and not compensating them for it has happened in the past doesn't mean it was ever right to begin with or should be allowed to continue today.

 

If the accepted practice of the art industry allows for this to occur, it doesn't mean the law follows in stride, and it also doesn't mean that accepted practice is the proper practice.

[comix4fun]

no you did not get me to "come off of the "never heard any attorney say that" claim"

 

I never have heard a single attorney make the claim that your exampled attorney writes. Period.

 

Open your mind to other points of view and take everything in..

 

 

Simply because you "had not heard it" doesn't mean it's not happening, and hasn't happened for years. I do work and represent creators and companies in this field. This isn't a guess on my part. I should have probably led with that.

 

If you don't spend much time inside the copyright, trademark, licensing law world you'd have no reason to know it I guess. If you had spent some time working on this stuff, you'd have seen A LOT of things that looked A LOT less like the source material than Lichtenstein's work get hammered for being a copyright violation. I guarantee you I am not speaking in tongues when it comes to this topic.

 

 

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

Simply because you "had not heard it" doesn't mean it's not happening, and hasn't happened for years. I do work and represent creators and companies in this field. This isn't a guess on my part. I should have probably led with that.

 

 

I, for one, am glad you didn't. It's simply delightful the way that it has played out.

 

Ooopsie. Chris is an expert in this arena.

 

Here's some iconography for whomever gets the proceeds of these "iconic" Lichtenstein "works of art" - a painting of some pants being pooped. Which I can only hope comes to fruition if/when the real artists get their share from said proceeds recipients.

 

[theloveforart]

Lichtenstein is a joke... i still can't understand why his so called "ART" is worth anything.

 

check out this link: http://boingboing.net/2010/05/06/roy-lichtensteins-es.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein's estate claims copyright over the images he appropriated... THESE ARE THE IMAGES HE STOLE FROM OTHER SOURCES.

 

thats funny

[Dano]

buddy.. you're looking at the subject from an extremely myopic viewpoint

 

I think you might be understating where I am coming from in this debate.

 

I've studied art a significant portion of my life, but I have also studied the law the entirety of my adult life. Some of my very closest friends are creators. Creators are the people that move culture forward and record and reflect on what our civilization was, is, and can be. Creators are also the people that get stepped on first when there is a dollar to be made. Their rights are trampled and destroyed before anyone knows what happened. I've represented several when it came to protecting these rights. I've seen a creation taken and used for personal profit without compensation or credit before. That's not myopic, that's reality.

 

Some would say it's myopic to toss around words like "iconography" to describe Lichtenstein when words like that only tend to cloud what we see with our eyes and cloud the rights of the originator of the image. For one it's a waste of syllables. "Swipe" is just one, easier on the tongue and pretty damn accurate.

 

The most myopic viewpoint I can imagine is standing behind the foundation without the slightest twinge of recognition that Kirby, Abel, Giordano, Novick, Andru, Tuska, Kubert, Romita, Sekowsky, Sachs, Kane, Heath, and dozens more don't deserve the credit and compensation they deserve for works they created. These are their images, regardless of what garish coloring job was laid over it, regardless of what minor changes (many for the worse) were laid over it, and regardless if it was blown up large enough to be seen from space.

 

The comics industry spent the better part of the last century taking from creators and giving little in return, not even returning the pieces of paper with their creations on them until it was too late for many of them. Simply because there are words like "iconography" to support taking an image, a creation, or a page of artwork from a creator and not compensating them for it has happened in the past doesn't mean it was ever right to begin with or should be allowed to continue today.

 

If the accepted practice of the art industry allows for this to occur, it doesn't mean the law follows in stride, and it also doesn't mean that accepted practice is the proper practice.

 

Chris, this post alone deserves to be stickied and read by the entire community on these boards and beyond. Two cents, of course.

 

Dan

[comix4fun]

[

Bernie Sachs is credited as being the inker on the story. His inks have been known to change the look of the underlying pencils.

 

Right. The author of Deconstructing Lichtenstein also credits the original as Sachs, but I've been presuming that was perhaps the only credit he could find.

 

If Romita is on record talking about the piece as someone else mentioned, I'll try to do a little googling later.

 

 

There were other Lichtenstein swipes of Romita, so I am not sure this was the one he was talking about. I can try and find that interview but it might be quicker to just reach out to John and see if this was one of them.

 

If I have any luck I will post it here.

[SignatureSelect]

This is the page from DC's Secret Hearts #88 from 1963 that could be JR SR art. Is it Romita?

 

I'm curious because it's the source of a Lichtenstein swipe -- one that sold for $42.6 million at auction last month in fact.

 

 

The top panel is a lichtenstein piece aswell Except the girl in the lichtenstein painting is drowning instead of sleeping. Sure Lichtenstein did swipes. But So have dozens of other artist. Comic artist do it all the time and we don't give them a hard time. Just last year there was a wolverine cover that was a swipe of Salvador Dali's Persistance of memory yet I don't remember the fine art community bashing that artist for ripping of a great artist like Salvidor dali.

 

Is it the fact that it is considered fine art or that it sells for 42 million that upsets people. Sure I am upset that it sold for 42 million but that is because I want to own it and don't have 42 million.

 

 

As for his estate claiming ownership of images. I dislike this very much. As roy lichtenstein is dead and has been for some time. So neither he nor the artist or plusher from which he swiped the original images will get a dime from this. Instead, Lawyers, Account managers, rare removed relatives and possibly significant others will obtain the money. They do not deserve it. They did not create the image, they were not the inspiration for his art work, and they are certainly not Roy Lichtenstein or the comic artist from which he drew his inspiraton. SO why do they get to claim anything. I am sure they have plenty of money as Mr. Lichtenstein made plenty in his lifetime. They are just being greedy.