Romita Experts: Is this Romita Sr Art?

[comix4fun]

My brother is doing oil paintings after Star Wars pictures, does that make him a thief ?? Should G.Lucas be afraid if my bro gets some money out of it ? Seriously ?

 

That's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

 

Copyright prevents copying specific works and Trademarks prevent the use of images, logos, and characters in a light that would be harmful to the value of that trademark. Like say if your brother was published Star Wars Porn, for example.

 

Lichtenstein is part of the History of Art and it is sad to say that he contributed as much as the Marvel licence in the movies to our beloved hobby who turned in a stock market !!!!

 

 

Wait, What?

 

 

I believe art is about transmission, I love hip hop and I don't think sampling is stealing !

 

Sadly, you are on the wrong side of decades of legal precedent, but don't let that slow you down.

 

None of us want our work to be taken, our name removed, and another name put in its place. That's not fair to anyone who creates or invents anything. That's why there are hundreds of years worth of laws to protect creators and their heirs.

 

Not thinking that sampling, or borrowing or any other euphemism for taking someone else's work and calling it your own, is stealing is an opinion, it's just not supported by (literally) hundreds of years of legal precedent.

 

I can't imagine how people can say they appreciate art and music so much but can't fathom a world where those that create the art and music they love have their creations protected from theft.

 

Respect the art? Then respect the creator.

[Romain]

I didn't expect to get spooned with my word ...meant bad movies using a classical card game word...

 

I hear you and know I was mixing up the trademark and copyright issues !!!

Still I don't understand your point toward Lichtenstein whom I don't care much about BTW, I believe the romance comics weren't considered much by the time and he gave them a different glance making huge paitnings which in the end have nothing to do with the book !

 

And to conclude my short appearance on the subject d I'd say it would be huge to own the original art which was "stolen" by RL and then sold at record price ...especially a Romita !!!

 

 

[comicartcom]

comix4fun

 

I wanted to bring up a few points.

 

first of all, you are not the only person here who has studied copyright issues, art and related subjects.. as a publisher for a period, I definitely had a need for copyright information and spent countless hours studying the subject & countless dollars on attorneys as well

 

secondly, as an art student when I was young, an art historian and as an art dealer in my adulthood, I have a real good grasp on everything related to the subject. so I fully an completely understand all the surrounding data to make my own judgements on Lichtenstein and his use of comic panels as icons and how they correlate to A) copyright issues and B) the basis of theory on derivitive works and iconography.

 

Thirdly, if "swiping" as you call it is a no-no on all levels and influence of prior publications goes under the same philosophy - then comic book and comic strip authors and artists have been some of the biggest thieves of all time.

 

Superman: it is a well known fact that the Superman character is largely based on/influenced by the novel Gladiator by Phillip Wylie as well as in some part based on Hercules, Samson, Icarus and even Peter Pan. I can't think of any characters prior to Superman other than Peter Pan or Icarus who had the ability to fly and we all know that prior to Flash Gordon, the only "super strength" heroes were Hercules and Superman (for the unknowing, Flash Gordon developed super-strength when he landed on the planet Mongo which had less gravity than Earth). Siegel and Shuster themselves credited Gladiator as their main influence from which they "derived" their mythos of Superman. But while they admitted such, I doubt they ever passed a single dollar to Phillip Wylie or his descendents. Nor do the Siegel and Shuster families present royalty checks to the family of James Barrie.

 

There is an undeniable connection between William Shakespeare's plays (in particular the Tempest) with almost all modern literature, but again - I really doubt that his descendents (if any) get a single penny from anyone for this contribution.

 

Virtually every humor comic strip owes to it's predescessors

Almost every adventure comic strip owes to same. Milton Caniff for instance was completly influenced by Roy Crane's Wash Tubbs and even modeled his artistic style after Crane.

 

Over in Golden Age, if you do a little search, there is a long thread of comic artists copying the work of previous comic artists for comic covers, and not just in intra-company titles. Many artists regularly copied material from other companies as noted by Mark Siefert here (Mark - Shusters notes I believe had to do with fear of trademark issues, not whether the art itself was sampled). They show in that thread dozens of swipes and I don't recall seeing a single note "previously drawn on Donewell Comics #17 cover with art by Joe Kirbwell".

 

many comic book characters are stolen straight from the pages of the pulps. Can you with a straight face tell me Kazar isn't Tarzan? Thunda also owes to Tarzan.

 

Practically every comic book costumed or super hero published today has to rely on the original comic book heroes developed in the 1938/39 period as the originals from whom they themselves are copied in some way, however small. With Supes, Batman, the Torch, Captain America and others - there are no X-Men, no Spawn

 

So while it may or not be wrong (depending on how far they took such copying), comic artists can only kevetch so much before it comes back on them.

 

Al Williamson has a panel in the climax of his story in Creepy #1 that is a straight-out steal from the cover of a 1940s Shadow pulp cover. Is it right or wrong?

 

Lichtenstein's only faux-pas is not acknowledging the specific source material when possible, although I don't doubt he may never have kept track of it and so the work falls on historians to find the source material and list it. What he did was iconography and was fully acceptable in every criteria of the day - which is all that the requirement is. The laws applicable when the work was created are the laws under which future governances of the material depend on.

 

Plus one more thing to think about. In 1961 when he did the first painting, there were few people who thought comics would be something special in the cultural continueum. The mileu of comics was to read and throw and the garbage. Garbage media did not engender such meaningful ideas of "what we did in the past is important to our future". Prior to 1960s, only Fiction House had reprinted it's on prior material en masse (of the large companies. we all know some small companies like Superior reprinted their own for instance), so the only fear was someone else reprinting their material (as complete stories) or stealing their characters.

 

In these contexts, I know that if a 1960s romance artist saw that such an important modern artist like Lichtenstein was sourcing a panel he drew, he was more thrilled than not and I think Russ Heath said as much to me years ago.

 

People will come down on both sides of these arguments, and I know absolutely you aren't going to change your mind, but my preference is to look at the matter in a scholarly way and not an emotional one, which could be the difference in our philosophies

 

 

[comix4fun]

 

People will come down on both sides of these arguments, and I know absolutely you aren't going to change your mind, but my preference is to look at the matter in a scholarly way and not an emotional one, which could be the difference in our philosophies

 

 

 

Rich,

You know A LOT about artwork, and strip art, and running an art business. I respect your ability as a businessman, and your encyclopedic knowledge of artwork. I think you mistake what I am saying as not liking you as a person, or not thinking that you know a ton about art. I know you do, and I respect you for it. However, you aren't an attorney. I am talking about highly specific areas of the law and no matter how well you ran your business, no matter how many lawyers you hired, it's not the same thing. It would be like me saying I have been an art fan my whole life and been to a few art museums so I know how to run a museum. A plus B doesn't always equal C.

 

You mistake evocative words for actual emotions. Zealously stating your case doesn't mean actual tears are shed in the process. I can assure you that, although the creators I represent feel the sting of stolen works very emotionally and very personally, I can separate my feelings from my logical conclusions very well.

 

As for looking at it in a scholarly way, that's pretty much all I have been doing in the couple of threads where our heads have butted on legal issues.

 

It's also what I was doing in the Craig Hamilton thread when you were convinced that the time frame for a lawsuit based on a verbal agreement was far shorter than the actual legal statutory period. I didn't approach that emotionally either.

 

 

first of all, you are not the only person here who has studied copyright issues, art and related subjects.. as a publisher for a period, I definitely had a need for copyright information and spent countless hours studying the subject & countless dollars on attorneys as well

 

Well I hope you were good enough to take the legal advice you paid for more to heart than the free legal advice you've been given here.

 

The only thing that might get me emotional is when non-attorneys are convinced they are in a better position to know the law than licensed, practicing attorneys.

 

It's kind of like when I go to a party and a friend who's a doctor is nice enough to give me a free diagnosis, I am not going to dispute his findings because I have been watching medical dramas all the way back to Marcus Welby.

 

More to the point, and the reason why taking a lawyer's advice might be helpful is, you'd avoid saying stuff like this:

 

There is an undeniable connection between William Shakespeare's plays (in particular the Tempest) with almost all modern literature, but again - I really doubt that his descendents (if any) get a single penny from anyone for this contribution.

 

Shakespeare's original Tempest has been OUT OF COPYRIGHT, and not protected by any law, for more than 2 centuries.

 

His heirs had probably 2-3 generations to collect. What we were discussing here was an "artist" taking works and making near exact copies within the artist's lifetime and profiting from it. I can't imagine how you'd feel that similar plots in modern pieces compared to a work of fiction roughly 400 years old would be the same thing.

 

Also, posting examples of other people that possibly stole copyrighted material doesn't mean that the Lichtenstein didn't steal. It's like saying Roy didn't rob a bank because Jerry robbed a bank and didn't get caught. Not getting prosecuted, or not getting sued is not the same thing as not committing the underlying tort.

 

 

 

You are CONVINCED you are right, I get that. You were also convinced you were right on contract statute of limitations too. I would have hoped my clarifying the law for you in that instance, and showing you where your error came from, might have given me some traction with you for the future.

 

The law is not something you learn in a short period of time or learn by osmosis by having paid legal counsel. I'd just hope, that in a scholarly, non-emotional way, that you could open your mind accepting free legal advice from someone who's demonstrated they aren't a dilettante in the area. I've learned something from this exchange. I've learned why most of my colleagues refuse to give it.

 

Seriously though, believe me, or not. I've had clients do something similar in the past, but they were paying me, so I had no reason to stop them.

 

[Mac Man]

 

I wonder if I could somehow co-opt this discussion as a reading assignment for my college students on plagiarism?

 

And for what it's worth, I am NOT an expert in copyright / trademark infringement, but I DO know academic plagiarism QUITE well... as a college English instructor and doctoral student. If Mr. Lichtenstein were one of my students, I'd be failing him out of my course and sending him to the Academic Dean with the recommendation of expulsion for blatant plagiarism. Any artifact produced by a student with the intent of claiming ownership over the item in question as a part of an academic requirement that does not give credit to outside sources constitutes plagiarism.

 

So... in a legal sense, I've no idea how it'd play out (even though I could speculate to my heart's content). All I can say is at the academic / university level, it'd get someone canned in a hurry--either as a student for the above mentioned reasons or as a faculty member attempting to publish (seen and heard of this happening a few times).

[theloveforart]

Wow, i have been reading this really interesting thread from the beginning and can't believe how many of you still keep embarrassing yourself selfs on a open forum.

 

thecollector- your comparisons of Jim Lee doing the same as Lichtenstein was the funniest thing i have ever read in 2010... you were so sure of yourself and then it actually took Scott Williams to have to write in when Chris had proven you wrong from the beginning.

 

Then Romain steps in with his observation that because romance books were not popular and no one cared about them it should be fine to swipe the art... All it took was one post from Chris to quiet him down.

 

And finally the final character: comicartcom

You chimed in the beginning and still tried your hardest in the end but Chris had you from the beginning Bro. You can't compete with actually knowledge of the law.

 

May it continue... (Lichtenstein is the biggest fraud to ever exist)

 

Cheers

Raul

[comix4fun]

 

I wonder if I could somehow co-opt this discussion as a reading assignment for my college students on plagiarism?

 

And for what it's worth, I am NOT an expert in copyright / trademark infringement, but I DO know academic plagiarism QUITE well... as a college English instructor and doctoral students. If Mr. Lichtenstein were one of my students, I'd be failing out of my course and sending him to the Academic Dean with the recommendation of expulsion for blatant plagiarism). Any artifact produced by a student with the intent of claiming ownership over the item in question as a part of an academic requirement that does not give credit to outside sources constitutes plagiarism.

 

So... in a legal sense, I've no idea how it'd play out (even though I could speculate to my heart's content). All I can say is at the academic / university level, it'd get canned in a hurry--either as a student for the above mentioned reasons or as a faculty member attempting to publish (seen and heard of this happening a few times).

 

 

All true, and interesting.

 

Oddly, most of the time people defend artists who use a "process" such as Lichtenstein's they rely on statements like "well no one's stopped him yet, so they must not have a problem with what he's doing" as if artists have no problem with people who appropriate their images.

 

Let's test that theory, with a modern "artist" working today.

 

His name is Erro, and he's Icelandic, living in France now I believe. From his website we find the following statement:

"Erró also shares a close kinship with artists like Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol and James Rosenquist.

In the summer of 2001 a museum was inaugurated in Reykjavik dedicated to Erró. "

 

How nice for him. Let's see what his kinship with Lichtenstein has taught Mr. Erro, shall we?

 

Here's Mr. Erro posing proudly with some of his works....

 

 

 

Wait a minute... that image over his right shoulder looks familiar...

 

 

Oh yeah...it's a Bolland cover.

 

 

Erro went so far as to digitally erase Brian's signature from the piece when he photoshopped the the image together. At least he knew enough to try and hide the evidence. Of course that's also an admission that you knew who the real artist was and were attempted to conceal that fact.

 

Given the theory that artists do this willfully and the artists that they "borrow from" don't care and do it all the time, I would expect that Brian Bolland would not give it a second thought that Mr. Erro was making prints of this image and selling them for several hundred Euro a piece, right?

 

Wrong!

 

The link above will take you to the report of what happened when Mr. Bolland was made aware of what was happening. He didn't let it pass as part of the "process".

 

In the end, as a followup to the link I provided, Mr. Bolland was to be paid the proceeds from the pieces that were sold and the balance of the pieces unsold were to be destroyed.

 

It does seem that this type of "artistic process" is not globally accepted as correct, proper, or legal to everyone.

 

 

 

If that doesn't convince you, how about this piece that Mr. Erro is trying to sell for nearly $20,000

 

 

Yep, a full Lady Death cover with a Promethea slapped on top for good measure.

[theloveforart]

Thats incredible that so called artists are still trying to get away with that shiiit...

Chris i want to thank you for educating that masses on this regard.

[Mac Man]

You know, I tell my students all of the time, "It's NOT like you can't USE someone else's work--just give them credit for it. It's not that hard to generate a quick citation."

 

Yet, it happens all the time. Some of my students (non-Western background) often explain to me that, in their culture, it is a sign of one's expertise to incorporate the work of others into their own. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not--I'm really not an anthropologist or sociologist. But, as I explain to them, it's not how it works in the US and Europe. And just because it does happen all the time, it doesn't mean we passively accept it as correct.

 

 

[Bronty]

[q

Yep, a full Lady Death cover with a Promethea slapped on top for good measure.

 

whenever trying to jazz up a lady death cover, promethea is always a good choice. I guess.

[Romain]

That Bolland letter to Erro is a pleasure to read, thanks for posting the link !!!

I believe law was on the right side regarding that Tank Girl copy

 

but

 

I'm not sure that the comparison with the so called swipe of the romance books stands that much as the context was definitly not the same ( Like B.B. says in his letter ) and I would LOVE to hear what Jazzy John Romita would have to say regarding Lichtenstein and regarding his art in romance books !!!

 

Raul, I can assure you I feel no embarrassment at all ...quite on the contrary I enjoy it a lot

 

 

 

 

 

[markseifert]

In the end, as a followup to the link I provided, Mr. Bolland was to be paid the proceeds from the pieces that were sold and the balance of the pieces unsold were to be destroyed.

 

Interesting. Do you happen to know if there is any more info re if that promised follow-up ended up happening?

[ShaneTurgeon]

This has been a really great thread.

 

The irony of Erro is not only is he swiping original comic artists work and calling it his own, he's swiping Lichtenstein's idea of swiping comic art to call his own. Now there's a hack!

[Lebowski]

I like how he copies the art and makes it worse (not unlike Lichtenstein either).

 

A swipe from Joe Mad's Battle Chasers.

 

 

[Romain]

When I was an art student so loong agooo why did I like Lichtenstein and Erro ( oh yeah ) ??

Simple as among the Contemporary Art Marasm these guys were actually painting things I knew and even better things i liked !!! Comic books !!?? Superheroes ??!! The USA !!!!!! If you've never been in an art school where you don't learn the fine arts anymore but to follow the readymade concepts, the landart ( !!! please ), the bodyart ?? ( ouch ...), the monochromes or the papercut...there are hundred more ....You can't imagine the relief to watch Superman on canvas or a blonde beauty out of 60's comicbooks !!!

By the time the first of these pieces came to the public of the art galleries the Action#1 wasn't worth a million ...books were banned or destroyed, coupons cut out, writings on the cover but they were about to become iconic and I sincerely believe such artists despite what you all seem to share contributed to this recognition...

 

Now for the Bolland swipe from Erro and his later work I presume the guy either is a crazy fool thinking he could get away with it or it is purely provocation which is even worse but we can ALL agree the man is a total jerk speaking to B.B. the way he did !

 

Now all artists aren't geniusses and some can become worse with the age or stick forever to an old idea which may have been clever once but not anymore ...

 

Now to get back on tracks I would love to know John Romita's opinion on the subject and to confirm if he did this famous romance page !!! ( Mike if you read ... )

[Nexus]

Check it out:

 

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/

[wca140]

Great article, both shocking and infuriating. Copyright infringement at its best.

 

I just love this quote, wow just WOW...

 

"In fact they tried to shut me down. They sent me a nasty letter about how I'm not

supposed to use these images because they're copyrighted. How do they put this in print?

Roy Lichtenstein took these images form copyrighted material 40 years ago!"

 

[micmack]

I always love to bring this up. "Artist" Richard Prince has been famous for his Nurse series of paintings, getting prices in the millions.

 

But it has come to light that he was blowing up prints of old pulp novels and painting right on top of them. Below is the original by Hall of fame illustrator James Avati..

 

This is why he has been known as the "Prince of Theives"....

[alxjhnsn]

I don't know if I admire their creative reuse or despair of their thefts of IP. I lean to the latter, but darned they were clever to make so much money off of it.

[Romain]

I guess we should say there is art and there is art ...??

I wouldn't compare the comic artists to any artist, painter or plastician, from the last century ....Don't tell me you, we are interested in today's art milieu ??

Of course Lichtenstein stole these panels and of course it sells for millions it just has nothing to do with our hobby world ...it is his ...thing ?

Do you like Picasso ?? personnally I prefer Neal Adams ...

I like the irony of the copyright issue mentionned in the link provided by Nexus !!!