New Allegations of Plagerism Against Roy Lichtenstein 2 2

[ThatNerdyCanuck]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/apr/09/new-allegations-of-plagiarism-against-roy-lichtenstein

 

 

[comicstock]

Some call Roy Lichtenstein an artist.  I call him a bum.

[WolverineX]

What a surprise

[Aman619]

New allegations?  Same old argument.  Depending on the Supreme Court case between the Prince photographer and Andy Warhol, this will be settled once and for all:  At what point does an artist change source material enough to be considered a new work of art? 

[Randall Dowling]

Good to see people finally coming to their senses.  Hopefully, this era of flash over substance is nearing it's end. 

[Aman619]

well, the debate has always been trying to determine which is the flash and which the substance. Potato, potato.  I dont think we will all ever agree. But we WILL have a legal opinion in the WARHOL case soon.

[Robot Man]

Not only was his work stolen, but Hy Fleishman didn’t even get his name spelled correctly in this article…

[JollyComics]

How funny, I currently own two copies of AAMW #89.  I would make money on both books out of struggling artists but I contributed money to Russ Heath through the funds.  I had him signing my several books.  

Edited April 10, 2023 by JollyComics

[Hes Dead Jim]

how is this different than any collector of anything making millions off selling other peoples stuff?

did anyone who sold any million dollar trading cards, comics, and others kick anything back to those struggling artist?

im not saying that I think of any of this as right or wrong, but living in a money driven world this sort of thing is a thousands of times a second occurance.

people like warhol made and make a very good living off other peoples stuff as do people in the comedy / pardoy business.

art is what a bunch of self important people say it is and todays law will be overturned tomorrow and will be back again on thursday

van gogh traded his "art" for a couples of nights lodgings and some meals to people who thought his stuff was garbage and felt sorry for him. and now his "art" is priceless

the same thing happened to comics and trading cards in my lifetime. when i was a kid we used to make small ships out of baseball cards and float them on a curb stream after a rain

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Hes Dead Jim

[manetteska]

On 4/10/2023 at 2:23 PM, Hes Dead Jim said:

how is this different than any collector of anything making millions off selling other peoples stuff?

did anyone who sold any million dollar trading cards, comics, and others kick anything back to those struggling artist?

 

What a take! What a comparison!

[Aman619]

If Warhol Estate loses the case, It will be interesting what the damages will be.  And if the comic artists come after the Lichtenstein Estate afterwards, how much they could stand to receive.  Lichtenstein lost ownership to all his early works the minute they sold for a few 1000s in the 60s.  I dont think you can seek to collect from the current owners who may have paid millions for them in the years since.  That would be legally challenging and sounds a lot like "reparations" which is not a popular subject -- and a real conversation stopper when it comes to making laws.

[the blob]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:09 PM, Aman619 said:

If Warhol Estate loses the case, It will be interesting what the damages will be.  And if the comic artists come after the Lichtenstein Estate afterwards, how much they could stand to receive.  Lichtenstein lost ownership to all his early works the minute they sold for a few 1000s in the 60s.  I dont think you can seek to collect from the current owners who may have paid millions for them in the years since.  That would be legally challenging and sounds a lot like "reparations" which is not a popular subject -- and a real conversation stopper when it comes to making laws.

Right, except Lichtenstein's estate may still be selling prints (or getting royalties) and may even be licensing the images (for shirts, etc.).   The thing is, these were works for hire, I don't think the artists own the copyright, the comic publishers do, unless they reverted back, and if they did it was long after Lichtenstein sold them. As you point out, Lichtenstein wasn't selling these for "millions" at the time, that is the after market. 

 

[the blob]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:23 PM, Hes Dead Jim said:

how is this different than any collector of anything making millions off selling other peoples stuff?

did anyone who sold any million dollar trading cards, comics, and others kick anything back to those struggling artist?

im not saying that I think of any of this as right or wrong, but living in a money driven world this sort of thing is a thousands of times a second occurance.

people like warhol made and make a very good living off other peoples stuff as do people in the comedy / pardoy business.

art is what a bunch of self important people say it is and todays law will be overturned tomorrow and will be back again on thursday

van gogh traded his "art" for a couples of nights lodgings and some meals to people who thought his stuff was garbage and felt sorry for him. and now his "art" is priceless

the same thing happened to comics and trading cards in my lifetime. when i was a kid we used to make small ships out of baseball cards and float them on a curb stream after a rain

 

If these artists owned the copyright in these images they could have sued for infringement. For whatever reason the comic publishers (who did own the copyright) did not sue. I guess the defense would be taking one or two panels out of a comic that has 400 panels is fair use. I'm not sure if that flies as taking one small rif out of a song seems to be enough for infringement.

 

[lordbyroncomics]

These aren't new and they aren't allegations. The lack of any kind of empathy or compassion for the artists ripped off wholesale from collectors is kind of sad.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 4/11/2023 at 4:33 AM, the blob said:

I guess the defense would be taking one or two panels out of a comic that has 400 panels is fair use. I'm not sure if that flies as taking one small rif out of a song seems to be enough for infringement.

 

Look at this album and see how many "one or two panels" add up considerably: 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

[Point Five]

On 4/11/2023 at 4:33 AM, the blob said:

If these artists owned the copyright in these images they could have sued for infringement. For whatever reason the comic publishers (who did own the copyright) did not sue. 

Russ Heath has said in interviews that the publishers didn't think it was worth it at the time. The paintings were not worth millions at first; that happened over the decades to follow.

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:33 AM, the blob said:

If these artists owned the copyright in these images they could have sued for infringement. For whatever reason the comic publishers (who did own the copyright) did not sue. I guess the defense would be taking one or two panels out of a comic that has 400 panels is fair use. I'm not sure if that flies as taking one small rif out of a song seems to be enough for infringement.

 

The sampling argument is fair enough.  But when I look at his work it still resembles a kid tracing or light boxing rather than anything original or remotely impressive.

[Robot Man]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:25 AM, Point Five said:

Russ Heath has said in interviews that the publishers didn't think it was worth it at the time. The paintings were not worth millions at first; that happened over the decades to follow.

 

Comic publishers (other than EC), have a long history of cheating their own artists all by themselves...

[Hes Dead Jim]

On 4/11/2023 at 11:43 AM, Robot Man said:

Comic publishers (other than EC), have a long history of cheating their own artists all by themselves...

as does the television, film and music industries and many others yes

[ThothAmon]

From the linked article in the OP. 

Bradford R Collins, author of the book Pop Artand professor of art history at the University of South Carolina, defended Lichtenstein: “It’s not plagiarism. It’s appropriation. With plagiarism, you’re stealing somebody’s work and using it for the same purpose they did. If Lichtenstein made comic books out of it, that would be stealing. But appropriation means you’re taking something and reusing it for a very different purpose, taking something out of a comic book and making it into a painting.

“I can understand why Eisman would feel angry. I would feel the same way. But artistically, it’s not plagiarism.”

 

Ivory tower comment or what?  You would think that an “art history professor “ would have a higher opinion of art, whatever its source. Maybe he doesn’t understand how a lowly “comic book” is made.