Comic Book Resources

… Hey, anyone remember when Marvel got in trouble because one of their House of M covers was basically a photo of European royalty (I think it was the King of Spain) with a supervillain’s head stuck on?

You’d expect them to have learned their lesson. So I have to wonder if they actually got permission for this one.

Someone else can make the obligatory Greg Land reference.

Greg Land traces.

There, happy now?

What’s messed up? A comic artist using reference material he/she hasn’t made him/herself (happens quite a lot I think, and a lot worse than in this cover too) or that he’s ‘caught’?

The former.

Remember back in the old days when artists didn’t need to trace and copy other people’s artwork and photos?

Reference material is one thing, but too many artists are now tracing/swiping/copying either because they are lazy or lack the talent to create their own original work.

There was another case (back in the 90s?) where one of the big two (Marvel I think) was sued for a blatant reproduction of a photo like this.

I’m surprised the Lying in the Gutter column didn’t catch this. They usually pick up on the most obscure file swipes.

I wonder: twenty years ago a swipe like this could pass unnoticed, but in the internet days all the world knows, in a moment, that an artist simply is pirating another artist… and they still keep on doing the swipe?

“Remember back in the old days when artists didn’t need to trace and copy other people’s artwork and photos?”

You mean like Detective Comics #27?
Whooops.

http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/12/29/curse-you-father-time/?p=1000
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/391/

“I’m surprised the Lying in the Gutter column didn’t catch this. They usually pick up on the most obscure file swipes.”
They actually had a whole section devoted to him this week.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13
I’m sure this one will be in the column next week.
And probably a few others.

That’s a shame.

There was another case (back in the 90s?) where one of the big two (Marvel I think) was sued for a blatant reproduction of a photo like this.

A Dr. Strange book. Take a look at the Comicbook Urban Legends archive to see it.

Honestly though, couldn’t care less about the swipe. That’s how art works. It’s why artists spend years building up good morgue files…

A Dr. Strange book. Take a look at the Comicbook Urban Legends archive to see it.

I actually avoided using it, but I probably should, as it IS one that people seem to talk about a lot.

Maybe this week!

I hate the way comics artists swipe photos. This example isn’t too bad, because I’d never have realised it, if you hadn’t pointed it out. But the thing I despise about comics art at the moment is the way famous actors’ faces are used for characters. Mark Millar’s Wanted is a really well written book, but the fact that JG Jones didn’t even bother trying to disuise the fact that Wesley = Eminem ruined the whole look of it. Comic book characters should look like themselves, and bot be played by hollywood stars.

I don’t mind basing characters on movie stars. It’s a classic comic book artist move. Golden Age artists did it all the time (a lot of Silver Age artists did so, too).

My only problem is when it goes from “basing on” to literally just drawing the actual actor.

And then when you take the next step and just start lightboxing pictures of actors, that’s the pits.

This is NOT REFERENCE. This is TRACING.

Maybe it’s a very good photocopy with watercolors.

I like the model tho’. sexy.

Wally Wood rather famously said “Never draw what you can copy. Never copy what you can trace. And never trace what you can cut out and paste down.”

That said, you would think folks would learn from history. After Marvel got sued by Amy Grant when Jackson Guice lifted her from one of her CD covers to be, if I recall correctly, Dr.Strange’s friend Victoria Bentley. Sigh.

yeah– “basing” or “referencing” is one thing. yes, we all know about ultimate nick fury being sam jackson. that is one thing. this is a pretty much spot-for-spot bit of copying!

I’m willing to bet it’s neither traced nor lightboxed. Mack’s a very talented artist who normally uses his own photo reference. Odds are he did it from sight.

Should we link to that Stuart Immonenen guest post again, Brian?

“Remember back in the old days when artists didn’t need to trace and copy other people’s artwork and photos?”

“You mean like Detective Comics #27?
Whooops.”

That is a very notable exception. I would wager that overall, there have been more identified traces and copies from the mid-90’s foreward than between all the years between 1938-1990.

Reference work is fine. All artists reference photos and real life figures to help them accurately depict anatomy and perspective. But tracing/copying is something I expect to see from kids, hacks, and amatures, not from “artists”.

Personally I would be highly embarrassed to be caught copying someone else’s work. Why not just pin a big sign that says “I am a hack” to your forehead. The fact that most of it comes from the same artists and that they keep doing it again and again speaks volumes about them as “artists” in my opinion.

Hell, I can copy accurately from sight, and I can use photoshop. Maybe I should become a comic book artist.

To HellRazor: Why don’t you?

Why not? Just let me grab a few porn magazines off the shelf.

For “reference” ya know.

Somewhere along the line people lost track of what comics are and are supposed to be. What happened to covers being drawn, with pencil and ink, to reflect what is happening inside the comic? Most comic covers now are glorified poster shots and tell you nothing about the comic you hold in your hands – they could be from any issue in any given run.

Bah!

Wow, that is messed up. It’s obviously a swipe, down to the proportions and lighting (as opposed to being reference, such as needing to get the lighting right on the face and such).

It really bothers me when artists do this (especially David Mack — he’s one of my favorites and I have a lot of respect for him from what little I’ve talked to him).

I do find it interesting how the purple outlines only the parts taken from the photo. The hand and sword seem to be almost an afterthought.

This is cut and paste.

And that´s sad, really sad.

It’s simply criminal.

I’ve been a professional illustrator for over 20 years and I would NEVER rip off a photo reference that blatently.

Sure, you can use pics for reference (to get an angle right or to reference shadows and details), but to so obviously scan in and photoshop (or lightbox) is just pathetic.

~P~
P-TOR

I think we’re jumping to conclusions here about David Mack. How do we know that Ben Watts didn’t base his photo on Mack’s drawing? Huh? Huh? Why couldn’t he have just gotten a model that looks like Echo to pose in the same exact way? Huh? Huh? Didn’t think of that, did you?

Ok, I’m done being stupid now.

I feel its fine to use the pose but change the face, make it your own Mack! Also I enjoy that he didn’t even bother changing the hair at all and still has that extra braid fall on her front.
I would also be interested to know if Mack consistently uses this model as reference for Echo.

Ironic that the photo is taken from “Flaunt” magazine, I think.

Is that supposed to be Echo? It doesn’t even look like her. I don’t mind using real people as starting points or models but come on, some originality PLEASE!

Personally, it boils down to two issues, legal and ethical.

Legally, I’d say Mack has a bullseye painted on him right now – there’s no doubt he used the photo as a base. I don’t think anyone could argue Mack doesn’t have the talent to come up with good art on his own, but it’s ethical laziness at least to take someone else’s work and render it in watercolor without permission.

As a commercial artist he has to know he doesn’t have much legal grounds to defend himself. My feeling (hope?) is Mack/Marvel have an agreement with the magazine to use the photo. If not, it’s a mystery why he’d do that.

Lazy, lazy, lazy . . .

Should we link to that Stuart Immonenen guest post again, Brian?

Immonen’s excellent piece only spoke to reference, not what Mack did here.

This is about as close to lightboxing as you can get.

That’s not what Immonen was talking about.

That’s not to say that you have to find fault with Mack here – just saying that Immonen’s piece is not a good defense.

Once you change an image more than 10%, it is not copying. Legally anyway.

If he did draw it by hand, how is that any different from getting a model to come and pose for him to base it off? Using a reference to do some art from, wow, what a novel idea….

If he did ‘cut and paste’, there was a guy in the lat 90’s who did some Ghost Rider stuff, and I recall a What If with Sabretooth who cut and pasted fabric and pictures into his work. Is that any different?

Honestly though, couldn’t care less about the swipe. That’s how art works.

No, that’s how the business of selling art works. Art is a process of creation.

Honestly though, couldn’t care less about the swipe. That’s how art works. It’s why artists spend years building up good morgue files…

No, they spend years building up reference libraries to help them as a starting point, not collecting other peoples artwork to pass off as their own.
That’s how hacks work.

Now I can’t stop staring at the hand holding the sword and how it emerges from her hip.

That hand and sword crack me up.

OK, I’ll just throw a hand and sword here and perfect. Comic cover. Done.

Theory: take any photo of anything anywhere, add a hand and sword, and voila: comic cover.

Wally Wood used to say:

“Don’t draw what you can copy, don’t copy what you can trace and don’t trace what you can paste up.”

I don’t think anyone would question Mr. Wood’s credentials.

Well, this just seems to be the legacy of the pursue of a realistic style in superheroes comics.
But I don’t find this is a scandal. Every artist in history ( not comics ) has “copied” from reality to construct their images, and no one complains.

What I find more disturbing in comics is when the “artist” directly swipes another artist; that could really be considered a scandal, as you are stealing the stylization some other artist has created to simply not having to work, which is funny because you , as an artist , are considered to be enjoying your creation.

“Once you change an image more than 10%, it is not copying. Legally anyway.”

The courts don’t agree. You can’t just take someone else’s original work, add a sword to it, and claim it as your own original work.

“If he did draw it by hand, how is that any different from getting a model to come and pose for him to base it off? Using a reference to do some art from, wow, what a novel idea….”

It boggles my mind that there are people who can’t see the difference between referencing and copying.

When you REFERENCE something, you aren’t COPYING it. A few examples of referencing:

- An artist examines a photo of Times Square to make sure he is accurately depicting Times Square in his own original drawing of Times Square.

- An artist examines a photo or a model as a guide to assist him in ensuring the lighting in his original artwork looks realistic and accurate.

- An artist uses a model as a reference for accurately depicting anatomy in an original drawing.

- An artist uses a model who has agreed to allow his/her likeness to be used in the comic.

COPYING/TRACING is when you are using someone else’s original artwork, photo, or likeness, and then duplicating it, sometimes making minor changes to make it fit whatever scenario you are trying to paste it into. A photographer is an artist, composition, layout, lighting, etc. are used to produce his/her art.

Then there is also the issue of using the likeness of real people whom you have no agreements with to do so. When a model does a gig with a professional photographer he/she is under a contract with that photographer that outlines how the photograph and his/her likeness can be used. It’s not a free license for anyone who sees the photograph to transfer his/her likeness to any medium they want to and to use it to sell a product.

“If he did ‘cut and paste’, there was a guy in the lat 90’s who did some Ghost Rider stuff, and I recall a What If with Sabretooth who cut and pasted fabric and pictures into his work. Is that any different?”

Fabric – Depends on what the fabric is and how it is used; by itself, a shred of fabric is just a material, it has no real intrinsic artistic value or identity of its own.

Pictures – If they are used without permission, then no, it is no different. They are using someone else’s creation without permission and passing it off as their own creation.

There are some sketchy areas that involve using art as art to make an artistic statement (i.e., music sampling, or the Andy Warhol painting of a campbell soup can).

But most of those sketchy areas don’t apply too much to comic books, where the artist is basically tracing someone else’s professional artwork or photographs and passing it off as their own original artwork.

It’s sad that so many people don’t understand why this is wrong, and why those who do it are basically not only ripping off the people whose work they are stealing, but ripping CUSTOMERS off as well by not giving them the original artwork they paid for.

Not to mention that the whole “photorealism” thing in comics is vastly overrated. I’ll take original comic art over this crappy photoshop cut and paste job any day.

But I don’t find this is a scandal. Every artist in history ( not comics ) has “copied” from reality to construct their images, and no one complains.

What I find more disturbing in comics is when the “artist” directly swipes another artist; that could really be considered a scandal, as you are stealing the stylization some other artist has created to simply not having to work, which is funny because you , as an artist , are considered to be enjoying your creation.

You are correct.

No one has a problem with the former, ethically or legally.
It is the latter where the problem is, legally and ethically.

booksteve said:

“Wally Wood rather famously said “Never draw what you can copy. Never copy what you can trace. And never trace what you can cut out and paste down.””

===

Untrue. Urban myth.

Rob Schamberger said:

“I’m willing to bet it’s neither traced nor lightboxed. Mack’s a very talented artist who normally uses his own photo reference. Odds are he did it from sight.”

===

It’s still a copy whether he did it by sight or by tracing. It is theft, too, unless there was an arrangement with the magazine and the photographer.

This is a TRACING of a unique, copyrighted work (I’m happy to provide for anyone the Photoshop layover which proves this).

It’s one thing to use one of literally millions of photos of the Empire State Building as ref, and another to not just reference, but TRACE, a piece as compositionally and visually specific as this.

Unbelievable and nauseating that he probably got paid (and sought to get paid) hundreds, possibly a couple thousand, dollars for this abhorrent act of visual plagiarism.

And that “swipe” from Alan Davis for Kabuki (Dance of Death) #1?

Also a TRACE (Photoshop overlays don’t lie), not just a “swipe”.

“Elseworld said …

This is NOT REFERENCE. This is TRACING.”

Exactly. Anyone who sees something like this and tries to argue the merits of referencing doesn’t understand what the complaint is or the difference between referencing and tracing.

I have been a comic book artist for going on 20 years. I will not, of course, give you my name. This and other examples from Mack’s portfolio (virtually his entire output) reveal a consummate con artist who covers up for a distinct lack of innate drawing ability by tracing other artists’ work, and photo reference from commercial and private sources.

Sit Mack down next to me, and any other professional artist and ask us to draw say, Batman from memory, and you will see a HUGE difference in ability.

Mack would, of course, cover for his lack of skill by saying that the disproportions and failed perspectives are his “style.”

He does copy quite well, though.

[...] Remember the whole ado over the David Mack cover for New Avengers #39? [...]

[...] Previo a su aparición en la columna de Rich Johnston, esta misma portada fue un tema de discusión en el blog Comics Sould be Good, parte también de Comic Book Resources. Gracias también a este blog podemos ver ahora el cambio que ha sufrido esta portada en los avances para su solicitud. [...]

[...] Previo a su aparición en la columna de Rich Johnston, esta misma portada fue un tema de discusión en el blog Comics Sould be Good, parte también de Comic Book Resources. Gracias a este blog podemos ver ahora el cambio que ha sufrido esta portada en los avances para su solicitud. [...]

has no one noticed the other “fishy” thing about macks
new avengers pages
posted over on newsarama?
half of the art is just photoshop copies of the very few panels already drawn.
the same pic of dd (albeit reinked) appears three or four times,
the same close up of echo appears two or three times,
the shot of echo standing in front of a mirror,
rather than draw a reflection,
he just flipped the original figure,
which is just wrong, thats not what a reflection should look like,
it would be at a whole different angle.
very very dissapointing

apparently newsarama has taken to deleting anti mack posts.
not all of them.
but a few.
and at least one poster was banned from the site.
wagons are being pulled into a circle. lol

AN OPEN APOLOGY TO DAVID MACK

Matt Brady, Brian Bendis, Adam Hughs, Marvel, David Mack,

I posted under the name Len Steinlen.

I had no business doing so.

I shouldn’t have been on the thread in the first place.

I apologize.

I apologize to you.

I apologize to your fans.

I apologize to David Mack.

I had no reason to bring together a bunch of random crap and attempt to get you to close the thread.

I just didn’t want people picking on David Mack.

It was my foolish attempt to throw gasoline on the fire so it would burn itself out.

The thread was closed so I couldn’t delete all my stupid posts.

I’ve failed miserably and just embarresed myself.

I would appreciate if you would deleate my posts as they are not helpfull in any way to the situation.

Thank You.