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.

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.

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.

Also a TRACE (Photoshop overlays don't lie), not just a "swipe".

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.