Comic Book Resources

Now who’ll be the first to find the photo he copied this one off?

I’ll give Mack a lot of credit on this one — once it was pointed out, he showed up, admitted the sourcing issues, and apologized.

Meanwhile, Greg Land….

I don’t know.

I like the first cover better.

Covers are covers.

Who blood cares whether its a swipe or not!

the model and the photographer might care

Omar, where did Mack post a response? Just curious what he had to say about the matter.

Yeah, Omar, I’d like to see it, too (and link to it for others to see, as I’m sure a lot of folks would be interested).

Omar, it isn’t up to fans to catch swipes and be grateful that artists apologize. They shouldn’t swipe photo reference they don’t have the rights to in the first place.

But then again I guess it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.

True, Sigma, but I think Omar’s point is that at least Mack DID apologize (apparently, I haven’t seen it yet ), which is better than most.

Gee Aimee Mann is looking good these days

And doesn’t *that* throw up something else? These two covers are of the saqme character, yet are clearly two different women :/

Good move by Marvel. The original cover (rip off and all) was utterly ugly.

I personally like the second version better.

I’m with Alan – for Pete’s sakes, can’t they at least having a standard model for how their faces are supposed to look? Chin/eyes/hair/facial shape… is it really that hard to have a guide for characters like that?

Bad move? The new cover ain’t all that nice to look at either.

wtf?

Just got through reading the (somewhat interesting — Alex Maleev, Mike Oeming & Jamal Igle show up repeatedly, with the latter two trying to defend Mack but failing to address, really, the core issue) Newsarama thread on the comic & can report that while Mack *does* post an apology of sorts when he’s caught thieving from Maleev & at least a couple of other guys (Adam Hughes & Alan Davis, I think) on an interior page, that was before the trace-job cover was pointed out. That was in late February, seems like. (I’d go back & nail the actual day if I weren’t at home on my steam-powered dial-up computer.)

Strangely enough, he hasn’t posted so much as a syllable since.

I’m mainly a Silver & Bronze Age guy, so offhand I couldn’t say if I even own a single thing Mack ever wrote &/or drew. As of now, though, he’s over in the Do Not Buy file with Greg Land. (Which file maybe shouldn’t include Billy Tucci, I’m starting to think. I might not like some of his public utterances, but the fact that he isn’t a thief ought to be worthing something.)

(Oh, forgot to mention — in his halfhearted apology after being caught red-handed appropriating others’ work, Mack lamely offers that he was offering an “homage” to their art with the aforementioned interior page.

(Funny. My workplace has several “homage” machines, though we just generically refer to them as “Xeroxes.”)

My thoughts on this are good for Marvel and good for Mack. I’m getting really sick of the Greg Land-school of swiping other works from artists and photographers and then not crediting them. It’s lazy, it’s theft and it should not be rewarded with even more work for the ‘swiper.’

I haven’t read Mack’s apology, but if he stood up and took it like a man, then kudos to him too. I used to love his early Kabuki work, though his more recent comics have lost me as a fan/buyer for being too abstract and taking way too long to come out.

The second cover may not look as “nice” to some people, but at least we can trust that it is Mack’s own work and vision. Not a piece plagiarized and/or traced from some other person’s work. I like that much better, personally.

Thing is, Mack did *not* “stand up & take it like a man” as far as the blatant cover theft is concerned … though in fairness I guess he might’ve been too busy whipping up the replacement cover to atone for his sins.

But yeah, you’re right — he does deserve some credit for at least implying that he recognized the inside-page “homage” was wrong.

(One interesting angle, judging from the “Lying in the Gutters” thread on the whole mess, is that on his own message board, Brian Bendis has apparently gone from defending Mack to the hilt to engaging in some creative erasing & sort of pretending that Mack doesn’t exist.)

As far as I know, even Mack’s I’m-sorry-I-got-caught “apology” is more than Greg Land — whose photo really should be up on post office walls across the country — has ever done, not to mention his enablers/accomplices in Marvel’s editorial offices. Land must have photos (that he would be all too happy to trace, of course) of Quesada or someone.

Good thing I’m not collecting New Avengers. That second cover looks rushed.

New cover looks like one he did for White Tiger. I actually like the first cover. I’m not that bothered about copies unless, of course, the original party takes offence, then fair enough, I guess.

Robert: So outright theft is OK by you if the victim either doesn’t care or doesn’t know?

Wow.

Dan, sadly, opinions like Robert’s aren’t as uncommon as you would think.

I’ve seen the image Mack swiped from and it looks like a recolor with a difference outfit on.

People get mad at Greg Land for constantly doing it, but he has turned himself into a sideshow in the process. Most people who know Mack’s work are repulsed because they know he can draw so much better than resorting to swiping a photo reference bit by bit.

Sigma, that’s a good point you bring up about their non-swipe work looking better. I remember being really impressed with Greg Land’s early artwork too. As far as I know, it was swipe free (or at the very least, he was not as blatant about his reference material) and looked all the better for it. His more recent “xerox and trace” technique looks flat and lifeless and completely unappealing.

Mack, too, is a fantastic artist, but for whatever reason he has chosen to swipe lately too, resulting in some weaker looking work for it.

Dan, I had forgotten about the inside panels being copied by Mack also. I had just been thinking about the cover swipe. If he claimed they were ‘homages’ than that is poor form on his part.

And is it just me, or has all this ‘swiping’ not resulted in Land or Mack meeting any of their deadlines any faster than before???

The new cover is much better, anyway.

Photoreferencing has been done by artists ever since the camera was invented, and even before that artists use live models. There’s nothing wrong in its usage, AS LONG AS THE ARTIST TOOK THE PHOTO HIMSELF/HERSELF. Much like Al Williamson, Or Tony Harris.

I dunno, Reno, I think that it’s okay to basically lightbox a photo you took. I totally agree there.

But otherwise, just using photos for reference seems to be fine to me, whether you took the photo or not. Once you get into lightboxing the photo, THEN there’s an issue.

The Oeming post in that Rama thread is pretty great, and is actually a great argument against the sort of blatant swiping Mack and Land have done – how much time does it take to do a few snapshots of yourself or a friend in a variety of poses? Aside from the ethical issues, you get the actual pose you want, instead of trying to force someone else’s photo into your art.

Ryan, exactly.

Look at this series of posts by Pete Woods on his process:

http://petewoods.livejournal.com/23705.html
http://petewoods.livejournal.com/23821.html
http://petewoods.livejournal.com/24195.html

He uses himself and his wife to get dimensions and tough angles down and does some amazing art in the process.

He uses himself and his wife to get dimensions and tough angles down and does some amazing art in the process.

He uses photos but the figures look nothing like the people he uses?

Amazing.

It’s like he knows how to draw or something!

What I don’t understand is how Marvel put up with this? They (as a company) have already gotten themselves sued for a swiped image (the Dr. Strange with country singer image rip-off). Why do Marvel keep on serial plagiarizers and swipers?

Other companies in other industries have ZERO tolerance of its employees stealing or plagiarizing articles and artwork. What makes the comic industry any different from from other companies like newspapers, book publishers and magazines?

What I don’t understand is how Marvel put up with this? They (as a company) have already gotten themselves sued for a swiped image (the Dr. Strange with country singer image rip-off). Why do Marvel keep on serial plagiarizers and swipers?

In fairness to Marvel, those weren’t exactly back to back occurrences.

I just think it’s so disappointing. I’m not even mad, just disheartened that Mack would go and do something like this. He’s got skills that lift him above the pack, but poor judgment and weak ethics just drag him down. I had hoped for better.

Here’s the link to Mack’s acknowledgment of and response to the swiping over at Newsarama, guys.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=5189080&postcount=49

Oh, and then Alex Maleev jumps in…

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=147491&page=3

And still more…damn…I need to just spend a bit of time and make one last ur-post on this matter, huh?

Mack responds again when further swipes are shown:
http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=5209814&postcount=94

On Page 6, Maleev and Jamal Igle defend lightboxing. On page 7 someone finds a photoref swipe was employed twice over by Mack.

On page 9, Michael Avon Oeming gets into the act and shows how he uses original — i.e., self-created — photoreference in his art. Igle pops up to defend the more specific use of what he calls “found images.” Still going on page 10, he points out that Alex Raymond used reference for the Rip Kirby comic strip and uses celebrity casting in comics (i.e., Sam Jackson as Nick Fury) as an analogy in hi argument. Lots of back and forth between Igle and a few posters, and Oeming chimes in a bit too.

Pgae 11, still lots of Igle, including a discussion of copyright law (!). Igle argues that Mack is well within “Fair Use” and therefore there’s no issue here. That’s the end…for now….

Interestingly, pretty much every professional on the thread defended Mack, including at least one person from whom he’s accused of swiping.

That’s the image of solidarity they’re showing to the public, but behind closed doors, I can’t imagine anyone who takes their craft seriously would be at all happy about this plagiarism. It just cheapens the medium as a whole.

Has Mack responded to why Echo is either African-American or Scandinavian or Asian, depending on who he’s “homaging”? Or does her power allow her to copy racial facial characteristics as well as abilities? And is it suprising that artists are closing ranks around Mack, given that he’s an Icon creator, as well as a friend of the very influential Bendis? It’s great to support your friends, and the friends of your “friends”, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade (or would it sometimes be a shovel, depending on what photo he referenced?)

Yeah, Omar, not for nothing, but Mack doesn’t even mention the cover problems, right?

Naw, Mack doesn’t, which is why I went with all the other pro quotes, since Oeming and Igle actually do get into the use of photo reference and so on.

I’d misremembered Mack’s statements on the thread.

Yeah, that’s fair enough, I was just wondering if I was missing something.

So, in that case, I am deducting cool points from Mack! The ones that I awarded him for apologizing about the cover.

When Steve Leiber was doing Hawkman (or was it Hawkworld?) he made a Hawkman helmet so he could use it to model the pictures he wanted to drawn.

Now granted you can flip thru Playboy and find people wearing hawk helmets, but if you could, he wouldn’t have…cuz he made his own helmet!

That Psylocke image is really ugly. Is that because there was no model? I don’t know.
What I do know is I’m tired of Mack’s little triangles, which I assume he took from Sienkiewicz(don’t know if Sienkiewicz got it from somewhere else, maybe Storey?)

That Psylocke image is really ugly. Is that because there was no model? I don’t know.

If you’re referring to the second cover, that’s Echo, not Psylocke.

Marvel seems to employ a lot of artists who “homage” tons of other artwork. Must be a company policy thing.

Yeah, that’s fair enough, I was just wondering if I was missing something.

So, in that case, I am deducting cool points from Mack! The ones that I awarded him for apologizing about the cover.

Yeah, he’s apologizing for interior work he was previously caught out on (possibly with permission).
He’s not talking about this situation where he’s lifted someone else’s art work and signed his name next to it.

Also, could people stop saying that other ‘pro’s’ defending them means it’s alright?
The American comics industry is tiny, so a lot of them know each other, and will close ranks to defend their friends.
If you want to impress me, get commercial artists from other industries to say it’s standard practice, people who have had their artwork lifted without compensation to say it’s alright or a copyright lawyer to say it’s cool.
You get that happening, you’ll have credibility for the argument that it’s alright.
Until then, as far as I can see, it’s frat boy mentality of defending their buddy.
(Notice it’s artists from the same generation, who all broke at the same time defending it – not Byrne, Miller, Gibbons etc).

What I don’t understand is how Marvel put up with this? They (as a company) have already gotten themselves sued for a swiped image (the Dr. Strange with country singer image rip-off). Why do Marvel keep on serial plagiarizers and swipers?

Probably because very, very few cases have resulted in actual consequences. They got sued for the Amy Grant thing, though that was more about the appropriation of her image than copyright, and there was a big thing about the Magneto, King of Spain thing, but that’s about it.

Until they actually start getting sued, there’s not a lot of incentive to really change.

Until they actually start getting sued, there’s not a lot of incentive to really change.

Don’t know that the legal department will see it that way – because once the first comes in, so will others, and then they are stuck with lawsuit after lawsuit.

[...] 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. [...]

The thing is, there is ZERO tolerance for this sort of thing in every other publishing business that I am aware of. Advertising, art design, newspapers, magazines, book publishers etc. Universities have kicked out students for lifting editorial cartoons (“homages”?) in their school newspapers.

Plagiarizing and swiping stuff that will get you expelled from art school is okay with Marvel? What sort of example is that for fanboys trying to break into the business? If you don’t have the patience to develop your talent, its okay to start stealing and lightboxing pictures from the nearest Vogue and Playboy magazines? And some people posting in this blog actually find nothing wrong with this practice? No wonder comics are considered a ghetto medium.

I don’t what is more pathetic. The tacit approval from Marvel or the congratulatory backslaps Mack’s peers give each other in that newsrama forum.

I never said that other pros defending Mack made it alright; I just said it was interesting that they did so.

I personally don’t like the practice one bit, albeit mainly because it often intrudes upon rather than enhances the aesthetics of comic books. (That said, I’m no great defender of IP rights.)

One thing that I did find interesting about the matter is Igle’s (rather dodgy) claim that the whole thing would be covered by “Fair Use.” Really? Mass-printing for profit is “Fair Use” these days? In that case, anyone wanna help me get Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates II off the ground?

” Mass-printing for profit is “Fair Use” these days? ”

Also, Mack reused pretty much the entire cover. Generally, fair use doesn’t apply when you use that much of the original. It might be fair use if he used the figure in silhouette, or if a character was reading that magazine and he reproduced the cover image in miniature. Fair use might even apply to a caricature of the girl on the cover.

What you have there is, IMHO, an unauthorized derivative work. The original photographer or art director created the composition, the wardrobe, the makeup and hair, set up the lighting, selected the pose, etc.

To Dan Bailey/Sigma

Apologies for the lack of clarity. What I meant to infer is that if the original parties had no objection to the homage, then I thought it was fair enough. If I was unclear in what I said, my apologies.

Parodies and homages are okay, in my view, incidentally, which is why I think the cover would be okay to stand if the photographer had given permission. They have always been used not only in comic books but in the history of art.

Hope that makes things clearer.

“Parodies and homages are okay, in my view, incidentally, which is why I think the cover would be okay to stand if the photographer had given permission.”

I think the difference between this kind of lifting and a genuine parody or homage is that this is just a labor-saving scheme.

Genuine parodies or homages tend, I think, to exhibit evidence of more original creative effort than is in seen in the typical lightboxing.

In a genuine parody or homage, I don’t really think creator permission is required. I do think that if you’re going to lift someone’s work in order to save yourself the effort of doing it yourself, then you really should get permission and possibly pay for the use of the work.

“In a genuine parody or homage, I don’t really think creator permission is required. I do think that if you’re going to lift someone’s work in order to save yourself the effort of doing it yourself, then you really should get permission and possibly pay for the use of the work.”

That’s a fair point.

One thing that I did find interesting about the matter is Igle’s (rather dodgy) claim that the whole thing would be covered by “Fair Use.” Really? Mass-printing for profit is “Fair Use” these days? In that case, anyone wanna help me get Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates II off the ground?

Let’s make pop really eat itself, and make a comic book entirely out of light boxed art work from Mack and Land and anyone else who’s been caught out.
See how they like someone making money off of their work.

I find this whole tempest in a tea pot rather interesting. “Comic book artist swipes images” hardly seems like anything new– hell, as Dial “B” For Blog pointed out last fall, the entirety of Batman’s first appearance was mostly swiped from art in Big Little Books, pulp magazine illustrations and ads within pulps.

In Mack’s case, I’m frankly not bothered by an artist known for using collage and bricolage in their art style to appropriate images from other media as part of his repetoire, especially since he uses them inventively with interesting design choices and composition surrounding them. Rather like dozens of ‘legitimate’ artists have done beginning with Warhol.

I think this rush to condemn David Mack as a plagarist rather fascinating– it demonstrates an unbelievably narrow-minded view of what an artist can and cannot do that’s out of step with half a dozen movements in art since the 1960s. I can tell you this– if Mack did hung that New Avengers cover at an art gallery, they’d hail his pilfering from other media and use of images as part of the genius of what he does. And they would be right.

I wonder if Alan Davis would also demonstrate “an unbelievably narrow-minded view of what an artist can and cannot do” in regards to the TRACINGS Mack has done of various Davis illustrations.

the new cover looks like the morning shit I took!

[...] Could be a swipe, but I don’t think so. The web is filled with message boards threads and blogs about comic book artists and their swipes, the most notorious of them being Greg Land. Just look at the recent flames over his Uncanny X-Men #500 preview image published last weekend in Wizard World LA or David Mack’s New Avengers #39 cover (which was later changed and caused a delay in the printing of the issue). [...]

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

[...] 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 [...]