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.

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.

That’s a fair point.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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