Plagiarists are stupid, throw rocks at them

April 7, 2007 6:40 PM

Please God, make everyone die. Amen. Todd Goliath, the creator of the infamous "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them" t-shirts/paintings/flash games/etc. (previously x2) has been discovered to have a piece in a gallery show which is remarkably similar to this Purple Pussy cartoon by Dave Kelly (a/k/a Schmorky) of Keenspot and SA. Not only that, but he's got another character, Eve L. who bears more than a passing resemblance to Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl by Roman Dirge. (other examples in the main link -- a surprisingly on-topic thread for SA)
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me (103 comments total)

via Josh Lesnick's LJ.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 6:49 PM on April 7, 2007

Yeah, I read this story on digg via boing boing via slashdot via cnn via reddit via reuters.

Metafilter: throw rocks at them.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:51 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

Well, that guy's fucked.
posted by puke & cry at 6:53 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

He can still have a successful career as a Republican pundit... and he won't even have to pretend he's being original.
posted by wendell at 7:13 PM on April 7, 2007 [5 favorites]

Here's hoping he uses the Roy Lichtenstein defence and still gets fucked. Lichenstein was a theiving git.
posted by Artw at 7:14 PM on April 7, 2007

It's, ummmm, derivative satire. Yeah, that's the ticket...
posted by Samizdata at 7:14 PM on April 7, 2007

No offense, but bullshit. That's not plagiarism, that's a homage. He didn't copy it exactly, he recreated it himself. (and yes, the text is the same).

The drawing I made is not only five years old, it's one of the most famous strips I've ever done. It has been posted on blogs, journals, and forums all over the world and has even been translated into Portuguese.

He's obviously not upset about all that un-attributed appropriation, so why is he upset that someone recreated it?

Besides, the strip is famous. Anyone familiar with "Teh Intarwebs" (as opposed to "The Internet") will have seen it, so it's obviously a recreation.

Normally I hate plagiarists, but calling this plagiarism is like calling is like calling this plagiarism.
posted by delmoi at 7:16 PM on April 7, 2007

Well the "Eve L."/Lenore similarity might be a coincidence.
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on April 7, 2007

Is it "he unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work"? Cos if it is Wikipedia says it's plagarism.

(Reproducing the Mona Lisa, and calling it "The Mona Lisa", isn't. Though passing off the MS Paint version as the real thing would be forgery. And weird)
posted by Artw at 7:22 PM on April 7, 2007

Why is the second link to a t-shirt seller? Am I missing something here?
posted by IronLizard at 7:28 PM on April 7, 2007

He didn't copy it exactly, he recreated it himself.
Uh, delmoi - did you scroll down? He fucking traced it. He just left off the bow.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:32 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

(Or do I need to check the batteries in my sarcasm-meter again? It's been a tiring day...)
posted by bashos_frog at 7:33 PM on April 7, 2007

delmoi: Tracing someone's drawing, signing your name to it and hanging it in a gallery and charging five figures for "the artwork" is very, very different from posting a cartoon on your LiveJournal so your friends can enjoy it.
posted by MegoSteve at 7:38 PM on April 7, 2007

Wait, the author of Purple Pussy is a guy?
** head assplodes**
posted by Balisong at 7:39 PM on April 7, 2007

Actually, your argument is a bunch of bullshit, delmoi. He traced it and put his name on it. And I think you're exaggerating the popularity of that comic strip. I'm quite familiar with interweb and I've never heard of this strip and I doubt people wandering around a mall in LA have heard of it either. That "homage" bullshit is the stuff that rip-off artists try to play.
posted by puke & cry at 7:42 PM on April 7, 2007

wait -- delmoi's not being sarcastic?
posted by chunking express at 7:46 PM on April 7, 2007

I skimmed it and only looked at the second superimposition (which did not look traced at all and I wondered why they even bothered to show it). Tracing is lame, I guess. Maybe I'd have a different reaction if hadn't seen the image a million times.
posted by delmoi at 7:49 PM on April 7, 2007

Lenore the cute little dead girl is the coolest thing I've seen all month.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:49 PM on April 7, 2007

Is it "he unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work"? Cos if it is Wikipedia says it's plagarism. -- Artw

Well, referring to the first picture they discovered (which was shown in the "side by side" image in the first link) I would say the image is different enough that I wouldn't call it plagiarism (Well, you could say the words are plagiarized if you wanted too). I mean do you consider Andy Warhol's stuff plagiarized?

If he's selling copies of the painting (which he seems to be) I would have a problem with it. But while it was clearly inspired by the original, I don't personally consider it plagiarism. Again, it's not something I would personally do, but I don't see it as plagiarism.

*shrug*
posted by delmoi at 7:57 PM on April 7, 2007

This is clearly not plagiarism. The word "TODD" in the lower right is completely absent in the original- two different works of art, people!
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:58 PM on April 7, 2007 [4 favorites]

Andy Warhol didn't sneak off with the images of others, he blatantly stole. Thatp;s the diference between a bold artistic statement and... well... being a creep.
posted by Artw at 8:02 PM on April 7, 2007

What would it take to rise to the level of plagiarism under your definition, delmoi? It's just bizarre that you don't think this is.

What Warhol did and what Lichtenstein did were different that what Todd did. Todd took a cartoon, traced it, and passed it off as his own creation to create a product. He's not an artist; he's a marketer. No one thought Warhol created the Campbell's soup can, and no one thought Roy Lichtenstein drew comics, but you can bet that the people purchasing that "original" Todd Goldman painting thought he came up with that cute cartoon.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:08 PM on April 7, 2007

Okay, I don't normally do this but:

SQUEEEEE!

Daily Lenore comics!

The universe doth not suckage as much as it used to.
posted by WCityMike at 8:11 PM on April 7, 2007

Goldman attributes his inspiration to his wittiness and weird sense of humor.

"I'm just wacked out of my mind. Things just come to me really quickly... I haven't really watched cartoons or read comic books. It's just my witty sense of humor and my love to draw," Goldman said.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:12 PM on April 7, 2007

Andy Warhol didn't sneak off with the images of others, he blatantly stole. Thatp;s the diference between a bold artistic statement and... well... being a creep. -- Artw

Also Warhol did his thing in this 60s, and this guy is doing it in the 21st century! Completely different!

To me, the image is as at least as iconic as a Campbell's soup can, which I'm only aware of from Warhol's painting anyway.

And I'm not exactly sure how you can intuit his motives like that, I mean how do you know he wasn't thinking "I'll make a painting out of this internet Meme, and people will think it's funny." or "bwahahahah! I think this cartoon is funny, so I'll make a painting with that joke!"

but obviously its a pretty fine line.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 PM on April 7, 2007

And Lenore is a third-rate Jhonen Vasquez knock-off.

And the "Dear God, please kill them. Amen," is an old riff on its own, though the picture was all Kelly.
posted by klangklangston at 8:18 PM on April 7, 2007

Okay here's the diff.

If you do blatant theft of a work of art and make it clear to the audience that you know already and were inspired by that previous work to make this new one, that's an homage.

If you do blatant theft of a work of art and try to pass it off as your own without bringing attention to the previous effort cuz you think you can get away with it, it's plagairism.

If you make money off it and don't get caught, you're a genius (actually you're a creep but no one will know).

If you make money off it and you do get caught, you're a creep. Either way you're pretty stupid.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:19 PM on April 7, 2007

Heh. "A guy who happens to see life a little differently from everyone else."

By which he means morally and legally, I guess.
posted by Artw at 8:20 PM on April 7, 2007

Delmoi - I can;t beleive you're defending this thing. it can't even elevate itself to the status of swipe.
posted by Artw at 8:22 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

What would it take to rise to the level of plagiarism under your definition, delmoi? It's just bizarre that you don't think this is.

Me personally? I normally think of plagiarism as something done with text, and furthermore I think of plagiarism as an academic issue. In this case, there is some text in the painting, but not very much.

I guess a traced image would count, but when I commented I didn't see the second image they found that had actually been traced. The first image that was discovered didn't seem like plagiarism to me.
posted by delmoi at 8:24 PM on April 7, 2007

.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:24 PM on April 7, 2007 [7 favorites]

If you do blatant theft of a work of art and make it clear to the audience that you know already and were inspired by that previous work to make this new one, that's an homage.

If you do blatant theft of a work of art and try to pass it off as your own without bringing attention to the previous effort cuz you think you can get away with it, it's plagiarism. -- ZachsMind

That's fine with me, I would agree with that. I guess there's some evidence that the guy is trying to do that, not "here's my painting of a popular internet meme." But just seeing the image by itself dosn't scream out "ZOMG plagiarism" to me.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 PM on April 7, 2007

Me personally? I normally think of plagiarism as something done with text, and furthermore I think of plagiarism as an academic issue. In this case, there is some text in the painting, but not very much.

I guess that's why you're position on this is so ridiculous. You seem to be incapable of comprehending plagiarism as an issue with anything other than text.
posted by puke & cry at 8:30 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

.
posted by R. Mutt at 11:24 PM on April 7 [+] [!]

Brilliant!
posted by piratebowling at 8:33 PM on April 7, 2007

the really galling thing is this guy's t-shirt gallery, if you click through to his website. it's amazing that's he's supposed to be some sort of "masculine feminist," yet he's selling all your cliched dumbass-frat-guy-who-wants-to-be-a-hipster-now-that-college-is-over faves!

they're all there, from perennial classic "I'd hit that" to the ever-popular CCCP kitsch, for those who adore mass-murdering dictators but don't quite have the balls to rock the swastika.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:37 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

you're position on this is so ridiculous

I agree with you 100%, puke, although I have a feeling someone is going to be posting a link to that "welcome to the internet captcha" thing from a few days ago any second now.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:39 PM on April 7, 2007

delmoi: If you honestly think that the cartoon Goldman stole is as iconic as a Campbell's soup can, you are wrong, which kind of explains how you can be so wrong about this issue.

I've been on the internet for a long, long time and I never saw that cartoon before, and I'd bet the vast majority of people you'd approach on the street would recognize a Campbell soup can over a Shmorky cartoon.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's going on in the head of Mr. Goldman, but you can be sure, given the context of the rest of his work as a jokey t-shirt and merchandise creator, that he was thinking about using a cute cartoon to sell a painting, not making some kind of artistic statement about internet memes few people in his target audience have seen.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:40 PM on April 7, 2007

Despite being text this is actually a quote, and not plagiarism:

plagiarize
/playjriz/ (also plagiarise)

• verb take (the work or idea of someone else) and pass it off as one’s own.

— DERIVATIVES plagiarism noun plagiarist noun plagiarizer noun.

— ORIGIN from Latin plagiarius ‘kidnapper’, from Greek plagion ‘a kidnapping’.
posted by Artw at 8:41 PM on April 7, 2007

oh god. I swear I'm normally good about the your/you're thing. I was concentrating on spelling "ridiculous" correctly.
posted by puke & cry at 8:42 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, so much for my new business idea. *Crumples up paper*
posted by maxwelton at 8:43 PM on April 7, 2007

Wow, is there any subject some idiot can't turn around to Stalin not getting enough dictatorship love?

Someone needs to make a string-pull libertarian doll that spews that crap.
posted by Artw at 8:44 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Also: nope, never seen that meme. Not so sure a single image can really be called a meme anyway.

-off to do a ceiling cat painting.
posted by Artw at 8:46 PM on April 7, 2007

Artw, absolutely a single image can be a meme. The Mona Lisa, the aforementioned soup can, the marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima... the list is endless.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:01 PM on April 7, 2007

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Opposite George at 9:03 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

posted by Opposite George Christ, what an asshole.

Hey, you plagiarized that!
posted by fandango_matt at 9:05 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm thinking theses some ticksy difference there between the image and the use of an image being a meme... "meme" seems kind of fuzzy to me...

Unlike plagiarism, which is pretty hard and fast.
posted by Artw at 9:12 PM on April 7, 2007

Hey, you plagiarized that!

Nope. Homage (yes, the text is the same.) :)
posted by Opposite George at 9:15 PM on April 7, 2007

I guess that's why you're position on this is so ridiculous. You seem to be incapable of comprehending plagiarism as an issue with anything other than text.

Incapable of comprehending? LOL.

I guess I'm a democrat because I'm incapable of comprehending how totally awesome George W. Bush and his vision of bringing democracy to the world is. And I believe in evolution because I'm incapable of comprehending William Dembski's mathematical concept of specified complexity.

Or maybe you're just saying that because you're incapable of realizing that other people can understand arguments while still disagreeing with them.

Anyway, as I said it does seem like the artist is just a cheap marketer who steals ideas (this is a direct rip-off of this). But in my mind there is a difference between ripping off someone else's idea and profiting off of it, and making new art that riffs on old art. There is a preponderance of evidence that the guy is a plagiarist in general (and a douche bag), but I don't think original counts.

Wow, is there any subject some idiot can't turn around to Stalin not getting enough dictatorship love? -- Artw.

Heh.
posted by delmoi at 9:17 PM on April 7, 2007

Or maybe you're just saying that because you're incapable of realizing that other people can understand arguments while still disagreeing with them.

No, delmoi, this isn't a mere disagreement. You admitted above that "I normally think of plagiarism as something done with text, and furthermore I think of plagiarism as an academic issue."

What it boils down to is that you don't understand or accept the commonly-held dictionary definition of plagiarism, so of course you're going to say this case isn't, even though it's obviously plagiarism to everyone else in the thread.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:40 PM on April 7, 2007

(this is a direct rip-off of this)

Wha? So, the different pinata with the text in a different place is a rip off but the traced critter praying on a bed with a word balloon with the exact same text in the same place is... not?

delmoi, leave the thread or drop the shovel.
posted by dobbs at 10:05 PM on April 7, 2007

And I guess I'm a democrat because I don't swallow people's bullshit arguments.

(this is a direct rip-off of this)

Ok, this is amazing. You see "rip-off" in that but have no problem with a direct copy of artwork. Wow.
posted by puke & cry at 10:12 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Don't get a job as an IP Lawyer anytime soon.
posted by Artw at 10:30 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Clear plagiarism. 24 out of 25 MeFites can't be wrong.
posted by LarryC at 10:37 PM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

Most definitely plagiarism. I imagine (hope) the original artist has contacted the gallery, and Todd's painting has been withdrawn.

[Off-topic: still pondering whether the Mona Lisa might constitute a meme, and if so--in general, or in particular circumstances. . .]
posted by flotson at 10:43 PM on April 7, 2007

This Todd guy is a phenomenal douchebag! I'd like to subscribe to his newsletter!
posted by stenseng at 10:56 PM on April 7, 2007

No, delmoi, this isn't a mere disagreement. You admitted above that "I normally think of plagiarism as something done with text, and furthermore I think of plagiarism as an academic issue." --MegoSteve

Maybe you're having trouble with the dictionary definition of "understanding". There's just something so pathetic about claiming that someone could only disagree with you because they don't understand you. And not because they understand you and simply disagree.

First of all I was responding to a question that asked:

What would it take to rise to the level of plagiarism under your definition, delmoi? It's just bizarre that you don't think this is.

So, I was trying to explain what I personally consider plagiarism, to the extent that I consider plagiarism a bad thing.

I can understand why someone might think it's plagiarism, but I disagree with that thought.

I'm willing to accept that he plagiarized it, based on the other evidence, but I still feel that the original artwork wasn't a close enough copy.

Wha? So, the different pinata with the text in a different place is a rip off but the traced critter praying on a bed with a word balloon with the exact same text in the same place is... not? --dobbs

Ok, this is amazing. You see "rip-off" in that but have no problem with a direct copy of artwork. Wow. --puke & cry

Yes, I'm totally a hypocrite because i disagreed with you about one thing, and now I agreed with you about something else.

The reason I found the t-shirt thing a ripoff was that there was no recontextualizing going on. It was a design for a t-shirt from one site basically copied for another.

Also dobbs:

Wha? So, the different pinata with the text in a different place is a rip off but the traced critter praying on a bed with a word balloon with the exact same text in the same place is... not? --dobbs

No, it's not. In fact I've said here,here, and here that I did not think the traced painting was OK. Only the first image, which had not been traced. It would nice if people would actually bother to read what people write before disagreeing with them, but I realize that's a lot to ask.
posted by delmoi at 10:58 PM on April 7, 2007

Don't get a job as an IP Lawyer anytime soon.-- Artw

What does plagiarism have to do with IP law? If I pay someone to write a college paper for me, that's plagiarism, but not a violation if IP Law. If record a clip from the Daily Show and put in on a blog, that's a violation of copyright law but not plagiarism. If print a compilation of Shakespeare's work it's not a copyright violation, but if I tried to pass it off as my work it still wouldn't be, but it would be plagiarism.

I never said the work wasn't a copyright violation, in fact it might be.

If you think Plagiarism has anything to do with IP law, you're the one who should avoid field.
posted by delmoi at 11:08 PM on April 7, 2007

I read through the other comments on the livejournal link and I think this is the one that really matters most here "Hey, if Dane Cook and Carlos Mencia can do it, why can't Todd? I mean you can't copyright a joke, right guys? Right? Plus, it's totally not exactly the same, so it's just as legit as Greg Land's art, amirite?" This poster was joking, but there is a lot of truth to that statement.

Where is the line between stealing a joke or a single panel punchline and just doing a thing that is really, really, really similar to it?

I would also argue that if this Shmorky person thinks their strip is famous and Todd Goliath thinks the strip is famous, then there is every chance it was painted specifically for some artistic reason I don't know about. People have a tendency to either assume that everything they do or know about is either ultra exclusive or completely universal.

Finally, if the guy was straight plagiarizing, I'm willing to wager he would have given the punchline to his "Here Kitty, KItty" character. It fits the theme and he still would not have had to draw too much.

Whether they are to your taste or not, he seems to have developed quite a stable of charactes that all say somewhat unoriginal things and I'm guessing he must make an OK living doing so. That being the case, if he chose to paint something that stepped out of his ordinary, he must have done so for a good reason.
posted by BeReasonable at 11:13 PM on April 7, 2007

plagiarism


Passing off someone else's work as your own, whether word for word or merely the creative ideas. This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. Even if permission is granted, putting your name on someone else's work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities.

See Topic: Trademarks Copyright

Nolo - your legal companion
posted by Artw at 11:16 PM on April 7, 2007

SQUEEEEE!

Daily Lenore comics!


And Lenore is a third-rate Jhonen Vasquez knock-off.


Heh. Squee is a Jhonen Vasquez character.


Sorry, please continue with the debate.
posted by kisch mokusch at 11:16 PM on April 7, 2007

from the link: Squee's real name is Todd

AAAAIIIE!
posted by Artw at 11:30 PM on April 7, 2007

Delmoi has just dug himself a big hole and rather than stop digging and climbing out, he just keeps digging.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:31 PM on April 7, 2007

delmoi appears to be off today. it sucks that the plagerism is so obvious and the guy made money off of it. his reputation is toast.
posted by bhouston at 11:34 PM on April 7, 2007

Mental Wimp -I know, it's rather fantastic isn't it?

I'm unsure if his argument boils down to some kind of post-modern relativism ("who knows what plagiarism actually means? The definition in the dictionary is only one of many equally valid definitions") or some kind of supreme soliphism ("I did not know what the dictionary definition of plagiarism is, therefore the dictionary does not exist!")

I'm hoping for the later, as it's the most fun, and combined with some Henry Rollins style raging could be very entertaining.
posted by Artw at 11:40 PM on April 7, 2007

Please God, make posts of Something Awful links die. Amen.
posted by jjg at 12:35 AM on April 8, 2007

Well, whether Delmoi thinks this is plagarism or not, it's most certainly copyright violation. Any creative work defaults to being under copyright, unless it is expressly given away.

I don't see any notice of copyright being given away (Creative Commons, Public Domain, etc.), ergo, it's copyrighted.

And it's clearly a copyright violation. Which is the legal issue. Plagarism is not a legal idea, but copyright violation is.
posted by MythMaker at 12:36 AM on April 8, 2007

Nolo - your legal companion -- Artw

What are you trying to say by quoting that definition? It seems like you're saying that because the word plagiarism shows up in a legal dictionary it has something to do with IP law? Is that really what you're trying to say? I mean it's not very clear. But if it is it would certainly be stupid.

The paragraph itself basically says the same thing I did about plagiarisms and copyright law (copying something can be either plagiarism, a violation of copyright law, both, or neither). Plagiarism is not a legal term. There are no laws on the books that deal with plagiarism, specifically, and disagreeing about the "nature" of plagiarism has nothing to do with IP law.

Academic institutions and news organizations will have their own rules about what constitutes plagiarism, and they'll have their own specific definitions.

I'm unsure if his argument boils down to some kind of post-modern relativism ("who knows what plagiarism actually means? The definition in the dictionary is only one of many equally valid definitions") or some kind of supreme soliphism ("I did not know what the dictionary definition of plagiarism is, therefore the dictionary does not exist!")

My argument is that the first image seen here on the right does not constitute an act of plagiarism because the original was iconic, and so it didn't meet the "passed off as his own" part of the dictionary definition.

Someone asked me what I thought constituted plagiarism. I answered with my opinion about what kinds of plagiarism bothered me personally, and then someone else called me retarded. None of that has nothing to do with my initial argument, and if you think it does you may want to try reading more carefully.

Delmoi has just dug himself a big hole and rather than stop digging and climbing out, he just keeps digging. --Mental Wimp

I'll find gold eventually!

Well, actually I did try to backpedal a little bit. I said the guy was a plagiarist here among other places, which only caused people to freak out. He does seem to be a pretty big douchebag, and given some of his comments it does seem like he might have been trying to pass it off as his work, but again, the image itself isn't proof of that IMO. If he had said "This is a painting of drawing I found on the internet" it wouldn't be plagiarism. If he'd said "I came up with this myself" (which he seems to have done) then it's plagiarism. If he hadn't said anything, I wouldn't consider it plagiarism, because I would assume that it was a reference to the original.

It's interesting what happens when you disagree with the majority viewpoint around here. Some people just absolutely freak out, hurl insults, etc. I don't enjoy being insulted, but I do find the whole thing kind of interesting.
posted by delmoi at 12:42 AM on April 8, 2007

Well, whether Delmoi thinks this is plagarism or not, it's most certainly copyright violation. Any creative work defaults to being under copyright, unless it is expressly given away.

Absolutely. I don't think the guy should be selling prints or t-shirts or whatever. So was DJ Danger Mouse's The Gery Album. It's only when the guy then additionally tries to portray it as his own work that it goes over the line into plagiarism.

I don't see any notice of copyright being given away (Creative Commons, Public Domain, etc.), ergo, it's copyrighted.

CC works are still copyrighted.
posted by delmoi at 12:51 AM on April 8, 2007

I'm not going to join in the quibbling over definitions here, but that is a pretty blatant attempt to pass off someone else's work as your own. The combination of the text, character, perspective, etc. makes it pretty much a verbatim copy.

It's only when the guy then additionally tries to portray it as his own work that it goes over the line into plagiarism.

He put his name on it. Right? Doesn't that constitute claiming that it's his work? Which brings up the point: How different does something need to be before it's not stealing?
posted by jeblis at 1:16 AM on April 8, 2007

Please God, make everyone all the whiny, excessively self-important cartoonists die. Especially the unfunny ones and the ones too busy whining to be funny or at least entertaining. Is there a special, extra hot place in hell with way more pokey things and torment and anguish? Put the unfunny, whiny ones there. Amen.

This doesn't include Scott Adams. Whining is his primary function and calling. And he is occasionally funny. Oh, and please boil Scott McCloud alive. Over and over again, forever. And please smite down Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins' girlfriends or something so they can get back to being stupid funny and hurting themselves and otherwise being stupid and funny. You shold have never let them get laid. What the hell were you thinking? And what the fuck is up with Sexy Losers? Could they get any more mundane? They need more hot nun corpse action! And make Sluggy Freelance not be Wagner's Motherfucking Ring Cycle any more. I swear to fucking God - err, sorry - it's like trying to read the unexpurgated works of Shakespear through the wrong end of a fucking telescope. PVP Online == As the Generally Hospitable Days of Our Young, Worldly Lives Turn Restlessly. *snore*. Also, please send me one (1) Choo-Choo and one (1) Bun-Bun. I'm going to breed them and take over the world. Gelatinous switchblade catbun apocalypse. Finally, most importantly, leave XKCD alone. It's perfect. Same with Dinosaur comics, Pokey, Achewood, Get Your War On, Jerktown, PBF and a few others. If you fuck with any of those I'm coming up there and tearing off your fucking junk and feeding it to Elvis. Fat Elvis.
posted by loquacious at 1:43 AM on April 8, 2007 [5 favorites]

Wow, loquacious, we are in total agreement!

Scott McCloud should be flayed first and encrusted with salt before boiling, cause man, does he not really understand comics. Reinventing Comics could have easily killed the shit out of webcomics via micropayments and general asshattery. Also, Fred Gallagher, Illiad, and every single furry artist need to have their hands broken. Though I don't see anything wrong with how PA is going, I think they hit a plateau of awesome about 3 or 4 years ago and have been fucking solid since. And why does Mitch Clem insist on disappearing off the face of webcomicry so often?
posted by blasdelf at 6:03 AM on April 8, 2007

I'm with loquacious except for Scott Adams. Have you ever actually dealt with him? Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:18 AM on April 8, 2007

Disagree on Scott McCloud. He really does get the formal side of comics on a level that not many people do, though he suffers from the futurist disease— his micropayment thing worked OK for him, but the technology he saw developing to support it never quite did, for reasons outside his purview (mostly shitty, unstable companies).
posted by klangklangston at 6:29 AM on April 8, 2007

Delmoi - I would have tyhought the bit that said "This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. " kind of established that Plagiarism was something to do with copyright infringement.

"actually I did try to backpedal a little bit"

Obfuscate would be the word I'd use.
posted by Artw at 7:47 AM on April 8, 2007

Delmoi - I would have tyhought the bit that said "This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. " kind of established that Plagiarism was something to do with copyright infringement. --Artw

So you're saying that because they were mentioned in the same paragraph, they're related? You have to actually read that definition?

Note the word "can". It can be plagiarism, but it also may not be. For example, if you plagiarize a speech on the senate floor, or a government report, it is not a copyright violation. On the other hand, if you extensively quote something with proper attribution but no permission it's not plagiarism, but it is a copyright violation.

The two have no functional relationship whatsoever, which is what I mean when I say they have "no relationship" the fact that something was plagiarized alone is not sufficient to determine if there was a copyright violation, and vice versa.

As I said before, each institution where plagiarism is banned will have it's own set of rules and it's own specific definition

The reason I pointed out the difference in the first place was your assertion that I didn't understand copyright law, and I was trying to point out that my views on the nature of plagiarism have no

Obfuscate would be the word I'd use. --Artw

Interesting choice of words. You're saying you can't understand what I'm writing? That's what it seems like, I mean you can't seem to even understand the basic point that plagiarism has nothing to do with IP law, and are quoting (as authoritative) some cheesy web glossary that doesn't even support your point. I mean, this is the second time I've pointed out the difference between IP law and plagiarism, and all you've been able to come up with is some paragraph on the web somewhere that has both terms in it. This is a pretty basic logical construction, and I'm sorry if you're having trouble comprehending it. You haven't made a single argument in this thread other then to quote dictionary definitions without even bothering to read them. I'm sorry if you think using a bunch of "words" is just "obfuscation"

Look, here is a very simple question for you: Do you think that if you copy an image as a painting and do not claim that it was your own original idea it's plagiarism? Because if you do you're at odds with all the definitions that you posted.
posted by delmoi at 8:22 AM on April 8, 2007

HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF BEANS.

The guy is guilty of doing something we all know to be not cool. We should all be shouting "BUSTED!" and laughing at delmoi for having taken the initial opinion that it wasn't plagiarism but an homage.
posted by furtive at 8:45 AM on April 8, 2007

delmoi, you would be right that this would not be "plagiarism" if this image was iconic and if he hadn't said that it was his own work.

Unfortunately, the image is not iconic, as several have pointed out. It's not even really internet-famous - I (and several others, I guess) have been on the internet for years and never even heard of Purple Pussy.

All this guy did is steal a somewhat obscure piece of internetica and sell it off as his own stuff - way low.
posted by TypographicalError at 8:59 AM on April 8, 2007

All this guy did is steal a somewhat obscure piece of internetica and sell it off as his own stuff - way low.

Fine fine. I may have gotten caught up in trying to defend my initial position about the specific image, rather then look at the whole picture, which is clearly of someone who just rips off ideas wholesale. He clearly took the "great artists steal" line a bit to seriously.
posted by delmoi at 9:09 AM on April 8, 2007

Yes, passing off another's work as your own is very low. It's practically PLAGIARISM!
posted by mek at 9:17 AM on April 8, 2007

delmoi writes "It's interesting what happens when you disagree with the majority viewpoint around here."

Has jonmc been hacking delmoi's account?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:55 AM on April 8, 2007

Yes, passing off another's work as your own is very low. It's practically PLAGIARISM!

Yes it is. In fact I said in my second comment that I found the some of the other stuff more objectionable. (I didn't use the WORD plagiarism, sorry).

Has jonmc been hacking delmoi's account?

I have contrary opinions every once in a while :P. It's rare that I'm the only one with a particular view.
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on April 8, 2007

CC works are still copyrighted.

True, but it's possible to CC your work in such a way as to allow commercial duplication of your work and for it not to be a copyright violation, which was my point. If the creator of the original comic licensed it as Attribution only, this would have been totally legal IF THIS T-SHIRT GUY HAD ATTRIBUTED IT.

Since he didn't, it's a violation of copyright. And even if the original comic had been CC Attribution licensed, this would be a violation of copyright AND the CC license since it was never attributed.
posted by MythMaker at 11:16 AM on April 8, 2007

That was supposed to be
CC works are still copyrighted.
posted by MythMaker at 11:18 AM on April 8, 2007

The guys a hack and a prick and a liar. Lots and lots of people are, especially folks that sell things.

But I'm with delmoi on the plagiarism bit, here. For some reason, that term doesn't work for this, not in the sense I know that word and hear it used.

*shrug*

It's all really, really stupid comic art. I'm amazed anybody would want to rip that crap off.
posted by teece at 12:47 PM on April 8, 2007

Sheesh. The guy traced the original drawing, signed it with his own name, made multiple copies and sold them for profit (some copies still available I think), all without acknowledging the original work in any way. Not only that, but perusal of his other stuff turns up other examples of the same trick - it's possible that his entire catalogue is made up of nothing but ripped-off material. I'm not sure I even want to know how it is possible to not see that as plagiarism, even if you really really don't like webcomics.
posted by motty at 1:53 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure I even want to know how it is possible to not see that as plagiarism, even if you really really don't like webcomics.

Motty: I did see plagiarism in most of that stuff, just not the one specific image.
posted by delmoi at 2:45 PM on April 8, 2007

So, what would make it artistic plagiarism? You can put one over the other and the lines match up! There are a few missing elements and the speech bubble is in a different spot. The punchline is exactly the same, the composition is the same, and it's still displayed as a funny drawing -- same intent, same form. This isn't music where I can pay a fee to perform someone else's work, which is pretty much what this is -- one person performing his approximation of another's work.

Assuming we're all talking about that Purple Pussay comic, I really don't see how this can't be considered plagiarism. This isn't a difference of opinion issue! It's like arguing with someone about whether something is red, only to determine later that they're colorblind.
posted by mikeh at 3:19 PM on April 8, 2007

You guys are missing delmoi's point — yes, the dude totally ripped off that other dude's image for profit. Nobody disagrees with that part. Delmoi (and others) just don't think the word "plagiarism" is the best word for it.
posted by blasdelf at 8:16 PM on April 8, 2007

I think copyright infringement would be a good term.
posted by IronLizard at 9:08 PM on April 8, 2007

Well, depending on the jurisdiction, it could also be violation of Kelly and Dirge's moral rights or droit d'auteur.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:20 PM on April 8, 2007

In case anyone's still reading this thread:

A mention on Kristopher Straub's "Starslip Crisis"
posted by rifflesby at 11:05 AM on April 9, 2007

You guys are missing delmoi's point — yes, the dude totally ripped off that other dude's image for profit. Nobody disagrees with that part. Delmoi (and others) just don't think the word "plagiarism" is the best word for it.

Yes, but they have no idea what plagiarism is. And then when they are called on that they continue to make their point, loudly. That is where the comedey is.
posted by Artw at 11:14 AM on April 9, 2007

Hey, just today, the webcomic PvP plagarized (or homaged, or what-have-you) the same thing.
posted by MythMaker at 3:50 PM on April 9, 2007

That's not plagiarism, that's just Scott Kurtz' vacuous sense of humor.
posted by mek at 5:59 PM on April 9, 2007

And like a cornered rat, Todd Goldman is now resorting to out-and-out libel, calling Kelly a "pedophile."

I have yet to find a truly original piece of art by Goldman. Literally every shirt or gallery "piece" has been stolen from an original source.

Delmoi - do you feel foolish yet? Because it's way overdue.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:37 PM on April 9, 2007

WOW.

What is about the Internet that makes people refuse to admit it when they've clearly made a mistake?

Delmoi, grab a pair, and give it up. Your position is indefensible, it makes you look like a total moron, and you are only making things worse.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:12 PM on April 9, 2007

Looks like Goldman;'s "Goodbye Kitty" is also plaigarized from the old NEC / Apple / XWindows program "Neko".
posted by anthill at 10:17 PM on April 9, 2007

Schmorky's real name is Dave Kelly? I feel strangely disappointed by that knowledge.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:26 AM on April 10, 2007

Hey, just today, the webcomic PvP plagarized (or homaged, or what-have-you) the same thing.

Kurtz's use was intentional. In case anybody missed the blog entry.
posted by antifuse at 12:45 PM on April 10, 2007

I don't know it this instance counts as "plagiarism", but it, along with MANY of the examples at the D&G site, definitely make Goldman look like a pathetic idea thief, a hack and—because he's making a bundle of cash on "original" art and t-shirt sales—a fraud.

Here's hoping this completely discredits him, and that his shirts are burned en masse.
posted by Down10 at 3:28 PM on April 10, 2007

...and this is why the "art world" is full of crap.
posted by Snyder at 4:46 PM on April 10, 2007

Update from the news page of Penny Arcade; it seems that Goldman is now trying to sue Fleen for negative articles about him which discuss the whole controversy. This after calling call Dave Kelly, the very person he ripped off, a pedophile.

To quote Gabe "This sort of legal bulldogging is especially lame after Todd’s initial reaction to the story. If you want to play the arrogant asshole and call people pedophiles I respect that [...] the only rule is if you can’t take it, don’t fucking dish it out."
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:07 PM on April 24, 2007

Mike Tyndall has been maintaining a page detailing all of the striking similarities between Todd Goldman's "art" and the original work of legitimate artists.

The image for which Goldman attracted a substantial amount of press and fame and upon which he built his profitable David And Goliath Tees company--his "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them" work--was apparently partially copied from the portfolio of Chip Wass.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:27 PM on April 24, 2007