Plagiarism?

[Leperdoctor]

Just wondering...what ComicGenesis' policy on plagiarism is?

I was searching through all the web comics (wow, there are some real beauts!!) when I came across a web comic that was, most definitely, stolen from another author. This other author does not post his work on ComicGenesis, but he has kept his web comic going for over three years and I have been following it for the entire time.

The only difference between the actual web comic and the stolen version is the text. It's been erased and new words have been placed in the speech bubbles. The format of the web site has been completely copied... the 'artist' insists that he is not liable for a lawsuit because he claims in several places that it is not his artistry and that he posts these works out of spite for the real author, to show how horrible his drawings are, and to mock the storylines the artist came up with, which apparently 'suck'. He claims that if he drew this badly, he would shoot himself.

Even if this isn't plagiarism (the artistry is stolen and altered, and posted as the thief's own webcomic- it's a fine line, so I'm uncertain as to whether this would be considered art theft or not), I would be horrified if someone took my webcomic and bastardized it in this fashion. This is a very cruel thing to do, and in several areas the individual outright mocks the original artists works, tearing them apart from every angle.

Also, I apologize if this is the wrong section to post this topic in, but I didn't see any other area where this might have been able to fit.

[Siabur]

Plagerism means taking someone elses works and saying they are your own. What you seem to have found can be concidered parody.

[Americangothic]

images can be used for parody according to US copyright law-- and that is just about it. If the original artist chooses, they can file suit against this person and the "parody" issue can be brought into court.

Example: the famous Walt Disney sex cartoons. They make fun of Walt and his product.

This discussion has happened before-- there is more info in the archives.

[The Neko]

I'm willing to bet this is about Dominic Durgan yet again.

[LibertyCabbage]

I'm willing to bet this is about Dominic Durgan yet again.

Heh, yeah, I picked that up right away too.

There's a good discussion about the issue (and Dominic Durgan in particular) in this thread.

[Ray77]

I'm willing to bet this is about Dominic Durgan yet again.

you got it

I would'nt say plagiarism, i would say defamatory for the artist. Even if he say that's only a parody there's limit between a parody and simply laughing and insulting someone.

I don't know for ComicGenesis, but from what i saw, it would be enought to close an account on other service. When i checked on the Terms of Service of CG, i did'nt found anything about it

[The Neko]

I'd say it's more of a détournement.

[Black Sparrow]

Parody is parody. Even if we don't like it, CG is based in the USA, and that's "free speech or we'll dump your tea" country.

[Dave Against The Machine]

I'm all for parodies. Sure, rip the comic’s heart out of ya like. But damn it, draw it yourself. Don't just copy paste someone else’s work that they put blood and tears into and just defacing it. Why don’t I go out and find a famous painting, and parody it by just spray painting something on it. Gah, it just disturbs me.

[Rkolter]

I suspect that if someone really wanted to press the issue, Dominic Durgan would probably fall outside parody because of the sheer amount of actual physical material lifted for the purposes of parody.

However, that someone would have to be the copyright owner or someone legally acting on the owner's behalf, not just a fan.

[Leperdoctor]

Okies, I gotcha. Yeah, this would be about Dominic Durgan. Again. *dies* I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was kicking a dead horse, but I've been following the actual web comic for over three years and the artist puts a lot of time and effort into his web comic. I could underatand a parody, but this isn't a parody- this is a mockery, and I found it really offensice. <.<

I e-mailed the artist of Dominic Deegan, and he replied to say that it's best just to ignore people like that. Thank you for all your replies, and for the link to the other topic where it's discussed in full.

[Starline]

I'm willing to bet this is about Dominic Durgan yet again.

you got it

I would'nt say plagiarism, i would say defamatory for the artist. Even if he say that's only a parody there's limit between a parody and simply laughing and insulting someone.

He's insulting the work, not the artist personally. And if laughing and insulting someone were illegal all those celebrity gossip blogs, magazines, and tv shows would have been taking down ages ago. Hell, most of the country would have been arrested in high school for that.

[Noise Monkey]

He's insulting the work, not the artist personally.

That is probably open for debate, at least.

[Starline]

He's insulting the work, not the artist personally.

That is probably open for debate, at least.

Yes, I suppose.

[The Neko]

Well, if you assume that a faulty product is the result of a faulty author, then by extension, yes, it would be an attack on the author.

I think that using the original art, in this case, is actually better than re-drawing it, since there's a more indexical relationship to what he's making fun of. It has more power to it, and it's much more direct. It ends up becoming a narrative project, much like Dinosaur Comics, where you have to work with existing artwork to create a new story or new writing.

This kind of thing isn't new. "Culture jamming" has been around for a long time. And before that, there was photo-montage.

[Spqrblues]

If it were someone doing this with my art, if they used the entirety of my art just with different words (as it's been described here), I'd sue their heart-patterned underdrawers off for going beyond the legal limits of fair use and parody.

(Now, if they asked me first, perhaps we'd reach an agreement. I figure, when I have fanfic, or even mockfic, I'll have arrived.)

But it's not my fight, and the creator of the work has apparently resigned himself to it, and I don't feel inclined to argue against the "that's just how it is" camp on someone else's behalf. Unless it were someone whose work I felt strongly about, a friend, etc. etc.

- an old warhorse who's been on both sides

[Killbert-Robby]

Heh, sounds like me when I first started making Killbert by editing Dilbert comics........ I got in trouble for that, so yeah I'd say there's plagarism there.

[Berg]

Don't know about "plagiarism", but it certainly is copyright infringement if he lifted the images directly. Copy+paste is copy+paste, I'm pretty sure the "parody" defense would get him nowhere if legal action were to be taken.

[Black Sparrow]

Probably, but, as said above, the original artist has to be the one to take the action. Mookie has a reputation for ignoring just about everything and everyone else.

[IVstudios]

Copyright infringement makes me cross-eyed every friggin' time!