8 ms·
New allegations of plagiarism against Roy Lichtenstein
- bsenftner 4y agoNo it is not stealing - Roy found a completely separate market for the works, acquired his own marketing within the art world, and was successful selling into that market. Comic books, as much as I love them and have been a collector for decades, via salaries purchased that art from the comic artists, and it is the failure of the comic publishers to realize or capitalize on their potential art world value. Roy Lichtenstein made that comic art have the art world value via his shows and marketing of his work. If not for Roy, comics and comic art may have have transcended the ghetto it lived and nearly died, if not for VFX. edit: you down voters are allowing the emotional argument get to you. Think this logically. Realize the time this occurred. And realize the legal positions of a successful fine artist and that of a "scummy comic book publisher" and there is no contest, the fine artist will win every time - in our culture at that time.
- sclarisse 4y agoThis sounds like the rationale for some scammy NFT.
- bsenftner 4y agoCompletely separate markets, and the art was already sold. Look at the situation logically and legally. The comic artists got screwed by the comic book publishers twice: once when they sold their work and a second time by the publishers not pursuing Roy, but chances are Roy had more legal resources than they and that's what stopped them. Realize that before our "modern time" comic book publishers were shoulder to shoulder with pornography as far as the public opinion of them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bitwize 4y agoThe art world, largely, concerns itself with scammy NFTs, that happen to take the form of physical artifacts.
- schneems 4y agoThe line between stealing and not isn’t defined by talent.
- ghaff 4y agoIn art generally, but maybe pop art in particular, there are a lot of examples of art getting at least very near the line of imitating another artist's style or even specific works. See also the Obama Hope poster. Or Andy Warhol. At the boundaries, it's often going to be a close call.
- clcaev 4y ago> No it is not stealing - Roy found a completely separate market for the works, acquired his own marketing within the art world, and was successful selling into that market Copyright provides exclusive rights to creators for derivative works. Just because that derivative is in a new market does not absolve one of copyright obligations. It seems someone is claiming a kind of fair use? that argument rings hollow, I don't see these paintings as transformative. I wonder if anyone took him or his estate to court for copyright violations.
- iamben 4y agoIsn't this what Richard Prince has been doing for years, though? (And, for right or wrong, winning?)
- lozenge 4y agoAs the article says, there's no copyright issue. These reproductions aren't traced - they're redrawn with a new color scheme and new elements. This is like taking a recipe and writing it in new words and changing some of the ingredient, which makes it not copyright infringement.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoRecipes are not copyrightable, images are. Not the same thing at all.
- mihaic 4y agoIt sounds to me like you heard this bullshit argument from someone before and they managed to convince you. It's almost a trope in the art world, and the fact that many unoriginal artists use it has made it a usable argument by simple repetition. It might not be "stealing", but something ok it also is not.
- bsenftner 4y agoActually, I've worked on 12 separate 7 hour art history documentaries, have a sister that is a professional fine artist, and have a legal interest in these areas via ownership of some nice art.
- talideon 4y agoAnd yet in spite of that, you seem to be ignoring how copyright works.
- nemo44x 4y agoEven if there was a copyright claim (not convinced there was), the owner of the copyright (not the artist as they sold that to the publisher) never took action. Don’t you have to defend your copyrights in order for them to be considered not public domain?
- singpolyma3 4y agoNo. You need to sue in order for anything to happen. Laws do not enforce themselves. But no, you do not need to do anything to be considered "not public domain" but rather the opposite.
- ghaff 4y ago>Don’t you have to defend your copyrights in order for them to be considered not public domain No. That's more a matter of trademark law. In general (IANAL) I assume an artist's estate could decide to start suing people even though the artist didn't. Though there may be some other wrinkles to them actually collecting money.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoNone of your arguments seem to support your thesis that “it is not stealing”. I personally fail to see any logical connection between them.
- krisoft 4y ago> No it is not stealing Let's assume you are right about everything you are writing. It still does not support the "It is not stealing" narrative. It is supporting the "This is how Roy got away with stealing" narrative.
- gizmo 4y agoHe could have made comic book style art without ripping off the original artists’ work. But he didn’t, because making original art is hard and copying art is easy. Additionally, as the article points out, the original artists were blocked from selling their own art as paintings because the publishers had the copyright and no interest in turning the comic book illustrators (lowly paid commodities) into respected artists.
- 542458 4y agoSo normally I’m on the side of the appropriating artist with discussions like these… I feel that remix, parody and repurposing is important even if it doesn’t align with the goals (financial or otherwise) of the original artist. But this type of Lichtenstein work never sat well with me. The transformation is extremely minimal - minor changes to the scene, a new cropping, and conversion from ink to painting. If I handed something like that in in school I’d get eviscerated in reviews (or worse!). I’d be curious for somebody more aware of art history to chime in in more detail that the article provides about how this is considered transformative. Also, it’s good that he was honest that his work appropriated, but it seems rude and maybe even deceptive to not credit the artist he was appropriating from. To be clear, Lichtenstein is a very capable artist, and can produce very beautiful work that is (as far as I can tell) highly original. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cap_de_Barcelona https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cap_de_Barcelona . I’m just not sure about the types of work shown in the article.
- ginko 4y agoHis versions also generally look worse than the original.
- bsenftner 4y agoA common misunderstanding of modern art is it's appearance has anything to do with the art. Modern art is a totem, a culture sign post, where the actual object of art is merely the milestone for the emergence of the idea. Before Roy's art comic books were actual trash, and he said "no they are not" and that is his cultural contribution. The value one sees in comic books and that medium today is largely thanks to Roy. But outside the formal art world this assessment is pretty much missing, which is part of the elitism of the art world.
- Narretz 4y agoThat's highly subjective. The distorted/incorrect perspective for example is a feature, not a shortcoming.
- 4y ago
- pg_bot 4y agoIf this were the music world, Lichtenstein would be drawn and quartered by the legal system. These are nearly identical works and even a moron in a hurry would think that they were by the same person.
- quadcore 4y agoNothing to do with visual art, you can steal from poor artists as much as you want, they wont put lawyers on your neck. Steal Leechtenstein work you'll see what happens.
- themaninthedark 4y agoQueen would like to have a word with Vanilla Ice
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoThe owners of the copyrights have to sue for that to happen. I assume they are owned by the comic publishers, whoever they are.
- jccalhoun 4y agoDid people at the time even knew that he "appropriated" the work of other artists? If Lichetenstein had done the bare minimum and cited his sources I would feel a lot better about his work.
- goto11 4y agoAt the time, comic books were not really considered art. Comic book illustrations were generally work-for-hire and the artists not credited even in the in original comic books (even today this is a sore point). Lichtenstein was considered at the level of Duchamp who took various everyday objects (most famously an urinal) and exhibited it as art, thereby turning it into art through context. Nobody at the time protested that he was plagiarizing the actual creators of the urinal. In my opinion Duchamp did make art, or at least a significant artistic statement which changed the perception of art forever. But Lichtenstein is really just an also-ran. And given the comic community long have been very conscious about the artistic merit of the genre, Lichtenstein's ("look what I found") just seem rather silly. But given the comic industry's continuing reluctance to credit (never mind paying) the original comic creators, I don't think Lichtenstein is a significant sinner in comparison.
- robocat 4y ago> Duchamp who took various everyday objects (most famously an urinal) Appropriately: appropriated without appropriate attribution from Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, apparently: a 1917 letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Susanne, translated: “One of my female friends who had adopted the masculine pseudonym Richard Mutt sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture.” R Mutt was identified as an artist living in Philadelphia, which is where she was living at the time. Duchamp said he had purchased the urinal from JL Mott Ironworks Company, adapting Mutt from Mott, but the company did not manufacture the model in the photograph the handwriting on the urinal matches the handwriting Von Freytag-Loringhoven used for her poems.
- candyman 4y agoSo what if I draw a the Mona Lisa and sell it? What if I draw some other painting but an obscure artist hanging in the same museum and sell that? What if I attribute the work as in “My drawing of the Mona Lisa” or “My drawing of this picture I saw by <painter>” What if my drawings look very different than the original? Does that matter?
- ajb 4y agoThe Mona Lisa was painted more than 500 years ago. Da Vinci died more than 500 years ago. It's out of copyright.
- rwmj 4y agoWhich the cartoon originals and the paintings would be if there was any fairness in the copyright system ...
- singpolyma3 4y agoI guess it depends what you are asking. In the eyes of international copyright law, attribution times not matter at all. Looking different or being transformative does not matter at all. These things may matter to some people, being transformative in some ways may matter to some local laws, and the Mona Lisa being too old to be under copyright matters a lot.
- andsoitis 4y agoPeople have made copies and reinterpretations of the Mona Lisa since the 16th century. Not sure what your point is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_replicas_and_reinterpretations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_replicas_and_reinter...
- Towaway69 4y agoIf you make a copy it would be called a forgery but only if you attempt to sell the copy.
- alpos 4y ago
- Narretz 4y agoHere's a flickr page by David Barsalou with Liechtenstein's works and their sources. Many of them are extremely blatant, way more than the examples in this article: https://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstei...
- sourthyme 4y agoWow I would hope some of these artists were benefited/compensated financially by Liechtenstein. This is sad if all this time they received no recognition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- swader999 4y agoWhat was stopping the original artists from producing copies of their work, or even copies of Lichtenstein's? That would have been the rebuttal I would have tried.
- _qua 4y agoWhat value do you think there is for a copy of a Lichtenstein which isn't from Lichtenstein?
- _Nat_ 4y agoWhy would any of these things be significantly valuable in the first place? Glancing at the artist's [article on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein ), it looks like some folks really liked his work and would pay a lot of money for it..? But, why?
- nemo44x 4y agoYou’re exactly right. What these comic book artists and their defenders are missing is that the comic book art is worthless. And especially at the time it was made was considered bottom of the barrel low culture that no adult that expected to be taken seriously would entertain. But what Lichtenstein did was transform cultural detritus into something considered beautiful and culturally relevant. High art by the people who decide what that is.
- throwaway290 4y agoIf this is plagiarism, then what do we call DallE output?
- Towaway69 4y agoProgress.
- greenthrow 4y agoLots of misunderstanding of art and Lichtenstein in this article and thread. We could play the same game with John Williams music as this article does with Lichtenstein's work. The reality is all art is far more derivative than the average person realizes. If you don't know that, you just aren't aware of the references.
- twoodfin 4y agoThere was an interesting SCOTUS case heard this term centered around these issues: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-warhol-image-is-fair-use-of-photograph-of-prince/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-w... The oral argument is worth a listen.
- Mizoguchi 4y ago"I worked like a dog on this stupid page and this guy has $20m to show for it. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be [funny].” People underestimate how hard is to sell something, particularly when it comes to art. It requires not only business and social skills, but access to a very exclusive network which many usually arrive by third party connections (relatives and friends) and just in very rare occasions by luck or by working like a dog.
- vrglvrglvrgl 4y ago[dead]
- itohohvf 4y ago[flagged]
- Towaway69 4y agoIt's advertising for the documentary it describes. So it's a paid piece and no advertising revenue needed.
- fenomas 4y agoA couple of times in recent years Neil Gaiman has criticized museums for talking about the comics Lichtenstein copied but not crediting the artists who drew them. E.g.: https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1459541191310069763 https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1459541191310069763 > Hey @MuseumModernArt. You mention the DC comic, SECRET LOVE #83, that Lichtenstein traced his Drowning Girl from. Wouldn’t it be better if you credited the human artist who drew it? His name was Tony Abruzzo. (MoMA updated their website shortly afterward to credit the artist.)
- swayvil 4y agoIf money wasn't at stake then this particular hair would never, ever get split. Nobody would care. From thin air comes torrents of manure. Desire is truly the root of bs.
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- quonn 4y agoWe accept photography as art, too without calling it stealing. Perhaps art is as much about selection and presentation as creation.
- carlosjobim 4y agoNo, and why do people insist on trying to redefine the word art to encompass everything and anything? If everything is art, then nothing is art. Is that the goal? To eradicate art from the world? If you take a photograph of another person's photograph and claim it as your own and sell it, you are stealing. Just as the "artist" discussed here.
- andsoitis 4y agoGood counter arguments from 2013: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20130717-pop-artist-or-copy-cat https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20130717-pop-artist-or-c...
- mypastself 4y agoLichtenstein mined existing comic book panels and painted them worse. If that’s too subjective of a statement, you could say he painted them in a more simplistic and machine-like fashion. The art world of the time thought that the very idea of emphasizing low-brow art’s disreputability was in itself high art. The art speculation world agreed, and Liechtenstein made nice bank, as did many speculators. What these claims fail to take into account is that the buyers never cared about the “source material”. If they did, 1960s romance comics would have a multi-million dollar market today. I don’t care for most of pop art, and certainly not Liechtenstein, but these types of allegations seem to deliberately misunderstand its appeal.
- alpos 4y agoApp developers have to deal with this every day. And it's call a free market in that context, I don't see the difference between that and art in this context. People straight up clone every good app that shows up on the app markets and you might as well make and sell templates for any good looking, well designed web site you own because someone is going to scrape it and do that for you if you don't. That is what we have to deal with in the software world all the time and any complaints there simply get a shrug and a "welcome to capitalism" from the more experienced developers. If it were stealing, the artists making the accusation could make their case in court or perhaps the companies could since they own the rights, but that also means the comic artists actually have no grounds for complaint, they sold their rights. You don't get to complain about the use of something you don't own anymore. I can understand the shock some of the comic artists must have had when discovering later in life that Lichtenstein had done this; but, their anger should be directed at the companies who gave them a bad deal as well as at themselves for accepting that raw deal and never looking for something better. For any actively working comic strip artists though, if you are aware someone is making 10x, 100x, 1000x off of very similar pieces based on your original work, you have no excuse to keep doing what you're doing. That person has demonstrated that you are wasting your time and giving up the rights to your work for pennies on the dollar compared to what your work could be worth. If you want to make millions too, the obvious thing to do is make a full sized image of anything you make for the comic strips and sell those in art galleries. If you can't do that under your current contracts, drop those contracts. You can always out compete copycats. You're the original, so you always have an edge there. And if you can't out compete Lichtenstein, then you must admit that he is doing something other than simply copying you. There's something he's got that people see as more valuable than just the image itself. Figure out what that is and do that too. By the way, even if your full sized images don't sell well, the fact that you are selling in art galleries gives you grounds to sue the guy if he keeps trying to copy your work. There were always ways to stop this guy or replicate his success, if any of those comic artists really wanted to. But they didn't start complaining until he was making a bunch more money than they were. That is just raw jealousy.
- 627467 4y agoThere's tons to hate in the Art (capital A) but this is not one of those things. Similar to High fashion where "stealing" and transformative action is recognized and accepted, in capital A art anything can be capitalized. For those saying that Roy did not substantially transform the originals: the fact we are having this discussion decades later is proof that it was hugely transformational. Did Roy prevent any of those artists he "stole" from doing what he did? Copyright is a silly "right" made up by emerging monopolistic hegemons to prevent others from doing what tbey did to achieve emerging hegemon status. Intellectual "property" is not a real thing. It's not even universal in time or geography.
- 32ahdg 4y ago> Did Roy prevent any of those artists he "stole" from doing what he did? The artists may have had a conscience that prevented them from stealing. For the few that didn't have a conscience, perhaps "Roy" had better connections than they did?
- sema4hacker 4y agoI'm not sure I can define the difference between plagiarism and appropriation, but I know it when I see it. Lichtenstein should have been ashamed of himself.
- 627467 4y agoIP-zealots believe that humans - as well as creators - need to be trained compliance officers or IP investigators/lawyers - or do it for the money needed to hire a lawyer. As a consumer if you see something and believe it is a copy of something else - and care about it - act on that belief and don't consume it. Not everyone needs to care about your belief system, and surely not wasting public good (judicial resources) enforcing your belief system
- zembozembo 4y ago[flagged]
- sdfghswe 4y agoSo a trade where things have no or little objective value but where items sell for millions, is full of scammers? What, next they're gonna tell us that crypto is a scam?