On Alan Gardner's site The Daily Cartoonist .com I read that the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists released a statement calling the practice of plagiarism damaging to the profession and the practice of reselling old cartoons with slight modifications is “just plain bad for both the art form and for business.” This, and the comments others made on this subject gave me pause to think about some basic assumptions I have always held about cartooning in this regard.
The first assumption is that these cartoonists were working for a general audience that did not include persons like myself with an extrordinary interest in their work.
The second assumption is that they are working hard on a deadline. Some cartoonists were and are well paid, but most are less well compensated. This being the case cartoon and comic strip & comic book workers deserve some leniency for the occasional 'swipe' in my estimation.
The final assumption is that the vast majority of readers who the syndicates and newspaper editors are targeting casual readers who think of the work while they read, then move on to the next thing.
In fact finding the occasional 'borrowing' or 'reuse' by a favorite can be a sort of treat, like sharing in inside joke with George Herriman, Walt Kelly, Hal Foster, Wally Wood or any other great talent; who for whatever reason needed to save some time. Dan DeCarlo is my favorite comic book artist, amazingly prolific and talented, he turned out a ton of work for decades, including these two covers:
 |
| Archie Gang TM © Respective
copyright/trademark holders. |
Although the similarities are obvious, so is the fact that the second cover was completely redrawn, so the question is: is there an ethical problem here in terms of the originality an editor or a reader may expect? Is there a time limit were ideas may be reused? If so who and where is the line drawn?
The problem I see with readers clammoring to point fingers and question cartoonist's work that doesn't suit their personal ideas of right and wrong, is it is impossible to know their motives. While the editor's motive is clearly to buy work that suits the purpose of the publication. In my view comments about a question as to a cartoonists improper copying or reuse of their own work can properly be brought to the editor's attention for her to deal with.
If someone chooses to take it instead to social media or message boards, this may be the only way they can see to express their discovery or unhappiness, however inappropriately. Or it may be for any other reason, perhaps sparked by the content of a cartoon, a cartoonist's percieved politics, or even personal feelings of being wronged or deprived of cartooning work by that cartoonist or editor. A crazy idea? Yes, but people do people have them as such.
 |
| Tumbleweeds by Tom K Ryan © Respective
copyright/trademark holders. |
When the above strip appeared in 1967, nearly every adult in the United States understood this gag to be an 'homage' to Jack Benny and Phil Harris' runing gag over twenty years on radio. While it is clearly 'stealing' another artist's work, no one would be offended or call Ryan out for this strip. So where is the tipping point? Why is one case permissible but another unforgivable? If the answer lies in ethical standards, perhaps it may be clearly defined. However if it is fodder for random sniveling and political hatchet jobs it does not deserve serious attention in my estimation.
I got to
Staple! in Austin a day late this year. My pal Sam Hurt invited me to come up
to hang out, but I confused the date and missed the busy Saturday. All worked
out well though, I managed to sell some stuff on Sunday, talk my project up to
a lot of artists, with a subset of attractive female type artists; the day
passed nicely. Austin is a happy hunting ground for me because every other man
in San Antonio has some magical aspects too him, but Austin just has a lot of
men who remember being magical in youth but now their only power is their
income.
