Fascinating read

[daikins]

Yeah, that really started to hit the fan when Mack's Avengers cover was shown to be plagiarized from a photo. That's where it really gets bad: all the pros coming to the defense of someone who broke a major rule of using photo reference- "you have to chance it enough so it's not plagiarism". It's not a clear cut law. Some say 10%, some more. The sad thing is that many pros are convinced that he did nothing wrong and it was fair use. One pro who was a teacher came out and said he did nothing wrong. Yikes. Poor students! Even if you don't get sued (and you probably won't) it's still embarrassing and it shows that you can't be bothered enough to take your own damn photos. Cover art doesn't even have the excuse that interior art has- that you have sooo much art to create, you speed things up by finding ref pix through google mages.
Anyway, I'm speaking about this as a professional illustrator. If you're an aspiring artist who likes working n a realistic manor, take your own darn photos, or make damn sure you chance them enough. How much is enough? That's your call (unfortunately). I've used existing photos before for my illustrations (and still occasionally do). There have been times that I've thought "oooh, maybe that's too close". It happens, and it shouldn't, and I've tried pretty darn hard to avoid that sort of thing ever happening again. Not sure what Mack was thinking, but on the Avengers cover, it was too close. I hope he learned and can move on.

[joefixit2]

Originally Posted by BeerNutta

Wonder what Mack is thinking?

I am sure more artists do it than people think, they just tweak the pics enough to not make it so obvious.

[Underdog07]

It was an interesting read (I could not get through all of it though).

One question I am left with is, who had the time to delve so deep into this issue and (if true) why did they create multiple accounts to "converse" with themselves and support their own position? Strange - as it almost seemed like a vendetta - wish I had that kind of time on my hands.

[BeerNutta]

Originally Posted by joefixit2

I am sure more artists do it than people think, they just tweak the pics enough to not make it so obvious.

I was more commenting on the fact, I wonder what mack must think about 16 pages dedicated to calling him a tracer!

[liquid havok]

Ask Greg Land...he would know what that's like. I'm sure he could teach a seminar on being called a tracer...

[Rocket]

Wow what a read. Really casts Mack in a new light for this comic devotee

[Scottsdale Saint]

Originally Posted by liquid havok

Ask Greg Land...he would know what that's like. I'm sure he could teach a seminar on being called a tracer...

Yeah he could...unfortuantely he was rewarded by landing a gig on one of Marvel's top selling books. Go figure. The shame of it is that he actually is a very solid penciler if you go look at the early stuff he did for DC. It was only in his later stuff at Crossgen that the photoreferencing became so blatant.

I got a sketch from him a couple of times at SDCC and he's so paralyzed creatively that he has to look at photo reference even when doing a head shot. I've seen about a half dozen Catwoman head shots and everyone of them is exactly the same...they're all very nice, but almost photo-identical. Too bad...

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by daikins

Yeah, that really started to hit the fan when Mack's Avengers cover was shown to be plagiarized from a photo. That's where it really gets bad: all the pros coming to the defense of someone who broke a major rule of using photo reference- "you have to chance it enough so it's not plagiarism". It's not a clear cut law. Some say 10%, some more. The sad thing is that many pros are convinced that he did nothing wrong and it was fair use. One pro who was a teacher came out and said he did nothing wrong. Yikes. Poor students! Even if you don't get sued (and you probably won't) it's still embarrassing and it shows that you can't be bothered enough to take your own damn photos. Cover art doesn't even have the excuse that interior art has- that you have sooo much art to create, you speed things up by finding ref pix through google mages.
Anyway, I'm speaking about this as a professional illustrator. If you're an aspiring artist who likes working n a realistic manor, take your own darn photos, or make damn sure you chance them enough. How much is enough? That's your call (unfortunately). I've used existing photos before for my illustrations (and still occasionally do). There have been times that I've thought "oooh, maybe that's too close". It happens, and it shouldn't, and I've tried pretty darn hard to avoid that sort of thing ever happening again. Not sure what Mack was thinking, but on the Avengers cover, it was too close. I hope he learned and can move on.

Yeah, there's certain rules when it comes to photos. Lots of artists use them, but there's do's and dont's. I have a much bigger issue with what he's doing with other people's comic art. Tracing someone else's comic art and calling it yours is very clear cut..you don't do it.

Originally Posted by Underdog07

It was an interesting read (I could not get through all of it though).

One question I am left with is, who had the time to delve so deep into this issue and (if true) why did they create multiple accounts to "converse" with themselves and support their own position? Strange - as it almost seemed like a vendetta - wish I had that kind of time on my hands.

Hehe, yeah I certainly didn't make it through the whole thing, but it was interesting. There was no doubt some people enjoying the attack a bit TOO much. They smelled blood and dove in licking their chops. Human nature I suppose. The thing's the thread actually revealed though were no less astounding.

I was never that familiar with Mack's work, but I'd certainly heard of him. Most comic guys have. This evidence puts everything he's ever done into question now. Since he's been doing this since the earliest work, you have to wonder if everything he's done has been traced/copied. I've never seen an example as extreme as this New Avengers book before.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by Scottsdale Saint

Yeah he could...unfortuantely he was rewarded by landing a gig on one of Marvel's top selling books. Go figure. The shame of it is that he actually is a very solid penciler if you go look at the early stuff he did for DC. It was only in his later stuff at Crossgen that the photoreferencing became so blatant.

I got a sketch from him a couple of times at SDCC and he's so paralyzed creatively that he has to look at photo reference even when doing a head shot. I've seen about a half dozen Catwoman head shots and everyone of them is exactly the same...they're all very nice, but almost photo-identical. Too bad...

Very true. that's something I often point out. Land is a GOOD artist that is brought down (in my eyes) by the photo reffing. He can draw comics the old fashion way and do it well, but chooses not to. Oh well. After a while, you become a slave to reffing and lose some of that natural ability.

That was the other story in all of this Marvel's reaction was lousy. They still published the book knowing what it was.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by punisher129

Very interesting topic.

How can Mack justify all that swiping of other peoples work?



---PUNISHER KILLS THE MARVEL UNIVERSE---

He came up with a story that said that Echo has the ability to copy powers so he intentionally drew her the way Adam would to show that....or something.... it was weak sauce and clearly something he came up with in an effort to diffuse the situation. Bendis also had some weird thing about the Skrulls as a partial explanation. Trying to help his friend out I guess. It's worse than just admitting you got busted in my eyes.