The modern comics universe has had such a different take on G1, one that's significantly represented by the Generations toys, so they share a forum. A modern take on a Real Cybertronian Hero. Currently starring Generations toys, IDW "The Transformers" comics, MTMTE, TF vs GI Joe, and Windblade. Oh wait, and now Skybound, wheee!
Dominic wrote:As for the question of homages, duping iconic poses is right on the line of plagiarizing. Look at the UK exclusive cover to "All Hail Megatron" #1. The artist credited Brian "Killing Joke" Bolland. Figuroa and Khanna dupe similarly iconic covers, and do not credit the original artists. (The Adams/Byrne "X-Men" tribute cover comes to mind here.)
And again, there are different levels of homages and as such are not necessarily on the same line as plagiarism. Like I said before, with some homages, I believe the credit is implied if it's an iconic enough image that the audience would recognize it, such is common with tribute or parody covers. Perhaps the artist might give credit anyway though. Although if a piece looks nearly identical to another piece and/or isn't meant as a homage/tribute/parody, that's probably something that needs to be credited either way. Just because an artist uses something like similar pose to homage (or perhaps they may have actually drew a similar pose unintentionally) with out crediting another artist doesn't necessarily make it plagiarism though.
Dominic wrote:Dude, I was kidding. You should hear the voice mails I leave some of my friends. (One of them has called me "a walking internet shock image". )
I know you were, but I think you went too far with the joke.
One of them has called me "a walking internet shock image".
That is remarkably apt. Although I'd liken you more to one of those 'test your vision' type videos that then flashes a horrifying image across the screen after lulling the audience into a false sense of security.
I agree that artists should always cite their sources if they are directly referencing another artist's work, iconic or otherwise. If only to acknowledge their appreciation and respect for the source, and to alert readers to the other artist's presumably good work - if they like an artist enough to reference their work, they should be happy to point readers in that artist's direction.
onslaught86 wrote:I agree that artists should always cite their sources if they are directly referencing another artist's work, iconic or otherwise. If only to acknowledge their appreciation and respect for the source, and to alert readers to the other artist's presumably good work - if they like an artist enough to reference their work, they should be happy to point readers in that artist's direction.
And yet there are a ton of examples of cover homages in which many artists do not cite a previous piece. Are all of these artists who don't cite in the wrong, or does the credit just go with out saying?
Well, yeah. If I saw those covers and didn't know they were in homage, I'd assume they were original concepts. Sure, it's partly a comic industry injoke, but unless it's actually unintentional or it really is that much of a cliche - I'd certainly consider the anguished hero with a dead loved one in their arms enough of a cliche, since it predates the comic book medium - I'd agree with Dom that sources should be cited.
*shrug* It's just my opinion. Personally, I'd rather see the cited source so I can go ahead and look up the original cover for comparison. The contrast between the homage covers is half the fun, and without knowing it's a homage cover, it kinda spoils it.
Just letting ya'll know I agree with Sparky about my joke a few weeks back. It was pretty filthy. (The fact I recently referred a youngster to this forum played a role in my reconsidering of the point. I edited the offending post.) Mea culpa.
I will however stay true to form, and disagree with Sparky on a matter of basic principle. While Sparky is objectively right that unsigned homages are common, (more now than in the past), I disagree that the commonality makes this okay.
Human error is one thing. Simply forgetting to credit a homage or incorrectly crediting somebody is one thing. But, I am willing to bet that such errors are fairly rare.
Dominic wrote:I will however stay true to form, and disagree with Sparky on a matter of basic principle. While Sparky is objectively right that unsigned homages are common, (more now than in the past), I disagree that the commonality makes this okay.
Human error is one thing. Simply forgetting to credit a homage or incorrectly crediting somebody is one thing. But, I am willing to bet that such errors are fairly rare.
I would be curious to know what those in comic book industry have to say on the subject. Maybe they know something we don't. If it was wrong not to cite a source with a homage, you'd think someone who did the original piece would be complaining (or maybe even looking into taking legal action) if they saw a homage and they weren't credited. And yet... It is such a common thing with out incident.
In legal terms, there would be a question of proving damages.
But, the rule is more a question of manners. In other words, it is incredibly rude to do a "homage" without crediting the original inspiration, so one ought not do such a thing. This is much the same as, "one ought not flatulate at the dinner table or chew with their mouth open".
In practical terms, one can do such things. But, it is really not very nice.
I would imagine that older pros would be more concerned with "manners" than the younger guys.
Dominic wrote:But, the rule is more a question of manners. In other words, it is incredibly rude to do a "homage" without crediting the original inspiration, so one ought not do such a thing.
Still don't see any of the original artist complaining about it. And one might argue it is a compliment. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all. But even imitations can be original in their own right.
