• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HOMAGE (AFTER . . . ) COVERS - CLASSIC ILLUSTRATORS GET SWIPED

Started by llll-migration,

329 posts in this topic

Speciman-migration

Speciman-migration

Posted
Posted

: Amazing Stories v. Creepy, David Merryweather said:

Without knowing more details, I'd be inclined to say none of the above and rule out coincidence as there are too many points of similarity.

 

First off, we need to establish that the publishing arena is different than fine arts, because paid commissions for publication are collaborative. If a publisher requests a knock-off (copy) or homage (attributed copy), then he is responsible for clearing the rights if needed. If an artist knowingly copies another artist's work without informing the publisher then the legal liability shifts (my opinion).

 

IOW, we cannot know the intent of the second artist without knowing the purpose of the commissioned commercial work. Warren may have requested a knock-off of the earlier cover to highlight a contemporary retelling of a story that appeared in that issue of Amazing Stories. In fact, it may have been a homage to the late Frank R. Paul's work given Creepy's fan-base.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but theft can't be assumed without knowing the rights status of the earlier Frank R. Paul painting in question. Was permission requested or even needed by the latter artist & publisher? Given that over 40 years had passed (Paul passed away in '63), it's entirely possible that the rights to the original work had reverted to the artist and permission may have been sought from his estate (with compensation). Did public domain apply?

 

Swipes are usually less obvious and involve "borrowing" portions of an earlier artist's work due to rushed deadlines or competency factors. Technically, swiping is theft, but if sufficient variations exist between the works to avoid legal challenges, the second painting would be judged a new, original work.

 

Homages are usually given the attribution "After (fill in the blank)" to differentiate a close or exact copy from the original, but in the case of paintings recreated in a different style this is a gray area, especially in respect to familiar work. For instance, in recreating the Mona Lisa any attribution would seem arrogant due to the public familiarity with the original.

 

My long-winded 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing