Plagiarism? Or "homage"?

[SNIKT!-migration]

I've noticed a trend among some artists selling their wares on eBay lately. Many of them will do homage blank cover sketches and sell them. Now, personally I don't have a huge problem with it as long as they state it's a homage or who the original artist was. However, I also wouldn't pay to have someone essentially trace an image onto a blank cover either. I'm not too bad with a pencil and pen either and can do that myself for free.

 

I stumbled upon this seller today who normally sells "homage" or photo referenced/traced sketch covers on eBay. I looked through his items and what he has sold and noticed some were labeled as homages or were obviously referenced from movies, however, there are some like this Wolverine blank that he is trying to pass off as his own original artwork, when a quick google search turns up the original Chris Bachalo piece on CAF.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wolverine-1-2014-Blank-Variant-original-WOLVERINE-sketch-Signed-with-COA-/321481715677

 

 

 

Original Bachalo drawing

 

 

 

As an artist myself, I know it's common practice to "borrow" ideas, but I think this is a bit much.

 

So what do you guys think? As fellow collectors where do you draw the line between plagiarism and homage?

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

I consider an homage to be done when the new artist recreates a "classic" image (or cover). The image is classic and iconic and the new piece is obviously taking reference from it. (I've got many of these in my commissions folder)

 

Plagiarism would be finding a cool convention sketch on CAF (nice design. cool image, whatever), copying it and trying to pass it off as your own. That is what I think is being done with the Wolverine images you posted.

[Pete Marino]

I consider an homage to be done when the new artist recreates a "classic" image (or cover). The image is classic and iconic and the new piece is obviously taking reference from it. (I've got many of these in my commissions folder)

 

Plagiarism would be finding a cool convention sketch on CAF (nice design. cool image, whatever), copying it and trying to pass it off as your own. That is what I think is being done with the Wolverine images you posted.

 

+1

 

Plus homages usually say something like "After Byrne" in the sig, just to make sure everyone knows exactly what it is.

[Catwoman_Fan]

There's a bunch of pieces like this on ebay.

 

Just looking now, I see a Budd Root and Adam Hughes that are obviously plagiarized. They usually don't sell for much. I suspect, and hope, that these artists don't realize what they are doing is a bit dishonest.

[Dr. Balls]

So what do you guys think? As fellow collectors where do you draw the line between plagiarism and homage?

 

I've only done two homage pieces of artwork (one sold, one given away for the Xmas exchange here), but I've always felt it was appropriate to give the original artist some sort of shout out under your signature, mostly out of respect - but also I wouldn't want someone to think that I created something that I didn't. It's a shame that a lot of artists are okay with passively misrepresenting their style of work or abilities.

 

To me, the small credit on those pieces (to Bolland and FM) signify that the intent was to pay homage, not to plagiarize. I don't think I'd buy a piece of artwork from an artist that did not call out the original creator.

 

 

[Eric Seffinga]

Sometimes they are neither.

 

Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own.

 

Homage is paying tribute, and in my opinion it is generally an artist working in their own style, but incorporating the iconic elements of the original composition. Pose, lighting, etc. while also bringing something of their own to the work. This can come in the guise of substituting props in the image, substituting characters in the same poses. And in some extreme examples an artist can take on another artists style to a certain degree to complete the illusion, so long as some other elements in the work are altered and it is not simply a copy.

 

 

 

A copy is tracing or simply drawing your best attempt at someone else's work without intentional alteration. I say intentional, because some people don't have the ability to copy well, so there may be linework and details in the drawing that vary, but not done intentionally so. Just poorer copies. Put the copy out there without attribution to the original artist, and it can become plagiarism. Put it out there with the attribution, and it is an attributed copy of the original.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own.

 

And no self-respecting plagiarism discussion would be complete without a Rob Liefeld example. Or two. Or three.

 

Like you said - a homage pays tribute, and I think when it's paying tribute to a classic pose or illustration, but done in the artist's own style - it's easy to make the distinction between the styles.

 

There's a lot of grey area in the topic - easier for some to see than others, which I suppose is why there's so much discussion.

[AlexanderM]

My general attitude is that Marvel are the biggest plagiators of all time. Plagiators might be too strong a word so don't take it too litterally...

 

But it seems Marvel have looked at what else is popular and made their own version...

 

FF came to be because of some DC hero groups..

 

And of course Marvel is the company that made their own (cooler?) version of Donald Duck.

 

Took established hero and made their own version... and, to Marvel's credit, made it better than the original.

 

And so on and on.

[Junkdrawer]

Thor is an original Marvel creation right?

[Pete Marino]

My general attitude is that Marvel are the biggest plagiators of all time. Plagiators might be too strong a word so don't take it too litterally...

 

But it seems Marvel have looked at what else is popular and made their own version...

 

FF came to be because of some DC hero groups..

 

And of course Marvel is the company that made their own (cooler?) version of Donald Duck.

 

Took established hero and made their own version... and, to Marvel's credit, made it better than the original.

 

And so on and on.

 

Don't forget Doom Patrol / X-Men.....

[Matches_Malone]

There's also Deathstroke before Deadpool , but Man-Thing before Swamp Thing.

[vodou]

There's also Deathstroke before Deadpool , but Man-Thing before Swamp Thing.

Theodore Sturgeon's IT before The Heap, before Man-Thing, before Swamp Thing

[ashrael]

Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own.

 

And no self-respecting plagiarism discussion would be complete without a Rob Liefeld example. Or two. Or three.

 

Like you said - a homage pays tribute, and I think when it's paying tribute to a classic pose or illustration, but done in the artist's own style - it's easy to make the distinction between the styles.

 

There's a lot of grey area in the topic - easier for some to see than others, which I suppose is why there's so much discussion.

 

Ha, so that is why Cable is swinging into battle! (It really makes no sense for his character.)

 

http://adlo.dreamers.com/estudios/comp_perez.htm