How about, "Call legal!"?
Meh. The New Yorker Cartoon contest almost never comes up with anything good. The backwards process of creating captions that explain the picture produces cartoons that have no reason to exist outside of the contest. The only good one I've seen was the dog talking to the shrink saying, "I can smell my own fear."
*University of Wisconsin
In the age of Bush Morality I see nothing wrong with this at all...not a thing wrong. And if you do then you are appeasing terrorists!!
Whoops -- thanks, Mark.
But what was the punch-line?
How can we shriek plagiarism! before we even read the punch-line?
I think the important question here is, "Does anyone really give a flying fuck?" That is what I wanna know...
It's an obvious homage, not a rip off. The cartoonist on the right was obviously looking right at the classic monster comic when he drew his New Yorker cartoon.
Jack Kirby's covers have been referenced or outright recreated ever since he revolutionized comic books starting in the 40s. Covers, poses, entire panels get regularly recreated as loving tributes.
In the world of comics, this is like drawing the Mona Lisa or David into your work. A total nonissue and I guess a slow news day.
On the bright side, there's an incredible new Jack Kirby coffee table art book out...
The guy who wrote that Kirby book, Mark Evanier, actually linked to this image a while ago and thought it was a hoot. With that in mind, it's pretty much a non-issue in my mind.
I doubt in this day and age that the New Yorker would publish a cartoon like this with the intent of ripping someone off, and think they could get away with it. Like the editors think they are the only ones who ever heard of Kirby.
It's a homage.
If you have a passing familiarity with comics from this era, the Kirby-style monster is immediately recognizable even if the specific cover isn't. This is clearly an homage; maybe the punchline could be the guy in the window phoning Larry Lessig.
Jack Kirby died back in 1994 at the age of 76?!?! Now I do feel old...
Thankfully at age 80 Steve Ditko is alive and kicking.
Stan Lee is 85. Stan Lee started as a teenager in 1939, became editor in 1941 and the rest is history...
If the character is immediately recognizable, or if the New Yorker mention's the source material, or the artist cites the source material: it is an homage.
If it is not immediately recognizable and they did not mention where they got it from- then it is plagiarism.
From what I can tell, Dan, this actually IS an homage. Not a single thing was changed except the man in the window, and since it has already been established that this marshmallow fiend is easily recognizable to comic-fans, I'm fairly certain the artist knew exactly what he was doing.
And this is coming from a professional illustrator who is extremely paranoid about plagiarism.
12 has it perfectly.
I'm just glad someone finally captured an image of the monster that's been living on the side of my building the last four nights.
Ooops -- gotta go -- time for another booty bump, and gotta find the teeth that fell out last night. And fold clothes...fold, fold, and fold.
Speaking of design plagiarism, here's a great blog on the subject:
Most art produced today, is one big hommage/rip-off. It's not reportage.
Besides which, that article is from the NY Post, which is barely more credible than the Enquirer.
it looks like a rip off to me.
oh and jack "captain america" kirby was the greatest american artist of all time.
Roy Lichtenstein never got busted for plagiarism:
Meh- that's homage. There's a more troubling story with David Mack:
, but that's probably of less general interest.
Not about this image, but if you haven't seen this:
Jack Kirby, bleh. Superheroes, bleh. The genius of comic art was Alex Kotzky's work on "Apartment 3-G" in the 1960s.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).