Slashdot Mirror
MIT Steals Comic Book Character
Merle writes "According to Horizon Comics MIT has stolen images from their comic Radix in a proposal to the US Army as an attempt to gain funds to foot a project in creating a better, stronger type of soldier for tomorrow. Upon inspection of the images themselves, it can be easily seen that minor image alteration and a bit of photoshop magic for the background, MIT did a classic comic book "swipe" and took the credit for it." Well, imitation/flattery/blah blah blah, but man. Thats just strange.
This has been around for several days now.
fuck the army. yayay! they just suck. educating people how to kill other people - that's just plain crazy.
I appreciate that they deserve compensation for this blatant theft of their IP (though note that irony of that: Wouldn't most slashdotters claim that MIT was just pursuing "fair use" if they paid for their own copy?), but I find this section of their lawsuit a bit absurd:
MIT's unwarranted use of Radix's lead character, "Valerie Fiores," permanently damaged the comic book, said creator Ray Lai.
"People who buy Radix buy a fantasy," said Lai.
"Now MIT says all future U.S. soldiers will look like Radix. They're saying Radix is not fantasy, it's reality. By doing that, MIT stole our ability to market Radix as escapist entertainment."
that's not "strange" that's theft.
What are you to much of a pussy to say the truth about MIT?
MIT wouldn't be half of what it is if it wasn't for defense spending.
So many our armys great tools of death and destruction are developed with the aid of mit.
Fuck MIT. They take 100s of millions of tax dollars and they feel like they can just go in and steal someones artwork?
Making weapons of mass destruction and terror is bad enough, now they are just theives as well.
Why is that? Because MIT is so obviously guilty?
This is old news (last week?), not only is it old MIT can use this graphic because its being used for educational, or non-profit reasons -- read the article. MIT appoligzed, won't use it again, etc...
I'm sure the government didn't look at the whole document and tell MIT, well -- what we're really looking for is a good looking character for this armor suit we're going to pay you millions to develop. Send it back when you've got something.
and MITs stance is that they hired an artist to provide them with a graphic...overall, I think with the resulting publicity, the net effect for the original artist is positive.
------ Work is so much easier when you don't
But given how many people on Slashdot and elsewhere were saying that the image was all anime-like and looked really cool, I'd not be surprised if this brought a lot of new-found interest into Radix.
So, in the end, while it was still wrong for MIT to steal the artwork and they should compensate for it, Ray Lai is probably going to get a lot of new readers over this incident.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
I was told in primary school that an undocumented idea taken from someone else or a previously published document is plagiarism if and only if no less than five words are used consecutively. For example, if you were to quote this comment in your own work and take credit for it, you could legally say previously published document is, but you would have to use quotes and references, i.e. "previously published document is plagiarism" (G0SP0DAR, slashdot.org, 20020901) for you to use my reference without plagiarising (okay, this is just an example, please don't Google me to it!).
At any rate, words can be counted with discrete numbers. How does one evaluate how much of an image is original and how much, and to what extent, is an actual image 'plagiarized'? I would say that before the age of computers, the discernment of such things would be a lost cause. But there are ways to compare layers of images, in terms of pixels, lines, colors, etc. to determine how things match up, sort of like the way biometric security programs measure fingerprints, retinal scans, and the like, to compare how good a match something is. In short, there would have to be a standard by which something could not be 'too good' a match for it to be original. What that standard would be, in terms of percent correspondence in different aspects, would have to be determined by "experts in the field." After that, leave me out of it!
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
"Any portion of any creation can be removed and redistributed in a creation of your own unless the original creation is released under an approved open source license."
This allows Slashdot readers to make themselves distributors for other people's music, software, video, etc, but makes sure Microsoft will never distribute their GPLed code for something as tacky as profit.
No Zen is good zen
What MIT has done is classic non-fair-use of design work. A professional graphic designer would never have done what MIT did, and based on the article, MIT didn't use a professional:
I seriously doubt Prof. Thomas' daughter is a professional graphic designer. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she's a high-school kid who just knows how to use Photoshop.And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
And plenty of other things like that... You get the idea. Look at the Radix character and tell me if you don't find the idea of a soldier in a powersuit quite generic. At least 20 years of Japanimation have used the concept until it's not even an original idea anymore. Even first person shooters can say they also once at least fragged a hundred of these last time they played their favorite character. To me Radix is purely unimaginative and this is why MIT mysteriously happens to have a similar drawing. What next now?
Someone stole my original concept of a man wearing a helmet?
My hero rides a horse, and this western tv serie just stole my idea?
I mean, honnestly, we live in a world where SciFi is so common that the actual technology is always said to "steal" from it. We have have terms like positronic brains, teleportation, null-grav and others that don't even refer to existing products found around us. What will we do when/if these things realy appear? Sue the inventor/engineer who made it work cause he stole it from some 15 years old drawing? Who made the thing work in the first place?
I don't think it would fall under fair use since it was used to get a grant. They are, in effect, profiting from another's work. Honestly, whether it damages the comic book's ability to be 'escapist fantasy' or not is moot. It looks an awful lot like Horizon's work.
Score:-1, Funny
Professor writes artist to apologize for
inadvertent use of comic book image
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2002/thomas.html
OMG!!! I worked in advertising for a few years, and every pitch the company (2nd largest in the world at the time) sent out used some scanned images from magazines, or some snippet of videotape from a TV show.
You see, the pitch book isn't supposed to actually go into production. It is supposed to be a cheap, informal way of getting a point across. When you are awarded the project, you hire artists.
So MIT needed some comic looking characters for a pitch book, and they copied those. Big deal.
Men In Tights. Check out that soldier - male head with a female body, female chest apendages included. I wonder what the US Army grunts thought of that kind of future for them, maybe hormone therapy to make them more pain tolerant? ~:)
Long-winded, but makes sense.
The coolest voice ever.
The worst thing IMHO is it shows a lack of imagination, that they have to steal someone elses work. They dont seem to deserve the funds if they cant even do this simple thing without cheating.
no sig.
the perfect soldier has a man's head and breasts! i would do a double take if i ever saw that on the battle field.
okay, i'm lying. if i was on the battle field i'd be too busy ducking to care weither it was a breasted man shooting at me or not.
bah. start over
Isn't at all a very original concept. If Radix dated back from 1960 one might say ok. But even then, Henlein's book Starship Troopers predates that.
So stealing the artwork yes. Stealing any concept: no.
Does that mean Jules Vernes can sue NASA?
Do they buy ex-soviet 1970 tanks, paint a US flag on them, and say they are the tanks of the future?
We need to be told!
If you RTFA ( Read the Freakin' Article ) you'll see it's not a photoshop touch-up etc. I get the feeling that it's two groups with similair concepts that drew something similair.
One may have been based off the other but name me a superhero that isn't based off of superman ( not really - you know what I mean ).
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
I don't get it, does MIT want to teach their students steal artwork and not even credit the original author? Is that like "company policy" there at MIT?
Hmmm ...this story was published in the newspapers three days ago; see it here
Everyone understands that this isn't our original artwork, that it's only there to give the client a sense of what the ad could look like and ultimately get them excited enough about the idea to execute it with real art. I have the sense that MIT looked at the illustrations for this Army proposal much the same way.
What does seem like dirty pool, however, is that someone decided to go that one extra and add their own credit line -- "H. Thomas", it looks like? -- to said swipe. And that, my friends, is where we begin to cross the line into outright theft. I'd agree that MIT, at the very least, owes an apology to all involved. (Although I guess creating invisible ninja supersoldiers means never having to say you're sorry, right?)
Yeah, so they blatantly ripped off the picture. But! Ray Lai ripped off the name of the book from MIT, which is where the Radix Sort Algorithm was originally developed, so really there is this nice little circular action we have going here.....
To be fair MIT should pay royalties for the use of the Radix artwork but
Horizon Comics just wants a piece of the 40 million dollar grant.
Believe me, this guy is from Montreal. He must be an a s s.
His statement about permanently damaging his comic is ubsurd!
Future soldiers are going to wear some sort of power suit.
Does this mean that all comics which show their characters in a power suit are damaged too? NO!
His comic was already doomed from the start from crappy story writing.
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
stealing the image of radix was wrong but the idea that a soldier can go invisible is an idea which doesnt belong to anyone. it that was the case scifi writers would ownz your ass.
Didn`t the dod see this? If so, let hope saddam has a big marker on his head or they will end up bombing france.... I mean
that guy has breasts!
I mean I understand they want to improve todays soldier but I don`t know if that is the right place to start, although, It might ofcourse get the attention of politcal islamic fundamentalist, they are unlikely to have seem much female skin recently... it might lure them! hell perhaps these comics are even more inspiring then the holywood directors who until now where the source of the strategic planning in the early day of the "war on terror".
"Though MIT's lawyers acknowledged using the Radix image, the school claimed it was allowed to use the image and refused to apologize. The school also remains unwilling to publicly credit Horizon Comics."
I'm curious... how were they allowed to use the image?
It's obvious the author didn't want them to, so who else COULD grant permission?
Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
Vasquez: No, have you
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
MIT's unwarranted use of Radix's lead character, "Valerie Fiores," DID NOT permanently damage the comic book!
This is just total BS! Ray Lai is using this as a marketing stunt. Now Radix is gaining a lot of free publicity. Ray Lai should be grateful that MIT has used their character!
MIT did steal copyrighted material. Of cause MIT should have asked permission before using Radix material. I am sure Ray Lai would have appreciated the chance to get more publicity if MIT had asked before stealing the material. Now Ray Lai gets the all the publicity and gets to bitch and moan about it at the same time. Lucky break for him indeed.
From grad school experience & working with people who came from Academia I must say that such violations are far too common. Most profs know that they're not worth enough for anybody to sue, so they'll take the easy way. Several former profs that I work[ed] with are fond of saying "It's easier to apologize than to get permission."
Am I the only one who has seen profs dump hundreds of pages of the web to create student notes -- copied & bound & sold at the student book store as a "required text"?
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
nice pair of tits on that male soldier.
Give me a break. The comic is fantasy, and the illustration for the report (a reproduction, not a copy. Learn the difference.) is fantasy too. Irrepairable harm my arse, this illustrator is just looking for free publicity and he's getting it. The report isn't even for wide public dissemination.
The classic SciFi book Starship Trooper used this idea decades ago.
The question is whether this character's "look" is unique; I doubt anyone is claiming the idea of soldiers in mechnized suits is new or unique.
I find the characters look alike, but then I think it looks like it was ripped off from the old Japanese Anime "Eight Man" and "Astro boy".
In the end, its a tempest in a teapot.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Which part do you find strange? .. Would it be
;)
the idea that MIT might be yet another example
of hype without substance? Or that such an austere
institution would "stoop so low"?
got news for ya buddy
What I find ironic about this case is since MIT itself commited the copying it can be justified as a mistake.
But, if a student at MIT had commited the exact same type of copying for an assignment and been caught, they would have been accused of academic dishonisty and punished for their actions
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
As an MIT alumnus, I am very disappointed by what I perceive as MIT's tendency towards acting in ways that I consider as lacking in scientific integrity. Stealing that comic book picture is a small example. A much more important example deals with the Ballistic Missile Defense Program, which, as presently being pursued, will be totally ineffective, and will cost the US taxpayer 60 billion dollars. Ted Postol has shown this ineffectiveness using solid scientific studies to argue his point, but MIT has not stood behind him, because they stand to loose too much money if they do: MIT's idolatry of the all mighty buck, truth be damned if it gets in the way of money. Ted Postol has also helped expose a case of fraud, in which TRW claimed that a test had been successful, even though its data was collected with an infrared detector that was way warmer than its requisite operating temperature, and was therefore only measuring noise. MIT wrote a ludicrous study exonerating TRW. Read all about it here
Guess Copyright law has gone out the window. Perhaps I can use Howard the Duck to get Government funding for the creation of a super race of man-ducks...
OK, tell you what. Go find some crooked employer that shorts you on payday. In effect, you should work for free for a week. Then, sue your boss for unfair labor practices. Make sure the lawsuit shows up on popular weblogs visited by the sort of people who are interested in your work. Overall, I think with the resulting publicity, the net effect for you will be positive, so don't bother pressing forward with your suit...let the crooked employer get off scot free so he can tell all his crooked buddies what a great scam he's thought up.
And all those other people who work for crooked employers may not share your ability to get publicity, and they're just out of luck. But that's OK, it worked out for you...no need to actually PUNISH anyone, is there?
Anyone who looks at the two works can plainly see that portions of the original were copied. The whole purpose of a jury is to make rational judgements without having to quantify everything in statutes. There is no need to have some sort of objective litmus test. And by the way, I'm not an expert in the matter, but the '5 word' definition seems a bit simlpistic to me. If you heard it in primary school, perhaps it was just a simple guideline given to students to help them rip their reports from encyclopaedias (that's what we used before the internet.) I find it very hard to believe that I can simply rewrite every fifth word of somebody else's work and publish it without fear of legal action.
Evil is the money of root.
I think their claim that MIT has "permanently damaged" their trademark is ridicolous. Did their sales go down because of that? They probably get more attention due to this (I have never heard of the comic).
And, by the way, there are things you can do in photo/image manipulation AND your new (derivative) work will be the manipulators copyright. Photo montages and p-shop/gimp jobs can be covered by this.
// Fraxinus
"In a March 27th interview with CNET.com, MIT Professor Ned Thomas, head of the ISN, claimed his daughter created "an interpretive drawing" of the futuristic solider "in a couple of days" for use in the application. Thomas said the drawing was "protocol" for the proposed outfit." Is this guys daughter an artist? or was he just being cheap and using his family? Either way, he got what he paid for. Nothing :)
Where I post game reviews, my PSP backgrounds, podca
Try reading Masamune Shirow's "Appleseed", published in America by Dark Horse Comics. The body armor worn by the ESWAT soldiers is clearly a precursor to the Radix armor.
Now if MIT had ripped of Shirow's artwork instead of the much lamer Radix artwork they would have wound up with a $100 million grant, instead of only $50 million.
Oops.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
With the calibur of students that MIT attracts, you'ld figure there'd be some sort of original creativity there. I can understand how an alum would be brought down by something like this. Whoever did that should lose their scholarship. MIT has some of the brightest young minds the world has to offer. Someone doing something like this just plain tarnishes that esteemed reputation. Not that it affects all MIT students/grads, just those who's bonehead idea it was to violate a copyright...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Well now to begin disecting his PR bullshit.
No.. It based it on a flexible, adaptive power suit that is not bulk yet still intimidating built with TECHNOLOGY and SKILLS that MIT is easily able to supply.
Radix who? Seriously, from artistic impression to actual implementation, I am confident that there will be serious revisions such that Radix will be nearly indistinguishable.
The keywords are "reproduced" and "illistrate". This means that MIT still had to do some work. I would like to know where Radix got his influence, since as previous readers have said, "power suits are nothing new".. and I'm sure if we did enough research we could find several PS designs that predate Radix and have "striking" similarities.
She did create the image of Radix... You see how much patch work she did? That wasn't a simple task. I guess the MIT spokeperson should have said "that we created the image using Radix sprites". Its an easy enough mistake... When a construction company says that they built a building, the don't mean that they built all the materials, merely that they assembled them into the final product. Hence MIT was correct in the statement.
Bitter French Canadian... Again a typical response. The contract was awarded on more then just pretty artistic work. It was based on the ability to deliver what was proposed. So why should the contract be revisited? MIT's ability to deliver a solution hasn't changed.
Let's see.. the army is responsible for killing, killing, and oh yes... more killing. If MIT ripped graphic elements, but delivers a superior killing machine, does the army care? I sure hope not. The Army is responsible for defending the country, somebody's hurt feelings should not detract from their purpose.
Hey MIT... Next time cite the damn sources!
Hey Radix... Please tell me how you plan to implement this technology... You don't know... Well congradufuckinglations, you proved my point. Your ideas are just that and carry no real weight when it comes to taking a comic to reality. And your "featues" are not unique... because invincible armor does not exist, there is always a weak spot somewhere...
Always the victim eh Frenchie? Radix is safe, because I hope Ray that your story is more then just a single illustration. Radix is a separate reality, so there is no reason not to continue to develop this world... Because I'm sure the Army won't be coming out with stories about their new body armor... Hell, if your nice, they might let you assist in making it visually inimidating.
But alas, Ray, you are just looking near term! And Frenchi, that is your flaw!
Tournament Management Online &
This public apology is featured on their news page. See the press release here
Just another example of how timely /. can be at times
;-)
heck even RFN has followed this
;-)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I found the link on the forums, here's the relevant part of the show
t ml
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/29/asb.00.h
COOPER: Well, it's the tale of two pictures. We're going to show them both to you now. The one on the left is Valerie Fiorez (ph), heroine of the comic book Radix. The one on the right is MIT's idea of the soldier of the future. You notice something?
MIT used that image on the right to win a $50 million research grant from the Pentagon. The two comic book creators, Ray and Ben Lai, are not pleased. MIT has taken down the image from its Web site. The brothers are considering a lawsuit.
Joining me from Montreal, Ray Lai.
Thanks for being with us, Ray.
RAY LAI, CO-CREATOR, RADIX: Thank you, Anderson.
COOPER: How did you hear that MIT had basically used your comic book idea for their $50 million proposal?
LAI: We have fans from California calling us saying that when, you know, they saw it in the newspaper. So, basically, that's what -- that's how we found out about it.
COOPER: The -- MIT has said that they did, in fact, copy it, though innocently. They said they did not intentionally do it. They were unaware of it. Is that good enough for you?
LAI: You know, of course they're saying it now, but -- you know, I don't know what really happened, but they put somebody else's name on it. So -- and it's not as simple as just taking it off the Web site. They actually scanned it off the books.
COOPER: Now, the idea of your comic -- and, I mean, the heroine in your comic basically has -- I mean, this suit and sort of supernatural powers, as I guess a lot of comic characters do, and that's sort of what MIT was selling to the Pentagon. They were talking about developing technologies with suits that would heal soldiers, would make them able to leap 20 feet. I mean, do you see similarities in the idea that MIT is proposing to your comic books?
LAI: Well, there's definitely some similarities, especially when they use the image to describe what they're doing -- they're trying to do. So, I don't know how much of it is from the comic book. I don't know if they really know about it. All I know is they published the image without our permission, and they did it with -- by putting somebody else's name on it. COOPER: Besides your obvious anger over this, I mean, does it kind of scare you that, you know, the Pentagon is giving $50 million to folks to develop ideas based on a comic book, or at least develop images based on a comic book?
LAI: Well, I mean, that's up to the public to decide. I mean, you know, it's scary that if they actually make it into reality, I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in.
COOPER: Are you going to sue? I mean, I know you sent a cease- and-desist order, or your lawyers did, to MIT to take it off their Web site. They've sort of apologized. Is there another step? I mean, I suppose you could sue for copyright infringement or something.
LAI: Well, some think that, but I'm leaving that to our lawyers. So, we're weighing our options right now.
COOPER: Always an ominous sentence, weighing options and leaving it to the lawyers. What -- just to inform some viewers, this -- MIT is basically going to start an institute for soldier nanotechnologies, so that's what this $50 million is going to. What -- when you look at the image that MIT sent into the Pentagon, I mean, what do you see from your comic book? We're showing both images side- by-side right now.
LAI: Well, they actually took more than just the main character. They took the background off another page inside the book, and they took the helmet off another page inside the book. So, you know, the entire image is piece and bits from different parts of the book.
COOPER: There are some who say, you know, this is really a plus for you and your brother, that, you know, this is getting your comic book a lot of publicity, a lot of notoriety. A lot of people probably talking about it who wouldn't before. Do you agree?
LAI: Well, of course -- I mean, we're getting a lot more coverage than if this didn't happen. But, I think the important thing is for the other universities to know about it, what MIT did, and let them judge whether the competition was fair or not, because it is -- it was an open competition.
COOPER: You're saying that because other universities were also applying for this Pentagon, and MIT is the one who won. Just, you know, for the record, the Pentagon has said that it wasn't just the illustrations in the pentagon -- in the MIT proposal that won then that day was their ideas, as well. So -- but, Mr. Lai, we appreciate you coming in and appreciate you talking with us, and good luck with your comic...
LAI: All right.
COOPER: We'll follow the story as it develops.
LAI: OK, thank you.
COOPER: Thanks a lot. A few quick stories from around the world tonight. Pretty rare. We can combine shameless pandering and a shameless pun at the same time. It's a rare day. Yes, it's a panda story. Even better, a baby panda story. Nielson families, take note: two Chinese Pandas, Bean-Bean and Shu-Lan, are the proud mothers of two male pandas. Oh, yes. No names yet. This is the 14th panda Bean-Bean has had, or should we say the 14th baby Bean-Bean will admit to. That's right, Bean-Bean gets around. That's what I heard, anyway. People are talking. That's what the other girls in the restroom are saying.
They call him "Crocodile Boy." Actually, that's what we call him. He's a 10-year old Thai boy who allegedly adopted a crocodile as a pet. It's one of those things, like, the video pops up. Who knows if it's real? I don't know. Seems we get along well with this croc, too. His favorite pastime is watching TV and, apparently, brushing the teeth there. I don't know. I'm not sure I buy it.
From Japan, a story that needs no commentary, and please, no commentary or e-mail. Such a dumb idea, it speaks for itself: a bra made of glass. For the time being, the company is, mercifully, not selling any to the public. Yeah. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: Remembering.
Photos.
As we are all geeks I beleive you all know what I am talking about.
MIT has done more for the internet (and in my view therefor to humanity) than many many others (comics industry included), so what if they got back some of their investment?
This is the bit that really stuck out for me:
"They're selling this as science fact while we're trying to sell it as science fiction," Ray Lai said. "And people don't even know that we created it in the first place. People might even think we're copying them."
Does guy want to be credited for the concept of grunts having powered armor, super-human abilities, invisibility, etc.? Maybe he should have patented it. I don't think these (currently) fictional elements are anything exclusive to Radix.
The complaint also reads like the author doesn't want these technologies to be developed because they'll undermine the fantasy of his comic. I guess we'd better put progress aside for art. Yeah. That's a fucking wonderful idea.
Is it just me, or does the character look like half of all the manga/anime characters?
MIT has stolen images from their comic Radix in a proposal to the US Army as an attempt to gain funds This makes it sound like a small picture in like a 100 page report that MIT made, got them the funding. Its crazy! The comic was not what got the funding, it was the report. Now the Radix creators are taking credit for someting they didnt do.
Measure once, cut twice
MIT described its future solders as "seemingly invincible warriors protected by armor and endowed with superhuman capabilities such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls." MIT also claimed its soldier could become invisible.
You can get 50 million from the gov. just by making claims straight out of sci-fi?!
As usual, Slashdot isn't quite hitting the nail on the head. MIT didn't steal this image. An independent artist (the daughter of a professor, as it turns out), made the drawing. MIT was completely unaware of its origins and certainly would not have used it if they did, given the significance of the proposal in which it was included. The situation is a consumer getting goods from an independent vendor who broke copyright. Unless you are suggesting that every consumer, private and corporate, is responsible for ensuring that everything they purchase has the correct copyright permissions and fair use, then clearly MIT is a bystandard here. As a token of goodwill, MIT has released an apology. For more information: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N35/35comic.35n.html
What's the big deal? The Boston Globe has been reporting on this as it unfolds. The author of the report asked his teen-aged daughter if she'd do an illustration, she did, she didn't know better, they used it, Horizon complained, MIT apologized.
I just feel sorry for the guy and his daughter. She was interested in art, he was trying to give her a nice little moment.
The last time I looked, Horizon wanted a more sincere apology--I think they said that since the original had been a press release the apology should be a press release or something like that. But I'm sure MIT and Horizon will work it out, probably without even any money payment.
Nothing in the incident even involves any EXTREME misjudgement or overreaction. It's not as if the author of the report did anything TERRIBLY stupid; it fell well within the normal range of misjudgement that anyone could make from time to time. And, dammit, it was a nice thing for him to do for his daughter. He just should have been a little more careful.
It's not like Horizon was wrong to complain. It's not like Horizon is overreacting or suing MIT for $100,000,000.
It was a minor misjudgement, everyone seems to be acting in a reasonably adult manner... what's the big deal?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Now, Pay something, for USE! You DID use the image, so give the artist a proper financial reward! You failed to research the sources of all images, etc. YOU failed to ask where the graphics came from. Blame the daughter for 'giving' a graphic work to you...? You are responsible, as a scholar, to teach ethics by example... Nice that you apologized, but...? Mistakes have consequences...
Was the use of images fair? Possibly, if they had been credited. But the fact that they tried to pass the work off as their own was plagiary, not just a copyright violation.
I mean, the author of the comic book probably would have been happy to let them use his images if they'd asked, really.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The image was just a composition from 3 seperate commic book frames.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Well, imagine if you downloaded an MP3, and then got a production job by claming that you had created it it.
That would be more like what happened, this is totaly diffrent simply downloading something and enjoying it without pay.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"Beyond images, the traits of Radix' characters share strikingly similarities with MIT's proposal. Radix features characters who 'scan' for life forms, wear invincible body armor, can become invisible, and display physical skills enhanced by machinery. MIT described its future solders as 'seemingly invincible warriors protected by armor and endowed with superhuman capabilities such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls.' MIT also claimed its soldier could become invisible."
Is this an original character? Don't they "scan" for life forms on Star Trek? The Predator can become invisible. Mario and Luigi can become invincible. Displaying physical skills enhanced by machinery was done long ago by Robo-Cop. Leaping over 20 foot walls? Superman could do that, no problem.
Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
// jeku.com
According to the MIT Policy for Academic Dishonesty, the VP for Research is supposed to investigate reports of dishonesty.
Here's a snippet from a random course handout at MIT's site (STS001, The History of Technology in America):
As in any historical report, you are expected to footnote all of your sources (for text, images, sounds, and anything else you use - copyright and plagiarism laws do apply to the web).
It would be interesting to see what other faculty at MIT, especially those who teach courses like Intro to Ethics, think about this affair.
In any case, I think this episode has taken the glitter off of some of the shine at MIT. Lets see whether MIT values the $50M more than ethics and honesty. The only honorable thing to do would be for MIT to fire the offending researcher.
Just like Linus says, you can just ignore the copyright and pretend it doesn't exist. Then you can do what you want with someone else's IP rights. Then when you get caught, you can just go "oops hehe, guess I didn't know about that" and get off.
"According to Horizon Comics MIT has stolen images from their comic Radix in a proposal to the US Army as an attempt to gain funds..." Wouldn't the picture be interpeted as just eye-candy? I doubt the US Army looked at the picture and ignored the actual content of the proposal and said, "I gotta get me some of that." The picture had no impact on the decision for the grant.
... meet Mr Kettle.
Is it just me, and the otaku on this site can back me up on this, or does the suit and helmet used here look almost exactly like this Orc power armor from Masamune Shirow's Appleseed (sorry, but I couldn't find any better images, and I'm too lazy to scan my books and post the pics online). The suit is just different enough from the K-2 Gasium to side-step plagiarism, but the helmet these guys are complaining about is identical - down to the triangle shaped plate on the forehead.
I say make MIT pay royalties on this blatant ripoff as soon as Mr Shirow starts receving royalty checks from Horizon Comics for their outright theft of his "intellectual property".
Bunch of hipocrites.
"Oh my God! The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!" - Bart Simpson
Comic book image stealing aside, doesn't anyone find it interesting that the government just gave kids at MIT $50 million to build super robot warsuits? :)
america at it's best ... rich, powerful dad gives job designing killers to daughter, how progressive. The moral decay of the upper class is more evident with each passing day. Thanks guys, your doing a great job of screwing billions of others. You must be so proud.
Seems like it to me. GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The more and more I read about the people at MIT, the less and less I am suprised about articles like this. From the numerous pranks, to the vegas article, to the general I go to MIT, I am above everyone else attitude that exists amongst 99% of the student population - simple copyright theft doesn't seem too far fetched.
... sand, lamp, gun
Smart enough to get into MIT, not smart enough to realized copyright theft, or the consequences of actions
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
MIT's composite image will, no doubt, be seen all over the place now that they won the grant. Anyone who first sees this composite, and then reads the Radix comic might easily assume that Ray Lai stole the idea from MIT, not the other way around. In that respect, Mr. Lai's comic was damaged.
There is also the moral issue of a major university commiting plagiarism (since another person took credit for this image), and the fact that Mr. Lai's work was used to help secure a $50 million contract, without any credit or compensation whatsoever! MIT's arguments that the image was for "academic use" are ludicrous, since the university is a buisiness like any other. Equally ludicrous is the idea that the image was meant for limited distribution. If it is on the internet, the distribution path is, by definition, unlimited!
Let's imagine that the I.P. in question here was program code, not artwork. Would you be outraged? How about the case of Sigma Designs stealing the GPL'd MPEG-4 codec developed by XVID? A lot of people were justifiably outraged about that. A similar case, IMHO.
I mean really, making copies of someone else's copyrighted works and distributing them without their permission. The nerve.
Quick, someone check the Slashdot servers and make sure their UPS and lightning protection is up to the task.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Seems to me you can't claim a body-suit powered super-soldier as IP. Anyone play Halo or Marathon lately? Does anyone remember the black-suit Iron Man? What about Mospeda? Stormtroopers? This idea goes back how long?
Now to lift an image and alter it just slightly is a stupid thing to do (and this is MIT), but they have always blurred the line between a research university (which gets fair use rights) and a corporation.
How about I make a list of all the people here who feel that MIT did nothing wrong, and consider all there creations to be open to free use.
Actually the same idea can be applied to all those who insist on saying that MITs design is just similar to the one by Radix. Anything I use^H^H^H imitate of theirs I will also consider for free.
Does the U.S. Army want to let somebody get away with stealing, cheating and lying?
No! Never! Killing, maiming, mangling, burning, blinding, bone breaking, lacerating, bitch slapping, poisonning, drowing...that's all fine, but stealing? Cheating? Never! This isn't that kind of military organisation!
Everybody knows you don't put your name on somebody else's work. If I went to MIT and did that, I would be thrown out of school.
Or you'd be a particularly sucesfull teacher...one or the other...
You can't take the sky from me...
the net effect for the original artist is positive
So he can use those positive vibes to feed his children? The issue is whether people get paid for their work.
I was always told that Imitation is the best form of flattery. I would be kinda proud that my drawings help won a 50 million dollar contract.
:)
Well that's just me
"I believe in everything in moderation. Including moderation." -Dean DeLeo, Stone Temple Pilots
Really? They hired an artist? According to the previous articles about this, the Professor claimed his daughter created the graphic.
Since when does it take a computer to detect a copy of an image?
People have made plagiarized images before and been caught.
I love how he says it totally destroys his comic and everything he stands for.. It was a prototype image that they put together. It's not the final design, it's not something that they will commit to 100% .. They needed to come up with somewhere to "start" .. And jesus, its a freaking POWERSUIT, who CARE if you drew your powersuit first ... I know the image was a blatent ripoff, but they say they DID get permission to use that image REGARDLESS what the artist says - So he can stuff-it. Enjoy the free publicity pal, you dont need to act like an idiot and try and sue sue sue sue sue your way into being a millionaire. I cant stand people who just dont want to work for a living. Drives me nuts.
The concept of "futuristic" body armor to make super-soldiers is decades old. (The earliest reference I can think of is "Starship Troopers".)
I find it mind-boggling that they'd risk $50 million dollars to avoid paying some gimp art student (joke, joke) 200 bucks to make a (sigh) clean-room drawing.
MIT also holds lots of IP themselves, so the hypocrisy bell is going DING-DING-DING as we speak.
I really am surprised, I honestly expect better of the MIT boys.
Okay, so the MIT community as a whole knew nothing about this. I thought the idea of the robot cyborg fighting suit as a whole was pretty damn hilarious, but when I saw the drawing, it's not like what popped into my head was "That could be stolen artwork!" The ONLY people who could have known that the artwork was stolen are 1) anyone who has read the comics, and 2) anyone who submitted the drawing in question. I think that people should put the blame squarely where it belongs, and that is on the head of the individual who created the image. It's not like a little comp sci undergrad could have prevented this, or a physics professor, or the president of MIT. Accusing MIT of doing this is like accusing SOCIETY for causing all of the murders in the world.
-agent oranje.
For those of you outside the Beltway, the Post already covered the Science Friction: MIT's 'Soldier' Is Comics Heroine on Friday. The print edition did have illustrations for the article, and you could see the 'uncanny' resemblance.
A craven coward
They didn't hire an actual artist because it was just a cover sheet for a proposal - not the actual artwork for some kind of publicity campaign. The intended audience was about 3 people.
It would be like you making a demo tape of your singing abilities that used a few popular songs. You use them to demonstrate your ability, however if you get a record contract you'd hire an actual songwriter or pay the royalties for the songs that you used.
The page says publication has been suspended, not cancelled. Big difference.
OK, here are a few things that have already been said, but seem to be eluding people: This was not an action by an MIT student. The debate on whether this is ethically hypocritical is silly, because this was not an academic activity. It was wrong to use the image, but it's not as if this was "Create an image of a soldier" class. People have already made this comment, but it seems like no one is reading it. Also, it seems like everyone is assuming that this picture was the deciding factor in the grant proposal. This is obviously not the case. In order to get $50 million from the Army, MIT had to show actual proof of their ability to deliver technological advancement. And the Army isn't stupid. They didn't look at the pretty picture and say, "Oooh! Look! Let's give them the money, that looks cool!" Lastly, I am a student at MIT, and I feel insulted by people posting things like "the I go to MIT I am above everyone else attitude that is true of 99% of MIT students." This is not true. If you want snobs who think they're better, go look at Harvard.
50 millions to become invisible and jump 20 feet high ???
And they refused my original work of a red and blue suit with a big yellow S which would have given invincibility and the ability to fly to all u.s. soldiers for a mere one hundred million dollars!!!!
From the Radix complaint: Beyond images, the traits of Radix' characters share strikingly similarities with MIT's proposal. Radix features characters who "scan" for life forms, wear invincible body armor, can become invisible, and display physical skills enhanced by machinery. MIT described its future solders as "seemingly invincible warriors protected by armor and endowed with superhuman capabilities such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls." MIT also claimed its soldier could become invisible.
Addendum: It was also found that other shocking similarities existed between the MIT proposal and the comicbook life of Radix: both worlds are presumed to be dominated by bipedal, hairless, land-dwelling, predatory mammals requiring regular, rapid respiration & dietary sustenance to maintain optimal levels of mobility and to maintain their internally-regulated body temperatures.
moto411.com
Linux will steal commercial software ideas?!
"Gee, what a waste of $12/hr. You think you're getting professional-quality work from those grad students - but instead you get in trouble!
Next year we should hire a real artist for $12/hr... but he must have a PhD in physics."
You should see the fangs MIT and its licensees come out with when it is their intellectual property that is used, knowingly or otherwise. Compare this with the cavalier and legally naive response to this claim of copyright infringement: we didn't make that many copies.
Whether or not it was fair use, it was inane and stupid to use it without consent. Consent is virtually trivial and often cheap to obtain for the asking beforehand, and sometimes VERY expensive to obtain afterward. The problem is that the Institute seems to have plural standards to apply -- hands out, when doling out the licenses; but "come on, we're just a poor little educational institution" when seeking free use of the property of others.
The guy at top center has the Punisher logo on his beret. Kind of odd, yes?
They ripped of Radix and called it the soldier of the future, and the army bought it. The Osprey plane, which does not fly and has killed many of our servicemen was also based on a comic book. Billions have been wasted on that boondoggle. The Avrocar was a failed attempt to create a real flying saucer. It was based on flights of fancy as well. That multi billion dollar turd barely hovered. Will the military ever wake up and smell the coffee?
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
According to /. it's ok to steal music and movies, but when you steal a comic book image it's grounds for the death penalty! :)
The original MIT press release was covered a few months back in /. :
Original slashdot post
As a previous poster mentioned, MIT has apologized. I think the huge concern here is not so much that the artwork was plagarized. I mean, what the heck were these folks doing flipping through comic books in preparation for a grant? The fact that they received the grant at all is itself plain scary. How well would an aerospace company competing for a NASA grant fare if they clipped a comic book spaceship and sent it in?
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
The money MIT recieved was a grant. Now most people have a hard time discerning the difference between a grant and a paycheck but the fact of the matter is that the grant is for development and it would be immoral to direct funds from the grant to the comic because they used images in their proposal. They should have paid for the images ahead of time. Citing the 50 million is erroneous and does not justify nor warrant MIT paying out of that or because of that. The fault was pre-acceptance and there is where the solid arguments for "theft" arise. My problem is that I think it's a lot of bs and this isnt theft. It's bitterness beacause a comic company doesnt have an in-track with the military or any real interest and they think wow...we missed out on money.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Listen to me, motherfucker. The guy is an ARTIST! He does not get paid. Well, fourty nickles does not feed children.
Who cares what picture they used. It could have been Scoby doo. The point is that they are INVISIBLE - Does this mean anything to anyone?
"Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
that and I'm stupid as a block of wood.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, since I havent read through all of these replies but there are extra twists to this story.
:)
The prof heading the project gave the contract to 'design' the future soldier to his daughter. The daughter in turn pretty blatantly ripped off this comic (I am friends with the creator). They have obviously taken off the image from their website, I wonder how much trouble the daughter is gonna get in
Ray just wanted a public appology from MIT. I doubt he will sue, the *public* part in the appology is equivalent to any court settlement he would get, since as some people have already mentioned, his comic is getting a lot more exposure.
What this seems to indicate is that they don't have a good idea for a working physical model. That is a major problem in a grant proposal. Still exploring the background - this Professor did not get all the 50 million dollars alone, but still ...
Plus the money is distributed over the years, so the contract will be re-evaluated at regular intervals. It sounds rather embarassing for the applicants, the reviewers and also for the funding agency ...
Neuroprosthesis News
according to the "auspicious MIT Tech", the comic was attributed to the daughter of one of the professors/researchers working on the proposal. So the researchers only erred in trusting his daughter. Who's not guilty of that?
----
i do not use drugs, i AM drugs -- Dali
According to the article, Horizon had to suspend publishing of the comic Radix "due to legal issues" related to the MIT expropriation of their work.
While I don't think the claim that this harms their use of the character as "escapist entertainment" is in any way meaningful, it would be interesting to see if it can be proved in court that they HAD to suspend the comic due to MIT's action, or whether they are just using that as an excuse for low initial sales of the comic.
If the former, then they clearly have a case against MIT.
Obviously, MIT felt they couldn't go the Army with a character image ACTUALLY taken from a comic, because they felt they wouldn't be taken seriously. But nobody draws stuff like comic book artists (except maybe expensive product design artists), so MIT felt they had to rip one off while concealing the fact that it was a comic book image.
They should have gone to the Marvel Universe series and ripped off Iron Man's armor if they wanted some real heavy duty engineering concepts wrapped up in a comic book character...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And doesn't this just look like a Robocop ripoff with a female head?
That's why many like to push terms such as "intellectual property" to confuse people like you.
It's just the difference between copying and lying.
Copying is not inherently wrong by most popular moral standards. That said many countries do have laws to allow authors or entities to have a monopoly (usually limited) on copying of works they own. In these countries copying could be regarded as a form of stealing - depriving someone of a monopoly on copying, which could possibly deprive them of profit and possibly happiness. Such laws have reasonable basis and have proven to be useful but are manmade, can be changed and have been (unfortunately in some cases detrimentally to society). Also note that laws are different in different countries - where I am, a copy is not infringing if it's for private and domestic use.
Claiming you created someone else's work is lying (plagiarism), and that is directly considered inherently wrong by many popular moral standards. Example from the Ten Commandments: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour".
Truth and trustworthiness is critical in a knowledge-based society. Whereas copying is required operationally by many technological advances. Artificial eyes, ears, brains, memories and virtual telepathy would all copy data as part of their operation.
As far as I see the law for maintaining truth scales well with virtually any advancements - greater good for all and each. Whereas laws for strict monopolies on copying don't seem likely to keep scaling for the greater good.
The patent law seems to be scaling badly too.
Copy that?
Link.