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.
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."
Why is that? Because MIT is so obviously guilty?
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."
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
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.
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?)
Ummm...maybe the fact that the copied images were used to get MIT over $50 million? I don't think any sane person would suggest that the images were solely responsible for that grant from the Federal government, but why would MIT have included it if they didn't think it would help them get the money? Given that MIT thought the swiped image helpful, and given that the images helped MIT get a TON of cash, I think it follows that the original artist should be compensated.
Your flawed analogy could be corrected like this...
Okay, so how is this any different from downloading an MP3 and using it as part of the soundtrack in a movie that grosses $50 million?
(The soundtrack contributes to the movie, but the movie should pretty well stand on its own...nevertheless, if the soundtrack is part of the movie, if the director thought it added somethig, then the artist should be compensated).
Smack 'em. Just because MIT is an educational institution does not mean that everything they do is for educational activities.
/as/ a research matter (and not just in getting money /for/ research)? No, not really.
Was it for scholarly criticism? Was the drawing important
Hmmm. I wonder what the MIT penalty for plagiarism is. Expulsion? I wonder what they'll do to the responsible employees.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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!