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."
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
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
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
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?
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?)
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
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
Mod the parent up, and here's the translation:
"Dear Mr. Comic Artist,
Please please pleeeeeease don't sue me. By the way, that illustration helped us get a $50 million grant from the US military, so we've got deeper pockets than you.
Insincerely yours,
Ned"
Yup. Somebody should go down for this.
Either that, or MIT should drop the pretense of caring about honesty and publicly acknowledge that it'd rather look after its own interests, copyrights, fairness and morality be damned.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
It was a last minute decision, and I asked my daughter, a graphic artist, to provide an image.
I didn't know until after your attorney contacted MIT at the end of April that the image apparently was based on your character.
i wonder if his daughter went to mit? really though, saying this image is based on the comic book character is like saying a photograph of me is based on me. i seriously doubt the guys daughter took the time to even redraw the images. copy, paste, fade, etc. without citing your source is plagiarism.
i'm really surprised this is coming from an academic at mit. ethical issues like this are pretty fundamental in academia. it's a shame he's trying to water it down with saying it was based on the guy's character. someone should take one of this guys papers, reorder the sections and say it's based on his paper. see how fast his panties get twisted then.
-- john
Certainly not. If a system gives statuatory anybody to use anybody else's art without permission, then there's nothing preventing MIT from releasing its own competing comic book starring hundreds of Ms. Fiores clones -- which would certainly cause damage. Hell, letting everybody use it would cause damage even if they didn't use it for comic books -- it'd be diluted to the point where Mr. Lai becomes only one in a crowd.
There's a principle at stake here.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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!
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.
Is it just me, or does the character look like half of all the manga/anime characters?
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.
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.
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!
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...
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
That's not the point. At all.
The point is that MIT used the work, and claimed it was their own (The work was credited to "H. Thomas" - presumably the daughter of Prof Ned Thomas.)
If they had given proper credit, this would be a non-issue. But now, one has to wonder exactly what they're taking to pass off as their own.
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.