What a degenerate.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:02 am

On a slightly related note (slight in that it only has to do with the something awful forums) I've recently noticed a large insurge of traffic from that location, but since I don't have an account, I can't find where it's coming from.

Considering the site's affiliations and general attitude, maybe I don't want to know...

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:38 am

Nanda wrote:On a slightly related note (slight in that it only has to do with the something awful forums) I've recently noticed a large insurge of traffic from that location, but since I don't have an account, I can't find where it's coming from. Considering the site's affiliations and general attitude, maybe I don't want to know...

The only thing I saw was a link to your comic in the Webcomics thread, and it was pretty positive.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... t325170708

Rcmonroe · Post by **Rcmonroe** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:59 am

Nanda wrote:On a slightly related note (slight in that it only has to do with the something awful forums) I've recently noticed a large insurge of traffic from that location, but since I don't have an account, I can't find where it's coming from. Considering the site's affiliations and general attitude, maybe I don't want to know...

I've been getting a lot of hits from it too, and I've never been able to pinpoint the link(s). And there's no way in Hell I'm going to pay to register (which you have to do in order to use the Search function). It would be nice to know what people are saying about my strip, but I can't see reading through 33 pages of posts to find out.

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:45 am

RC- I have no idea where from, as you've not been mentioned in the webcomics megathread, and a quick search (cause the registration fee is VERY much worth it) shows nothing.

Rcmonroe · Post by **Rcmonroe** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:11 am

Hmmm… go figure. Well, thanks for checking. Maybe it was mentioned somewhere other than in the webcomics thread?

Oh well, It doesn't really matter. Just my curiosity getting the better of me. I already wasted WAY too much time looking for it in the Webcomics 11 and 12 threads when I should have been writing or drawing or doing dishes or something; I need to accept that sometimes you're just not meant to know where some of your hits come from.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:48 pm

Mercury Hat wrote:
Nanda wrote:On a slightly related note (slight in that it only has to do with the something awful forums) I've recently noticed a large insurge of traffic from that location, but since I don't have an account, I can't find where it's coming from. Considering the site's affiliations and general attitude, maybe I don't want to know...
The only thing I saw was a link to your comic in the Webcomics thread, and it was pretty positive.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... t325170708

Thanks Merc! That was gnawing at me...

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:26 pm

rcmonroe wrote:Hmmm… go figure. Well, thanks for checking. Maybe it was mentioned somewhere other than in the webcomics thread?

Oh well, It doesn't really matter. Just my curiosity getting the better of me. I already wasted WAY too much time looking for it in the Webcomics 11 and 12 threads when I should have been writing or drawing or doing dishes or something; I need to accept that sometimes you're just not meant to know where some of your hits come from.

I did actually search the forums, search function and all, and couldn't find anything..

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:30 pm

Roman Dirge, creator of "Lenore" has got a collection of images showing Todd's plagiarism.

Quite damning.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:27 pm

I was initially attracted to his "Trendy Wendy" character because she was reminiscent of Ugly Girl. Now, I don't think for a second that he's been ripping off ME, but it's pretty amusing in light of recent events.

Tellurider · Post by **Tellurider** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:47 pm

Considering the uproar this is causing in the webcomics community, I feel like it's only a matter of time before it goes mainstream and, hopefully, seriously damages this Todd guy's reputation.

Everyone seems to be in favor of suing, but I think that the best move would be a smear campaign. Goldman is successful enough that if Kelly and others who've apparently had their ideas stolen and partially mutilated by this hack banded together, they could probably get some major newspapers to cover the story. Cause enough trouble and they could possibly find some lawyers willing to work pro bono.

But getting the word out and letting people not in the webcomic community know would hopefully get people to stop praising this guy's "genius" and spending thousands of dollars on his "pop art" or whatever they're calling it.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:22 pm

Tellurider wrote:Considering the uproar this is causing in the webcomics community, I feel like it's only a matter of time before it goes mainstream and, hopefully, seriously damages this Todd guy's reputation.

Hopefully so. I, like at least a few other webcomickers here, posted about it in the comments of yesterday's update.

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:34 am

Taken from Wikipedia, so I'm unsure of its veracity:

When confronted with e-mails inquiring about the apparent plagiarism, Goldman replied with an apparently automated e-mail claiming that he painted "the works of a pedophile" every month, explicitly naming Dave Kelly as his source "this week", linking to a site containing pornography, and accusing Dave Kelly of being "a huge infantilist furry". It should also be noted that the pornographic links were sent to minors, without any warning of the material.

Considering the source, I have my doubts. But it should be easy to test. :|

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:08 am

Numerous people on the SA forum have reported getting this response and there have been screenshots of the full headers posted.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:42 am

Sorry to have to go against the flow, folks, but I can't consider these just ordinary plagiatrisms. They are just too literal copies of originals. Plagiators usually try to conceal similarity with the original, so if this guy, I dunno, changed Kelly's squirel into a cat or changed anything significant in the image at all, I'd think it was plagiatrism. But with copy this similar to original, my impression is that guy's idea is that audience is acquitanced with Kelly's work before seeing his. Also, he chooses very well known sources as originals, while a real plagiator would more likely choose unknown sources that are not very easy to be tracked. The full effect of his painting, whatever it is, comes only after you've seen the original too. He doesn't try to pass other people's work as his own, because he is willfuly showing how much of his paintings are other people's work.

Whatever you think of this guy's art, this is exactly what pop artists have been doing since sixties, and you've never seen Andy Warhol, Richard Hamilton or Roy Lichtenstain having their reputations damaged because, omg, copyrights of that photo of Marilin Monroe didn't belong to Warhol! If Todd guy is unoriginal, that's because he's doing the thing that was new fifty years ago, and art has progressed to new directions since then.

We artists shouldn't look superficially like this at things: we see two images, conclude that they look similar, and yell "plagiatrism" without bothering to think about context. We of all people should know that context is worth half of our work, that we can put exactly the same art with two different scripts and get a completely different effect.

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:52 am

While that's true, Duffies, it stands that he still needed to give Kelly notice, or part of the profits perhaps from the painting he was selling for $1000.

My idea personally is that he thought he'd just seen it on some internet site, assumed no-one would notice and ran with it. He's not willfully showing how similar it is cause he's hidden the source, which is hardly as famous and recogniseable as a soup can or Marilyn Monroe's face.

I honestly reckon he just thought he could get away with it.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:15 am

Soup can and Marylin Monroe portrait weren't that famous before Warhol's paintings either. Anyways, I figure the guy saw Kelly's image as just another one of internet memes that come from who knows where and where original author is unknown by now. Like those other examples posted on site that Neko linked. There's a pattern, most of those memes, like the beer poster or the pixelated kitty, are used so much that you practically forget that someone had to create them at some point.

I guess he's simply not the nice guy with some artistic integrity. Though Kelly is the guy who shoots before asking questions and has this particular talent of taking the worst out of men, still...

But that's not my concern, I just wanted to say that it's not such clear-cut case of plagiatrism that it's made out to be.

Stinkywigfiddle · Post by **Stinkywigfiddle** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am

*puts away the pitchforks*

Darn it McDuffies...

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:09 am

Some of the example cited really do weaken the case, I'll admit (like the kitty and the beer as mentioned), but I really don't see why he should be able to outright trace someone's work and charge money for it. The image was not nearly as memeish as the pixel cat, so he should have done his research.

There's not many people here who wouldn't have reacted the same as Kelly.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:18 pm

mcDuffies wrote:Sorry to have to go against the flow, folks, but I can't consider these just ordinary plagiatrisms. They are just too literal copies of originals. Plagiators usually try to conceal similarity with the original, so if this guy, I dunno, changed Kelly's squirel into a cat or changed anything significant in the image at all, I'd think it was plagiatrism. But with copy this similar to original, my impression is that guy's idea is that audience is acquitanced with Kelly's work before seeing his. Also, he chooses very well known sources as originals, while a real plagiator would more likely choose unknown sources that are not very easy to be tracked. The full effect of his painting, whatever it is, comes only after you've seen the original too. He doesn't try to pass other people's work as his own, because he is willfuly showing how much of his paintings are other people's work.

I don't think Todd would be able to claim fair use for his use of Kelly's image, though he could probably claim it for some of the others. I agree with you that there can be a fine line between pop art genius and thieving hackery, but in this case I think Todd comes down firmly on the side of hackery. I base this opinion on Todd's history, his reply to inquiries about the plagarism (which seems to be pretty well documented by now), and by the fact that I can't see how his painting of Kelly's cartoon could be counted as "criticism, commentary, or parody".

Maybe history will judge him differently, but that's how I'm judging him right now.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:19 pm

I dunno what private corespondence between him and the other guy looked like. Based on it, his refusal to communicate with Kelly might've been more or less unjustified.

About the tracing, I think that really depends on how the copy is executed. If I was to, say, see this work in gallery and reckognize in it's execution, it's brushwork/linework and technique, qualities that Todd guy added to the original image, I'd say that it's most definitely not an outright trace (not much more than that awesome painting of Col's based on spiderman). Can't judge based on low quality reproductions.
I can say against him, though, that his works lack some consistency that great pop artists had. Their idea of fitting pop images into their vision worked only if that vision was consistent, but this guy changes style and concept, even the level of copying (for instance, while Kelly's is a by-numbers copy, beer one copies the slogan but changes the rest) from work to work. But that only affects how good artist he is, not whether he's an artist at all.

I understand that it seems like he's selling Kelly's work, but that isn't exactly true. He isn't selling Kelly's idea for one, he's selling his idea, it just happens that Kelly's work appeared to him as a way to express this idea of his (it's not actually his, it's the old idea of pop-art, but that one noone holds copyright to). Considering that it's not Kelly's linework either, the only thing of Kelly's that's left is composition of the image.

I don't think Todd would be able to claim fair use for his use of Kelly's image, though he could probably claim it for some of the others. I agree with you that there can be a fine line between pop art genius and thieving hackery, but in this case I think Todd comes down firmly on the side of hackery. I base this opinion on Todd's history, his reply to inquiries about the plagarism (which seems to be pretty well documented by now), and by the fact that I can't see how his painting of Kelly's cartoon could be counted as "criticism, commentary, or parody".

I can, hypothetically speaking. Commentary. Kelly's image, along with the others, is a part of internet meme fenomenon (if it's as popular as Kelly claims in that SA post) and if the guy's trying to depict the modens society, internet, and then internet meme, are a good source.
Possibly Todd is a hack. I don't know the whole history of his, I agree that it can give different outlook at the whole issue than just looking at paintings. It's just the lynch mob mentality that bothers me, it's not as one-sided affair as it's made out to be.