Re-used script

[Captain Storm]

Hi Lew ,

Perhaps I should qualify my broad sweeping statement in my reply. By plaigirism I of course refer to the 7 basic plots that can be emplyed when writing a story ... comedy , tradegy , man against nature , quest , ally etc. I wasn't referring to out and out copying line for line , brush stroke for brush stroke. Though of course in this regard , wasn't Maxwell Hawke artwork reused for the James Bold series in Cheeky Weekly albeit with edited artwork. And wasn't the same done to Cursitor Doom? Not that I'm being pedantic. My main point lies in the 7 basic plots. So perhaps I should have made myself clearer.

regards,

The Cap.

[Lew Stringer]

Hi Lew ,

Perhaps I should qualify my broad sweeping statement in my reply. By plaigirism I of course refer to the 7 basic plots that can be emplyed when writing a story ... comedy , tradegy , man against nature , quest , ally etc. I wasn't referring to out and out copying line for line , brush stroke for brush stroke. Though of course in this regard , wasn't Maxwell Hawke artwork reused for the James Bold series in Cheeky Weekly albeit with edited artwork. And wasn't the same done to Cursitor Doom? Not that I'm being pedantic. My main point lies in the 7 basic plots. So perhaps I should have made myself clearer.

regards,

The Cap.

No problem Cap. I think that I, and others, assumed you were referring to the images which kicked off this topic, rather than speaking generally. Even so, having "comedy" as a "basic plot" is a pretty broad canvas.

I still believe Baxendale used some sort of a copying machine or technique because otherwise the coincidence in detail would be impossible to explain.

There was a machine called a Grant Enlarger which projected an image onto a lightbox for the artist to trace over. The size and clarity of the image could be adjusted by the use of handles and dials you turned. They certainly existed in the early 1980s so they may have been around in the mid-sixties.

[Phoenix]

As for the art of the two sets being almost identical, I still believe Baxendale used some sort of a copying machine or technique because otherwise the coincidence in detail would be impossible to explain.

It goes without saying that I am far from being an expert where the art of the cartoonist is concerned, although I do know something about most of the greats, which include Baxendale, obviously. I'm not blind, though. The two panels posted by KP do look alike at first glance, but only on a superficial level. They are definitely two quite different drawings. Can we not accept the point raised earlier by Lew that Leo.......was so overworked he redrew some...........strips? Why would an artist of the calibre of Leo Baxendale need to double his workload, at a time when, by his own admission, he was short of time, by first tracing a picture he had previously drawn? He would simply have revisited an idea he had had a few years earlier, and drawn it again. To suggest that he traced the earlier picture or photocopied it in some way is to demean a great artist's talent. As for plagiarism, how exactly do you plagiarise your own work? Similarly, the basic storyline might well also have been the same, but the text is adapted too, at least in the example we are able to consult, naturally enough, of course, as he is writing and illustrating a new story.

[Digifiend]

He may have drawn it, but he didn't own it, so it's still plagiarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism

In addition to the ethical issue, this can be illegal if copyright of the prior work has been transferred to another entity.

That was the case with this example, the prior work was owned by DC Thomson, not Leo himself.

[Phoenix]

He may have drawn it, but he didn't own it, so it's still plagiarism.

According to The New Oxford Dictionary Of English, plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Even in the Wikipedia article you offer as support for your point it says, Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is both legally accepted (as fair use) and ethically accepted. Given the copyright issue in this matter, I accept that these points may have needed to be clarified in court, but I suspect that in this specific case Thomsons' management team of the day were only annoyed because the new work appeared in a rival publication, rather than in one of their own. A storm in a teacup really.

[Captain Storm]

And therein lies the answer to the whole shindig. Lighten up fellas. This ain't a court of law. No one cared then and no one really cares now. Disposable media that was used as wrapping paper for next day's fish and chips. We reallly have to stop taking ourselves so seriously. Sorry if that sounds blunt but the truth is a hard pill to swallow. Love comics and all , but splitting hairs over such long forgotten trivialities is actually a waste of time.

sincerely ,


The Cap.

[Shaqui]

He may have drawn it, but he didn't own it, so it's still plagiarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism

In addition to the ethical issue, this can be illegal if copyright of the prior work has been transferred to another entity.

That was the case with this example, the prior work was owned by DC Thomson, not Leo himself.

There is (or was, back in the 1990s, as I had to find out and challenge a couple of instances where my own designs had been re-used without permission) what is called 'parental copyright'. Even if directly commissioned (though this probably applies more to freelance against in-house work), a creative still has 'parental copyright' of the work to some degree. The script or characters may not have been Baxendale's but the composition and layout were - without him, that viewpoint/art would not exist.

[NP]

There was a machine called a Grant Enlarger which projected an image onto a lightbox for the artist to trace over. The size and clarity of the image could be adjusted by the use of handles and dials you turned. They certainly existed in the early 1980s so they may have been around in the mid-sixties.

They used to advertise a machine like that in American comics back in 1964 so Bax could have ordered one and used it. But it does seem like a lot of effort. he could just write and draw a new story instead. I reckon he used what we call 'copying by hand'.

[NP]

...a creative still has 'parental copyright' of the work to some degree. The script or characters may not have been Baxendale's but the composition and layout were - without him, that viewpoint/art would not exist.

The degree is 0, the publisher holds complete copyright control unless otherwise arranged- the illustrator, writer, etc etc have no claim. The script in both instances shown above was by Baxendale, according to him, and both done whien he was a freelancer.

[Phoenix]

Why would an artist of the calibre of Leo Baxendale need to double his workload, at a time when, by his own admission, he was short of time, by first tracing a picture he had previously drawn? He would simply have revisited an idea he had had a few years earlier, and drawn it again.

Bax could have ordered one and used it. But it does seem like a lot of effort. He could just write and draw a new story instead. I reckon he used what we call 'copying by hand'.

Reused script?

[Raven]

The script in both instances shown above was by Baxendale, according to him, and both done when he was a freelancer.

What's your source for him saying he wrote the Little Plum script?

In his autobiography, he seemed clear about scripts being supplied to him for his Beano strips - which would have added to what made Thomson angry at the time: if Thomson staff-produced scripts were being so blatantly reworked for rival publishers.

[Raven]

Not surprisingly, because surely all artwork he did for Minnie and Plum is © DC Thomson. Leo had no right to reuse it. I guess that burned his bridges, and is a (but not the only) reason why he'll never do new material for Thomsons now.

No, Thomson tried to woo him back to The Beano in 1973, but he'd already made his plan to leave the grind of the comics industry, which he'd come to consider uncivilised and a rip-off, for good.

As for now, bear in mind he's over eighty years old, and unlikely to be looking for an opportunity to leap back into it again, nearly forty years later!

[philcom55]

There was a machine called a Grant Enlarger which projected an image onto a lightbox for the artist to trace over. The size and clarity of the image could be adjusted by the use of handles and dials you turned. They certainly existed in the early 1980s so they may have been around in the mid-sixties.

We had a giant version of one of those at art college in the 1970s. You had to climb inside it like a modern passport photo booth. Used in conjunction with a Letraset catalogue it was really useful for trying out lettering styles in those pre-digital days, though I remember it got uncomfortably hot very quickly so that prolonged use inevitably resulted in a headache.

A cheaper alternative for copying magnified images, also advertised in American comic books, was a 'Heath Robinson' device known as a Pantograph. They always looked horribly awkward to me but I have heard of comic artists using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph

- Phil Rushton

[Phoenix]

A cheaper alternative for copying magnified images, also advertised in American comic books, was a 'Heath Robinson' device known as a Pantograph.

I bought one of those for Andrew in 1981, or thereabouts, as one of his Christmas presents. I'm sure the word pantograph was also used for a diamond-shaped metal gizmo on top of the engine, or the front carriage if there was no proper engine, of electric trains in order to pick up the necessary electricity from an overhead cable.

[Digifiend]

As for now, bear in mind he's over eighty years old, and unlikely to be looking for an opportunity to leap back into it again, nearly forty years later!

I know, that's why I said "not the only) reason"