Comments on: Discussion: Can a cartoonist plagiarize own work?

By: Jose M. Bielza

Jose M. Bielza — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:42:23 +0000

Well, sometimes I develop several cartoons from an idea (now I got a caption and two possible drawings). So to publish both shall be plagiarism? Maybe it should be laziness… or not. Shall Bach be accused of plagiarism for his Goldberg Variations? OK, he was a genius and I’m not.

So , if there are variations, plagiarism is out of the equation.

By: Harold Clayton

Harold Clayton — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:45:11 +0000

So, let me get this straight- It’s OK if you rerun a drawing from eight years ago, but it’s NOT all right to redraw a cartoon from a few months back?

Obviously, readers (or other cartoonists) are less likely to notice the repeated image with an eight year time lag, but besides the diminished chance of being caught, what’s the difference?

I guess the difference might be that it’s a lot easier to rationalize the act (as some inside joke with your readers) after you get busted. Come on, Horsey no more expected his readers to make the connection between those two cartoons than he expected another cartoonist to call him out on it.

By: Garey Mckee

Garey Mckee — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:03:28 +0000

I think the bottom line is that David’s efforts to intentionally use previous imagery as a way to bring a point across was completely misconstrued by some as being somehow lazy or unethical.

It seems today so many editorial cartoonists are under the microscope, that any unconventional methods or ideas with broader scope than just one cartoon are quickly attacked.

By: Rob Tornoe

Rob Tornoe — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:52:51 +0000

I agree with you Josh, I think what Delonas did was MILES away what Horsey did. I’ve still gotten no response from Delonas or his editor.

By: Bob Quick

Bob Quick — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:07:17 +0000

In response to Wiley (Post#45)
You are absolutely right.

By: Clay

Clay — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:23:51 +0000

Now was what Milli Vanilli did so bad they have to be compared to editorial cartoonists?

I have thoughts about this, but I’ll save ‘em for my own blog.

By: josh shalek

josh shalek — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:33:39 +0000

This is a very interesting discussion. I’ve thought about (obsessed over?) this very idea myself: http://joshshalek.blogspot.com/2007/07/should-i-post-this-twice.html

I don’t think there’s any problem revisiting an idea, as David Horsey has. It’s kind of like a visual call-back. It is also a way to say, “this is what I thought before,” and comment on how things have either changed or stayed the same since then. (Usually it’s a bit of both.)

You know, Dali revisited The Persistence of Memory. A link I found with both paintings is here: http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2002/03/07/Weekend/The_persistence_of_Da.shtml
But there, of course, he changed a number of elements in the painting.

Sean Delonas does not seem to be doing what either Horsey or Dali had. While I don’t think he should lose his job over it, I do think he’s lost a lot of credibility as a commentator and an artist. He’s certainly not the only artist/writer who has intentionally repeated himself in public, as a number of Daily Cartoonist comments have pointed out. But I expect more from cartoonists than, say, op/ed columnists or MSNBC reporters. To be a published cartoonist is a rare thing, a special thing and something that you don’t take for granted. That’s what really galls me about laziness in this field. For every bad comic you see published there are hundreds of aspiring cartoonists who would work harder than that just to get their work seen by the public.

By: Jeff Darcy

Jeff Darcy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:29:39 +0000

I’m trying to convince myself my Bronx bomber toons were variations on a theme, not much different than Jasper Johns Flag or Target series, except that know one has offered me millions for them yet.

By: Jeff Darcy

Jeff Darcy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:19:13 +0000

I’m guilty of having done this with a Cleveland Indians cartoon, with my editors knowledge. When the Team beat the Yanks in the playoffs last year I submitted four or five ideas on it. One showed chief wahoo piloting a b-17 named the Bronx Bomber. In the Bombers seat were little midges, which had played a role in the win by bugging the Yanks pitcher. While were going through the ideas it suddenly dawns on me the I did a similiar cartoon about ten year earlier that ran on the front page. Chief wahoo in a Bronx bomber with bats falling out like Bombs. I told my editor,”Oh wait we can’t do this..I just remembered I did something like it 10 years ago” But he still loved the visual with the bugs and wanted to do it. So we ran it and it was probably the most popular toon i did all year. The two drawings were totaly different. But even with that and it’s popularity. It still makes me uncomfortable. Because my reaction to this issue is like others-it’s pathetic laziness with all the stuff out there to draw cartoons on.

By: Neal Obermeyer

Neal Obermeyer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:52:33 +0000

What if he would’ve redrawn the situation, but then put a big label on the picture saying “Deja vu” … would that have been okay?

I don’t see why it’s so hard to accept that maybe there was meaning in the duplication. I know I’ve done the same thing, not out of laziness, but using the duplication as part of the delivery of a point.