I'll pound you to a "Pulp" if you don't show off yours!

23 23

Recently picked up 6 Weird Tales that were too nice to pass up. I already had copies of all 6, but some looked to be a bit nicer than mine.

Sep 1932, 1st Brundage cover

Oct 1932, 2nd Brundage cover

Feb 1933, St John cover

Apr 1933, St John cover

May 1933, St John cover

Aug 1933, Brundage cover

Great looking pulps Todd

Awesome choice for an alias, Agent 86!

Sanner down....

 

 

A great collection of Weird Tales!

Aug 1933, Brundage cover

 

Recent pickup August 1937

Wow! Great cover Jack!

Awesome!

Not my usual choice of condition but something about the ape with a gun 1940 pulp cover by Mulford

I don't own them, but . . .

Amazing Stories, June, 1926 - Creepy #18, Jan., 1968

It was common that covers were reused again in other books

I suppose it was common but when the two are compared, it just looks like plagiarism.

A pity since I like the cover.

I play a game with people I don't know online. Place two works of art next to each other and ask if it's theft, swipe, homage or coincidence.

The time between when the works was created is key to the artists motivation as well as when the art was made. People in the past would think a long enough time has passed and no one will remember. What with the vast internet archives and the, "Gotcha" mentality, one cannot get away with theft anymore. Eventually, maybe after the artist is dead, someone will put the pieces together and out the artist.

These days, one would be adjured to sign any artwork homage/swipe, "After Kirby, (then the artist's name)" or be labeled a swiper/thief.

How would you describe photo referencing? Unknown stock photos v. famous images that are iconic? Source the icons. Stock photos of, say, people/animals/buildings, etc are fair game.

Discuss, please.

And an oddity from the creator of Doc Savage, writing under his own name this time:

Now to see if I can track down the rest of the story...

Swipe vs homage an interesting topic. I wonder if the Creepy contents have anything relating to "A Journey to the Center of the Earth".

I play a game with people I don't know online. Place two works of art next to each other and ask if it's theft, swipe, homage or coincidence.

 

The time between when the works was created is key to the artists motivation as well as when the art was made. People in the past would think a long enough time has passed and no one will remember. What with the vast internet archives and the, "Gotcha" mentality, one cannot get away with theft anymore. Eventually, maybe after the artist is dead, someone will put the pieces together and out the artist.

 

These days, one would be adjured to sign any artwork homage/swipe, "After Kirby, (then the artist's name)" or be labeled a swiper/thief.

 

How would you describe photo referencing? Unknown stock photos v. famous images that are iconic? Source the icons. Stock photos of, say, people/animals/buildings, etc are fair game.

 

Discuss, please.

Without knowing more details, I'd be inclined to say none of the above and rule out coincidence as there are too many points of similarity.

First off, we need to establish that the publishing arena is different than fine arts, because paid commissions for publication are collaborative. If a publisher requests a knock-off (copy) or homage (attributed copy), then he is responsible for clearing the rights if needed. If an artist knowingly copies another artist's work without informing the publisher then the legal liability shifts (my opinion).

IOW, we cannot know the intent of the second artist without knowing the purpose of the commissioned commercial work. Warren may have requested a knock-off of the earlier cover to highlight a contemporary retelling of a story that appeared in Amazing Stories. In fact, the reworked cover may have been a tribute to the late Frank R. Paul's work given Creepy's fan-base.

I'm not a lawyer, but theft can't be assumed without knowing the rights status of the earlier Frank R. Paul painting in question. Was permission requested or even needed by the latter artist & publisher? Given that over 40 years had passed it's entirely possible that the rights to the original work had reverted to the artist and permission may have been sought from his estate (Paul passed away in '63). Did public domain apply?

Swipes are usually less obvious and involve "borrowing" portions of an earlier artist's work due to rushed deadlines or competency factors. Technically, swiping is theft, but if sufficient variations exist between the works to avoid legal challenges, the second painting would be judged a new, original work.

Homages are usually given the attribution "After (fill in the blank)" to differentiate a close or exact copy from the original, but in the case of paintings recreated in a different style this is a gray area, especially in respect to familiar work. For instance, in recreating the Mona Lisa any attribution would seem arrogant due to the public's familiarity with the original.

My long-winded