If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   MIT rips off Image Comics character Radix to get $50 mil defense contract   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 68
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

12017 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2002 at 11:05 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-08-29 10:48:26 AM  
That is actually pretty funny...
 
2002-08-29 11:10:31 AM  
those wacky MIT guys, always with the jokes and the rip off's...
 
2002-08-29 11:11:05 AM  
Haha. I'm sure they used some undergrad at crappy UROP (research) wages to put a $50 million proposal together, and he just grabbed images off the web.
 
2002-08-29 11:11:22 AM  
Today in the news: Yesterday's news!

Still. Pretty screwed up.
 
2002-08-29 11:12:18 AM  
"It was an innocent use," MIT spokesman Ken Campbell said. "We didn't know it was from anyone else's artwork."


Right.

We had thought we must have done it in our sleep, and awoke to find it on the nightstand...
 
2002-08-29 11:13:27 AM  
Next week: Harvard creates real life Superman; Marvel to file lawsuit.
 
2002-08-29 11:13:46 AM  
Image comics suck, anyway....so, whatever happened to Rob Liefeld, anyway? Is he doing gay porn now, or what?
 
2002-08-29 11:13:56 AM  
for $50 million I'd "borrow" someone else's artwork too
 
_
2002-08-29 11:14:54 AM  




Here's a closer comparison than the one Yahoo gives.
 
2002-08-29 11:15:18 AM  
http://www.therecord.com/news/news_02082985335.html
Here's another article relating to this story.

The illustration was credited by MIT to "H. Thomas." Shortly after the grant was announced, Ned Thomas, an MIT professor and the director of the new institute, told the Web site CNET.com that his daughter drew the soldier based on his description. Thomas declined a reporter's request to comment on the drawing.
 
2002-08-29 11:15:26 AM  
Could have been worse.


Supersoldier Ziggy anyone?
 
2002-08-29 11:16:36 AM  
Yeah, so Fing what. If MIT's not planning to make comic books then too bad. Fair use baby.
 
2002-08-29 11:16:40 AM  
I don't know what's worse.

MIT copying the design, or this guy worried about his future film and merchandising bux.
 
2002-08-29 11:17:08 AM  
I sense a photoshop coming on...
 
2002-08-29 11:17:31 AM  
This was in the Toronto Star this morning as well. Ironic how the CREATORS of the comic books are Canadian?
 
2002-08-29 11:18:35 AM  
Zzeuss: Universities are all about intellectual property. The fact is you have somebody at MIT taking credit for somebody elses work. There's no greater sin. Not even making a giant robot that eats New York.
 
2002-08-29 11:18:39 AM  
Sounds like the Prof's behind this. Use his daughter's name to 'spread' the credit around...
 
2002-08-29 11:18:53 AM  
I thought Image was ripping off of Marvel, anyway:

Spawn--Spiderman
Pitt--Hulk
W.I.L.DCats--X-men

Actually, weren't there 4 titles that were straight rip-offs of the X-men?
 
2002-08-29 11:18:59 AM  
This just in: MIT is still planning to go ahead with their Macross and Punisher programs with the military.
 
GBB
2002-08-29 11:20:13 AM  
Other failed MIT supersoldier concepts:

Superguy, Spiderdude, The Flash....
 
2002-08-29 11:20:34 AM  
"We didn't know it was from anyone else's artwork."

If I remember correctly, most academic institutions frown on plagarism (big word, MIT - look it up sometime).

Maybe we can use that on the RIAA for the next hack?
"I don't know where that song came from. I didn't know it was someone else's songwork. Yeah, it does sound a lot like Blues Traveller, so what's your point? I can play a pretty mean harmonica myself you know."
 
2002-08-29 11:20:44 AM  
Shouldn't it read "MIT copies artwork from 50,000 different anime series which began distribution upwards of 15 years ago?"

--Gizmo, girls with big guns rock
 
2002-08-29 11:24:09 AM  
Not only is it a shoddy copy, its also been hastily photoshopped. Looks like whoever made that was in a rush to beat out the other Non-TotalFarkers and try to nab some votes themselves...
 
2002-08-29 11:24:33 AM  
Snap: Idiot....DC owns Superman, not Marvel
 
2002-08-29 11:32:33 AM  
Wait a farking minute... I must be reading this wrong.

From what I'm seeing, it's not that MIT actually used a picture from a Radix comic, but rather the image that they're using is extremely similar to a picture in the comic.

So what? Am I supposed to believe that people are allowed to copyright a pose?

Good grief, it's not like MIT's trying to produce a competing comic book, or some kind of franchise, either. It's a MILITARY CONTRACT!

This is just dumb.
 
2002-08-29 11:33:27 AM  
Asshat's. They should have used a more obscure one, like Gen13's bad-guy-troopers-in-armor...
Mmmmm, Gen13's Fairchild....and Rainmaker.... and Roxie.... must. slay. kittens.



 
2002-08-29 11:35:03 AM  
props to the mods for NOT deleting my mad post pics of Rainmaker and Fairchild
 
2002-08-29 11:35:10 AM  

08-29-02 11:18:35 AM Flying squirrel
Zzeuss: Universities are all about intellectual property. The fact is you have somebody at MIT taking credit for somebody elses work. There's no greater sin. Not even making a giant robot that eats New York.


I suppose... but how many different ways can you draw female body armor? I would negotiate a one time payment to the artists and an apology and call it good.
 
2002-08-29 11:35:46 AM  
How can anyone at Image be shocked at seeing something ripped off?

How many out and out ripoffs of Wolverine have we seen from Image in it's early years?

Anyway, Fair use Image.

Deal with it.
 
2002-08-29 11:37:31 AM  
I'm all for this guy suing MIT up and down the street. Part of the appeal of the proposal was the artwork - regardless of whether it *actually* was, they put it in there, so they must have found it important.

Since we pay folks millions to come up with the correst 'asthetics' for things, it is a product, like any other.

MIT took it.

Sue the bastards.

*waves little 'go comic books!' flag*

D_T!
 
2002-08-29 11:37:47 AM  
actually, it is fair use... they changed the artwork by 10%, and that means that the artwork they submitted for the proposal is theirs... the comic book dudes don't have a leg to stand on.

seriously, i could take the mona lisa, and change the color of her hair to blonde, and claim the artwork as my own. 10% change and there is no copywright infringement.
 
2002-08-29 11:42:09 AM  
And both ripped off Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". (note: Jump Suits do not appear in film, the b4st4rds)
 
2002-08-29 11:44:34 AM  
Tracers.
 
2002-08-29 11:45:45 AM  
Ahahaha, this is hilarious.
 
2002-08-29 11:46:22 AM  
Jakrabit-

Watch what happens when someone tries to to do that with a Disney or W.B. character.

Slapping a hat on Mickey or Bugs and pawning it off as your original creation in the worldwide media would get you a nice C&D letter fairly quickly.
 
2002-08-29 11:48:34 AM  
The MIT Link to the article.
 
2002-08-29 11:51:45 AM  
Also, this isn't merely ripping off his concept, it's lifting the exact art directly line for line and pasting it into their presentation as "their" work.
 
2002-08-29 11:55:11 AM  
Universities are all about producing NEW and INVENTIVE things. Be it art, science, or hell at Berkley even history can be new and inventive.

These farking idiots are just proving that name brand schools aren't better (usually) then the walmart/target schools...Bah. Create something, don't steal it...

Oh and the body armor comment is silly. Body armor can look VERY different from what MIT stole....
 
2002-08-29 11:58:04 AM  
oh, i agree with you MorePeasPlease. and i agree that MIT was wrong for doing what they did.

BUT the comic book guy is looking into his legal rights here, according to the article.

not to mention, this is going to come down to who has the most expensive lawyers, who is willing to spend more money on winning the case.

look at jokewallpaper.com when he did his joke on the UPS strike... it was no where NEAR the same artwork that UPS uses for their logo, the only similarities is the color scheme, they sent him threatening letters, and he responded by saying "you win" (reference: http://www.jokewallpaper.com/samples/letter13.htm )- simply because UPS has a wallet the size of cleveland and this guy has his weekly paycheck...

he was right, but he didn't feel like putting himself into poverty over proving a point...

MIT and the comic book company can have one WING-DING of a court case, but it comes down to changing 10% of the artwork, and fair use policy. MIT was not in direct competition with this comic book, so there is no conflict of interest.

also, i would be GREATFUL that this came out in the news... the sales on that series should be expected to increase dramatically, AND that particular issue's value should climb too...
 
2002-08-29 12:03:36 PM  
Jakrabit-

Forget about increased sales.

As a "silent partner" of the original concept team he should demand a personal copy of the prototype powersuit.

Wheeee!
 
2002-08-29 12:04:56 PM  
The women from Bubblegum Crisis were unavailable for comment.

Anyway, anybody remember when Rob Liefeld was at Image when it first started? That bastage copied everything. Designs, characters, page layouts. You name it. I remember seeing a 8 year old drawing of Roadblock from G.I. Joe next to a Liefeld drawing of Cable. Exact same pose, anatomy, and gun.
I know this has nothing to do with the company Image (owned by DC) is today, but I never miss an oppotunity to rip on Liefeld.
 
2002-08-29 12:08:29 PM  
collage plaigerism at it's best. Hey don't blame the guys at MIT that they aren't "art" experts. What do you expect from a bunch of engineers who can't make things look pretty by themselves.
 
2002-08-29 12:11:04 PM  
MorePeasPlease -

oh HELL yah!

and i would definitely demand a night with the female that fits it!

talk about Wheeee!
 
2002-08-29 12:12:58 PM  
Sweet, now maybe my Radix comics will go up in value, instead of rotting at the bottom of my pile of other worthless Image comics.
 
_
2002-08-29 12:13:03 PM  


Why rip off Radix?

_
 
2002-08-29 12:14:08 PM  
The moral of the story is:
MIT nerds love Google Image search.
 
2002-08-29 12:15:16 PM  
Jakrabit-
(just make sure she's out of the suit)

Wheeee! (SNAP) ...oGod-oGod-OH MY FARKING GAWD!!!!!!!

/fetal
 
2002-08-29 12:25:50 PM  
Well clearly they did a little photoshop work on a few images from a comic book. It would be nice if they gave the original creator some credit.

My theory is the Radix people just want to make it clear they didn't steal from MIT. I doubt they'll sue. However, getting a little media attention can't hurt comic book sales.
 
2002-08-29 12:36:29 PM  
::points a finger at McMasters:: AhHa! Which one are you?!
 
2002-08-29 12:39:15 PM  
I heard Liefield was too much into nose candy to do any work anymore. I never could stand Liefield's work. Every page had at least one panel of all of the characters charging at you with their mouths open. I don't know if he could draw any characters with their mouths shut.

As far as the comparison of Spiderman and Spawn, that's understandable, because McFarlane drew Spidey for Marvel. The reason he and the rest left Marvel and formed Image was because they wanted sole rights to the characters they developed on their own, and Marvel said no.

And Marvel will try to sue the shiat out of anyone that they think has something even close to one of their characters. Dave Stevens, creator and artist for the ROCKETEER, approached Marvel to publish his first issue, and they wanted complete control and all rights to the character, which Stevens said "No way" to. Marvel then tried to sue Stevens, to stop any publication of "The Rocketeer", on the grounds that in one of their past comic books, on one page (if I remember correctly), there was a character that was similar (disregarding, I guess, Commando Cody, of the early '50's serials). As far as the 10% change on the Mona Lisa, that's not a good analogy, because DaVinci died over 500 years ago, and the art is public domain.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report