Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MIT Steals Comic Book Character

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Sep 01, 2002 08:17 AM
from the they-coulda-at-least-swiped-gundam dept.
News
Merle writes "According to Horizon Comics MIT has stolen images from their comic Radix in a proposal to the US Army as an attempt to gain funds to foot a project in creating a better, stronger type of soldier for tomorrow. Upon inspection of the images themselves, it can be easily seen that minor image alteration and a bit of photoshop magic for the background, MIT did a classic comic book "swipe" and took the credit for it." Well, imitation/flattery/blah blah blah, but man. Thats just strange.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

MIT Steals Comic Book Character 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I appreciate that they deserve compensation for this blatant theft of their IP (though note that irony of that: Wouldn't most slashdotters claim that MIT was just pursuing "fair use" if they paid for their own copy?), but I find this section of their lawsuit a bit absurd:

    MIT's unwarranted use of Radix's lead character, "Valerie Fiores," permanently damaged the comic book, said creator Ray Lai.

    "People who buy Radix buy a fantasy," said Lai.
    "Now MIT says all future U.S. soldiers will look like Radix. They're saying Radix is not fantasy, it's reality. By doing that, MIT stole our ability to market Radix as escapist entertainment."
    • "Any portion of any creation can be removed and redistributed in a creation of your own unless the original creation is released under an approved open source license."

      This allows Slashdot readers to make themselves distributors for other people's music, software, video, etc, but makes sure Microsoft will never distribute their GPLed code for something as tacky as profit.
    • Was the use of images fair? Possibly, if they had been credited. But the fact that they tried to pass the work off as their own was plagiary, not just a copyright violation.

      I mean, the author of the comic book probably would have been happy to let them use his images if they'd asked, really.
  • But given how many people on Slashdot and elsewhere were saying that the image was all anime-like and looked really cool, I'd not be surprised if this brought a lot of new-found interest into Radix.

    So, in the end, while it was still wrong for MIT to steal the artwork and they should compensate for it, Ray Lai is probably going to get a lot of new readers over this incident.
    • Except that if you had read the article, you would know that Radix is no longer being produced, ever since they found out about MIT's blantant rip and lodged a lawsuit.

      So if an unpublished comic can gain readership, then you sir are correct...


      • Except that if you had read the article, you would know that Radix is no longer being produced, ever since they found out about MIT's blantant rip and lodged a lawsuit.

        I'm curious about that point. Is there a valid legal reason to do this? Or is it just an attempt to inflate "damages" claimed?
  • I was told in primary school that an undocumented idea taken from someone else or a previously published document is plagiarism if and only if no less than five words are used consecutively. For example, if you were to quote this comment in your own work and take credit for it, you could legally say previously published document is, but you would have to use quotes and references, i.e. "previously published document is plagiarism" (G0SP0DAR, slashdot.org, 20020901) for you to use my reference without plagiarising (okay, this is just an example, please don't Google me to it!).

    At any rate, words can be counted with discrete numbers. How does one evaluate how much of an image is original and how much, and to what extent, is an actual image 'plagiarized'? I would say that before the age of computers, the discernment of such things would be a lost cause. But there are ways to compare layers of images, in terms of pixels, lines, colors, etc. to determine how things match up, sort of like the way biometric security programs measure fingerprints, retinal scans, and the like, to compare how good a match something is. In short, there would have to be a standard by which something could not be 'too good' a match for it to be original. What that standard would be, in terms of percent correspondence in different aspects, would have to be determined by "experts in the field." After that, leave me out of it!
    • Anyone who looks at the two works can plainly see that portions of the original were copied. The whole purpose of a jury is to make rational judgements without having to quantify everything in statutes. There is no need to have some sort of objective litmus test. And by the way, I'm not an expert in the matter, but the '5 word' definition seems a bit simlpistic to me. If you heard it in primary school, perhaps it was just a simple guideline given to students to help them rip their reports from encyclopaedias (that's what we used before the internet.) I find it very hard to believe that I can simply rewrite every fifth word of somebody else's work and publish it without fear of legal action.
    • The image was just a composition from 3 seperate commic book frames.

  • It's not fair use (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordNimon (85072) on Sunday September 01 2002, @08:35AM (#4180170)
    Well, not in my opinion at least. The graphic design industry already has something that covers this type of work: royalty-free stock images. A graphic artist can by a book or a CD full of images and/or photographs. The cost of the book/CD covers unlimited royalty-free usage of the images in any way (with the exception of mass re-duplication and sale of the book/CD, of course).

    What MIT has done is classic non-fair-use of design work. A professional graphic designer would never have done what MIT did, and based on the article, MIT didn't use a professional:

    MIT Professor Ned Thomas, head of the ISN, claimed his daughter created "an interpretive drawing" of the futuristic solider "in a couple of days" for use in the application.
    I seriously doubt Prof. Thomas' daughter is a professional graphic designer. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she's a high-school kid who just knows how to use Photoshop.
    • What MIT has done is classic non-fair-use of design work. A professional graphic designer would never have done what MIT did
      That's hardly clear. After all, the image was never offered for sale or distributed to the general public. The courts may well consider this a "noncommercial" fair use.
  • I don't think it would fall under fair use since it was used to get a grant. They are, in effect, profiting from another's work. Honestly, whether it damages the comic book's ability to be 'escapist fantasy' or not is moot. It looks an awful lot like Horizon's work.
      • Maybe you should look at the buildings in the background. They're a direct copy - most likely a scan. We're not talking about looking at a character in a book and then drawing the same character in a different pose (although that's clearly part of it). The background looks line-for-line identical to one found in the comic book.

  • Sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)

    by sheriff_p (138609) on Sunday September 01 2002, @08:37AM (#4180174)
    Wired have been running this story for a few days with a slightly more balanced persepctive (read it here [wired.com]), the key quote being:
    In a letter dated May 3, MIT attorney Mark Fischer admitted that MIT had used this drawing of "Val" in its grant proposal to the Army. But Kelly says because "MIT reproduced a very small number of copies (approximately 25 copies)," of the document for "educational activities," the school did not violate the Lais' rights.
    It does seem that at first, one of the MIT professors said their daughter had drawn it, but, the quote above I think says it all...
    • MIT reproduced a very small number of copies (approximately 25 copies)," of the document for "educational activities," the school did not violate the Lais' rights.

      Okay, so how is this any different from downloading some MP3 songs to see if you'd like to buy the CD?

      • Ummm...maybe the fact that the copied images were used to get MIT over $50 million? I don't think any sane person would suggest that the images were solely responsible for that grant from the Federal government, but why would MIT have included it if they didn't think it would help them get the money? Given that MIT thought the swiped image helpful, and given that the images helped MIT get a TON of cash, I think it follows that the original artist should be compensated.

        Your flawed analogy could be corrected like this...

        Okay, so how is this any different from downloading an MP3 and using it as part of the soundtrack in a movie that grosses $50 million?

        (The soundtrack contributes to the movie, but the movie should pretty well stand on its own...nevertheless, if the soundtrack is part of the movie, if the director thought it added somethig, then the artist should be compensated).
      • Well, imagine if you downloaded an MP3, and then got a production job by claming that you had created it it.

        That would be more like what happened, this is totaly diffrent simply downloading something and enjoying it without pay.

    • Re:Sensationalism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Stonehand (71085) on Sunday September 01 2002, @09:22AM (#4180280) Homepage
      Smack 'em. Just because MIT is an educational institution does not mean that everything they do is for educational activities.

      Was it for scholarly criticism? Was the drawing important /as/ a research matter (and not just in getting money /for/ research)? No, not really.

      Hmmm. I wonder what the MIT penalty for plagiarism is. Expulsion? I wonder what they'll do to the responsible employees.
  • MIT clearly messed up (or, more to the point, the grad student who was doubtless the one who snagged the art-work did). However, this line from Radix's site:
    MIT's unwarranted use of Radix's lead character, "Valerie Fiores," permanently damaged the comic book, said creator Ray Lai.

    "People who buy Radix buy a fantasy," said Lai. "Now MIT says all future U.S. soldiers will look like Radix. They're saying Radix is not fantasy, it's reality. By doing that, MIT stole our ability to market Radix as escapist entertainment."

    Makes me think that Radix is really just drooling over the opportunity to sue such a large organization. Sad, really. MIT should be forced to pay a royalty for the use of the art. Nothing more.
        • Maybe this is just posturing so that they can get a more generous package from MIT, but I'd like to see a bit more moderation and cool-headedness. To me, it honestly looks like he's itching to sue MIT. The court system seems like the only recourse nowadays - so much for people and organizations acting morally.
          He's got a right to be pissed off. This is a probably impoverished artist, whose work was appropriated by a big university and used to obtain a huge military grant, without even the courtesy of asking permission. He may even have political issues with his work being used in this way. But the fact is that MIT has a pretty strong "fair use" case. The only shot he has at making MIT suffer any consequences is making a case--albeit a somewhat strained one--that he has been harmed.
  • The worst thing IMHO is it shows a lack of imagination, that they have to steal someone elses work. They dont seem to deserve the funds if they cant even do this simple thing without cheating.
    • It's a funny thing. I'm buddies with a few comic book artists, and most start off by copying favorite characters, Dredd, Xmen, Lobo, Jonny homicidal maniac or whatever. Over time however the originality kicks in and the artist starts developing original styles and characters. I suspect theres a degree of this here. The daughter may be a comic nut at an early stage of artistic development. Just kinda using photoshop or sumfin for tools. Still pretty lame tho , and yeah MIT can afford to pay royalties for this one.
  • the perfect soldier has a man's head and breasts! i would do a double take if i ever saw that on the battle field.

    okay, i'm lying. if i was on the battle field i'd be too busy ducking to care weither it was a breasted man shooting at me or not.
  • ...what else do they rip off?

    Do they buy ex-soviet 1970 tanks, paint a US flag on them, and say they are the tanks of the future?

    We need to be told!

  • If you RTFA ( Read the Freakin' Article ) you'll see it's not a photoshop touch-up etc. I get the feeling that it's two groups with similair concepts that drew something similair.

    One may have been based off the other but name me a superhero that isn't based off of superman ( not really - you know what I mean ).
    • I suggest you read it yourself. Look at the images, and pay attention to details; it's perfectly obvious that MIT swiped the body from the cover, the helmet from page 18, and the background from page 23.

    • Re:Naaaah (Score:2, Informative)

      by BJH (11355)
      An MIT student, are we? Hmm?
      If you had bothered to read the article, you would have seen that the MIT image is a straight cut-and-paste touchup job, using scans from Radix.
      You'd think a prestigious university would be able to fork out the couple of hundred bucks it'd take to get an original illustration, especially since they were trying to get a $50 million grant, but apparently they're just as clueless as Joe Sixpack who downloads MP3s from Gnutella "because they're free".

  • Why can't they just give credit to Radix (Score:3)

    by jukal (523582) on Sunday September 01 2002, @08:58AM (#4180218) Journal
    I don't get it, does MIT want to teach their students steal artwork and not even credit the original author? Is that like "company policy" there at MIT?

  • Handy Swipes(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by realgone (147744) <jim.mistertumbles@com> on Sunday September 01 2002, @08:59AM (#4180223) Homepage
    I can understand why Horizon Comics might be upset, but the truth is this sort of thing is extremely common in pitches and proposals -- particularly in my chosen profession of advertising. Heck, there's even a catchy name for it: "swipe". As in, "Hey, I need some swipe of people playing pool for this Budweiser ad." At which point, some junior art director will scamper off and start flipping through magazines and stock books looking for that perfect temp photo.

    Everyone understands that this isn't our original artwork, that it's only there to give the client a sense of what the ad could look like and ultimately get them excited enough about the idea to execute it with real art. I have the sense that MIT looked at the illustrations for this Army proposal much the same way.

    What does seem like dirty pool, however, is that someone decided to go that one extra and add their own credit line -- "H. Thomas", it looks like? -- to said swipe. And that, my friends, is where we begin to cross the line into outright theft. I'd agree that MIT, at the very least, owes an apology to all involved. (Although I guess creating invisible ninja supersoldiers means never having to say you're sorry, right?)

    • There's a big difference between swiping images for a proposal and using those swiped images in the final ad, though. This wasn't a proposal in the sense of "Hey, this is how we think the layout should be, and we've got this picture of a futuristic soldier right here, and..." This was a finished project. This was "Hey, Feds, we'll give you this, you give us money." As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, MIT clearly thought that the image contributed to their document; if they didn't, they wouldn't have included it. Since their inclusion of the image helped them get $50 million, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the artist get a slice of that.

      I suspect that the document's authors didn't know it was a swipe. The artist should be hung out to dry. Oh, wait, she's some bigwig's daughter, isn't she...
      • Well if academic honesty were to be applied to the teachers as well as the students then the grant should be forfeited, the professors who wrote the grant would lose their tenure and placed on probation. The daughter who did the crop and scan should face the same.
        To plagiarize is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I hope the MA AG takes note of this.
    • Use of another's photos in comps of ads for clients can be subject to fees and transgressing as you describe can, and has, caused the transgressor to be spanked in court on more than one occasion.

      Because, as you point out, it is "swiping" (more formally known as "stealing") another's work.

      The pricing guide I use for sales specifically lists "presenation to client when artwork is not used in the final product" as a billable event ...
      • I agree.

        If I were the original author, I should even be flattered that they'd use my work for a greater purpose, and even more if it means making something that I have only imagined become a reality.

        Sorry, I don't agree. Try that when you use the likenesses of characters designed by large and powerful corporations like Disney. People are always using the "but I'm giving you free advertising - you should be pleased" line, but it never cuts any ice. You're using their work, and they don't want you to, end of story.

        Stuff like this obviously works both ways [snopes.com], but I'm not sure I'll ever understand the "you should be happy I stole your work" argument.

        Tim

  • From grad school experience & working with people who came from Academia I must say that such violations are far too common. Most profs know that they're not worth enough for anybody to sue, so they'll take the easy way. Several former profs that I work[ed] with are fond of saying "It's easier to apologize than to get permission."

    Am I the only one who has seen profs dump hundreds of pages of the web to create student notes -- copied & bound & sold at the student book store as a "required text"?

  • It's not as if the Radix armor is original (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DavidBrown (177261) on Sunday September 01 2002, @09:41AM (#4180338) Journal
    Try reading Masamune Shirow's "Appleseed", published in America by Dark Horse Comics. The body armor worn by the ESWAT soldiers is clearly a precursor to the Radix armor.

    Now if MIT had ripped of Shirow's artwork instead of the much lamer Radix artwork they would have wound up with a $100 million grant, instead of only $50 million.

    Oops.

  • MIT has Issued an Apology (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alien54 (180860) on Sunday September 01 2002, @09:50AM (#4180356) Journal
    MIT [mit.edu] apparently has gotten enough flack over this in the past week that they have issued an apology, removed all offending artwork, etc.

    This public apology is featured on their news page [mit.edu]. See the press release here [mit.edu]

    Just another example of how timely /. can be at times

    ;-)

    heck even RFN [radiofreenation.net] has followed this

    ;-)

  • I found the link on the forums, here's the relevant part of the show

    http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/29/asb.00.ht ml

    COOPER: Well, it's the tale of two pictures. We're going to show them both to you now. The one on the left is Valerie Fiorez (ph), heroine of the comic book Radix. The one on the right is MIT's idea of the soldier of the future. You notice something?

    MIT used that image on the right to win a $50 million research grant from the Pentagon. The two comic book creators, Ray and Ben Lai, are not pleased. MIT has taken down the image from its Web site. The brothers are considering a lawsuit.

    Joining me from Montreal, Ray Lai.

    Thanks for being with us, Ray.

    RAY LAI, CO-CREATOR, RADIX: Thank you, Anderson.

    COOPER: How did you hear that MIT had basically used your comic book idea for their $50 million proposal?

    LAI: We have fans from California calling us saying that when, you know, they saw it in the newspaper. So, basically, that's what -- that's how we found out about it.

    COOPER: The -- MIT has said that they did, in fact, copy it, though innocently. They said they did not intentionally do it. They were unaware of it. Is that good enough for you?

    LAI: You know, of course they're saying it now, but -- you know, I don't know what really happened, but they put somebody else's name on it. So -- and it's not as simple as just taking it off the Web site. They actually scanned it off the books.

    COOPER: Now, the idea of your comic -- and, I mean, the heroine in your comic basically has -- I mean, this suit and sort of supernatural powers, as I guess a lot of comic characters do, and that's sort of what MIT was selling to the Pentagon. They were talking about developing technologies with suits that would heal soldiers, would make them able to leap 20 feet. I mean, do you see similarities in the idea that MIT is proposing to your comic books?

    LAI: Well, there's definitely some similarities, especially when they use the image to describe what they're doing -- they're trying to do. So, I don't know how much of it is from the comic book. I don't know if they really know about it. All I know is they published the image without our permission, and they did it with -- by putting somebody else's name on it. COOPER: Besides your obvious anger over this, I mean, does it kind of scare you that, you know, the Pentagon is giving $50 million to folks to develop ideas based on a comic book, or at least develop images based on a comic book?

    LAI: Well, I mean, that's up to the public to decide. I mean, you know, it's scary that if they actually make it into reality, I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in.

    COOPER: Are you going to sue? I mean, I know you sent a cease- and-desist order, or your lawyers did, to MIT to take it off their Web site. They've sort of apologized. Is there another step? I mean, I suppose you could sue for copyright infringement or something.

    LAI: Well, some think that, but I'm leaving that to our lawyers. So, we're weighing our options right now.

    COOPER: Always an ominous sentence, weighing options and leaving it to the lawyers. What -- just to inform some viewers, this -- MIT is basically going to start an institute for soldier nanotechnologies, so that's what this $50 million is going to. What -- when you look at the image that MIT sent into the Pentagon, I mean, what do you see from your comic book? We're showing both images side- by-side right now.

    LAI: Well, they actually took more than just the main character. They took the background off another page inside the book, and they took the helmet off another page inside the book. So, you know, the entire image is piece and bits from different parts of the book.

    COOPER: There are some who say, you know, this is really a plus for you and your brother, that, you know, this is getting your comic book a lot of publicity, a lot of notoriety. A lot of people probably talking about it who wouldn't before. Do you agree?

    LAI: Well, of course -- I mean, we're getting a lot more coverage than if this didn't happen. But, I think the important thing is for the other universities to know about it, what MIT did, and let them judge whether the competition was fair or not, because it is -- it was an open competition.

    COOPER: You're saying that because other universities were also applying for this Pentagon, and MIT is the one who won. Just, you know, for the record, the Pentagon has said that it wasn't just the illustrations in the pentagon -- in the MIT proposal that won then that day was their ideas, as well. So -- but, Mr. Lai, we appreciate you coming in and appreciate you talking with us, and good luck with your comic...

    LAI: All right.

    COOPER: We'll follow the story as it develops.

    LAI: OK, thank you.

    COOPER: Thanks a lot. A few quick stories from around the world tonight. Pretty rare. We can combine shameless pandering and a shameless pun at the same time. It's a rare day. Yes, it's a panda story. Even better, a baby panda story. Nielson families, take note: two Chinese Pandas, Bean-Bean and Shu-Lan, are the proud mothers of two male pandas. Oh, yes. No names yet. This is the 14th panda Bean-Bean has had, or should we say the 14th baby Bean-Bean will admit to. That's right, Bean-Bean gets around. That's what I heard, anyway. People are talking. That's what the other girls in the restroom are saying.

    They call him "Crocodile Boy." Actually, that's what we call him. He's a 10-year old Thai boy who allegedly adopted a crocodile as a pet. It's one of those things, like, the video pops up. Who knows if it's real? I don't know. Seems we get along well with this croc, too. His favorite pastime is watching TV and, apparently, brushing the teeth there. I don't know. I'm not sure I buy it.

    From Japan, a story that needs no commentary, and please, no commentary or e-mail. Such a dumb idea, it speaks for itself: a bra made of glass. For the time being, the company is, mercifully, not selling any to the public. Yeah. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: Remembering.
  • Is it just me, or does the character look like half of all the manga/anime characters?

  • Tempest in a teapot... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith (263124) on Sunday September 01 2002, @10:16AM (#4180431) Homepage
    What's the big deal? The Boston Globe has been reporting on this as it unfolds. The author of the report asked his teen-aged daughter if she'd do an illustration, she did, she didn't know better, they used it, Horizon complained, MIT apologized.

    I just feel sorry for the guy and his daughter. She was interested in art, he was trying to give her a nice little moment.

    The last time I looked, Horizon wanted a more sincere apology--I think they said that since the original had been a press release the apology should be a press release or something like that. But I'm sure MIT and Horizon will work it out, probably without even any money payment.

    Nothing in the incident even involves any EXTREME misjudgement or overreaction. It's not as if the author of the report did anything TERRIBLY stupid; it fell well within the normal range of misjudgement that anyone could make from time to time. And, dammit, it was a nice thing for him to do for his daughter. He just should have been a little more careful.

    It's not like Horizon was wrong to complain. It's not like Horizon is overreacting or suing MIT for $100,000,000.

    It was a minor misjudgement, everyone seems to be acting in a reasonably adult manner... what's the big deal?

  • 50 Millions dollars for a comic nanotech suit??? (Score:3, Funny)

    by imr (106517) on Sunday September 01 2002, @01:11PM (#4181028)
    50 millions to become invisible and jump 20 feet high ???
    And they refused my original work of a red and blue suit with a big yellow S which would have given invincibility and the ability to fly to all u.s. soldiers for a mere one hundred million dollars!!!!

  • This is funny... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sheldon (2322) on Sunday September 01 2002, @02:13PM (#4181206)
    According to /. it's ok to steal music and movies, but when you steal a comic book image it's grounds for the death penalty! :)
    • The classic SciFi book Starship Trooper used this idea decades ago.

      The question is whether this character's "look" is unique; I doubt anyone is claiming the idea of soldiers in mechnized suits is new or unique.

      I find the characters look alike, but then I think it looks like it was ripped off from the old Japanese Anime "Eight Man" and "Astro boy".

      In the end, its a tempest in a teapot.
    • Mod the parent up, and here's the translation:

      "Dear Mr. Comic Artist,

      Please please pleeeeeease don't sue me. By the way, that illustration helped us get a $50 million grant from the US military, so we've got deeper pockets than you.

      Insincerely yours,
      Ned"
    • It was a last minute decision, and I asked my daughter, a graphic artist, to provide an image.

      I didn't know until after your attorney contacted MIT at the end of April that the image apparently was based on your character.

      i wonder if his daughter went to mit? really though, saying this image is based on the comic book character is like saying a photograph of me is based on me. i seriously doubt the guys daughter took the time to even redraw the images. copy, paste, fade, etc. without citing your source is plagiarism.

      i'm really surprised this is coming from an academic at mit. ethical issues like this are pretty fundamental in academia. it's a shame he's trying to water it down with saying it was based on the guy's character. someone should take one of this guys papers, reorder the sections and say it's based on his paper. see how fast his panties get twisted then.
    • Now, Pay something, for USE! You DID use the image, so give the artist a proper financial reward! You failed to research the sources of all images, etc. YOU failed to ask where the graphics came from. Blame the daughter for 'giving' a graphic work to you...? You are responsible, as a scholar, to teach ethics by example... Nice that you apologized, but...? Mistakes have consequences...
    • Yup. Somebody should go down for this.

      Either that, or MIT should drop the pretense of caring about honesty and publicly acknowledge that it'd rather look after its own interests, copyrights, fairness and morality be damned.
    • OK, tell you what. Go find some crooked employer that shorts you on payday. In effect, you should work for free for a week. Then, sue your boss for unfair labor practices. Make sure the lawsuit shows up on popular weblogs visited by the sort of people who are interested in your work. Overall, I think with the resulting publicity, the net effect for you will be positive, so don't bother pressing forward with your suit...let the crooked employer get off scot free so he can tell all his crooked buddies what a great scam he's thought up.

      And all those other people who work for crooked employers may not share your ability to get publicity, and they're just out of luck. But that's OK, it worked out for you...no need to actually PUNISH anyone, is there?
    • Certainly not. If a system gives statuatory anybody to use anybody else's art without permission, then there's nothing preventing MIT from releasing its own competing comic book starring hundreds of Ms. Fiores clones -- which would certainly cause damage. Hell, letting everybody use it would cause damage even if they didn't use it for comic books -- it'd be diluted to the point where Mr. Lai becomes only one in a crowd.

      There's a principle at stake here.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.