Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

MIT Steals Comic Book Character 303

Posted by CmdrTaco from the they-coulda-at-least-swiped-gundam dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT Steals Comic Book Character More

MIT Steals Comic Book Character

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • MIT should pay something -- at the very least, they'd have to pay the equivalent of an artist's commission to get the work done, and I really think that swiping an artist's or author's work should incur penal damages, given how hard it is to pick up on and how tough it can make things for artists.

      OTOH, if they're shooting for millions of dollars, I think they should go back to making comics.

      Finally, the people involved should be penalized. They did something wrong, and were caught doing it.
  • 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.
    • 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'?
      Well, you oughta know that an image is worth a thousand words...

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

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @09:35AM (#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.

    • Re:It's not fair use (Score:2, Informative)

      by Pinky3 ( 22411 )
      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.

      That not what Professor Thomas says in his email to the Lai's. [mit.edu]

      It was a last minute decision, and I asked my daughter, a graphic artist, to provide an image.
      • ~ my daughter, a graphic artist ~
        Since there are no requirements, no licensing, and no professional endorsements required to call one's self "a graphic artist" (which is as it should be) it is really up to the buyer to determine the fitness of said artist to do the required work.

        The usual way to measure the artist's fitness and capability is to view his or her portfolio and talk to references.

    • "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.

      Why not just sue Thomas' daughter? Why all of MIT? I suppose they could say that MIT was "negligent" to use an amature instead of a professional.

      If it was a professional that made the blunder, then going after the artist may make more sense. The comic book company would go after MIT, and MIT could then recover the cost by suing for damages from the artist.

      Any IP lawyers out there to enlighten us on this?

      How old is his daughter?
      • Why not just sue Thomas' daughter?
        I doubt they wrote a contract with her that lets her retain ownership of the artwork she provided. It was almost certainly a work for hire - they give her money, she gives them all rights and responsibilities for the picture. MIT could certainly turn around and sue the artist, but with ownership of IP comes the responsibility of ownership. In this case, she stole the image, they paid her for the stolen image, and they're left holding the bag.

        The situation is a bit like Caldera buying DR DOS. The point was not that they could do anything with it, but if the IP was damaged by MS, then by owning that IP then Caldera could sue MS.

  • not fair use (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mal Y. Clypse ( 249649 )
    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.

  • Sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)

    by sheriff_p ( 138609 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @09:37AM (#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 @10:22AM (#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.
      • To the responsible employees, whom just one a $50,000,000 military grant? Um... they'll give them about $50,000,000 to play with over the next few years. Sad to say; but the plagerism was effective, and on a small enough scale that they'll get away with an apology. Even if they settled or (god forbid) went to court on this, the stiffest penalties wouldn't come close to denting that pile of cash.
      • Thisnshows the horrible nepotism that's rife at university campuses - professors funnel thousands of dollars to their wives, girlfriends and children, paying well above market rates.

        Academia is wholly corrupt.

    • Re:Sensationalism (Score:2, Insightful)

      by strobexii ( 601986 )
      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.
      25 copies?! If I'm not mistaken, the forged artwork was released on the internet [slashdot.org] almost 6 months ago. I cannot come close to guessing how many people have come across it since, but I'm sure most if not all mistakenly assumed it to be MIT's orginal work.
    • Instead of just buying what the MIT lawyer says, check this URL [usatoday.com] first, and tell us what you see in the article. For the real lazy (like me): MIT released this "composite" picture to USA Today. That is not distributing just 25 copies; more like 250000, I'd say!
    • MIT used the image for commercial gain. They're guilty. They have a right, I suppose, to the $50 million, but Horizon also have a right to a piece of that, which they can obtain through a lawsuit. It's an open-and-shut case, even their lawyers admit they broke the law.
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • perfect! (Score:2, Funny)

    by blank ( 1140 )
    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.
    • he perfect soldier has a man's head and breasts! i would do a double take if i ever saw that on the battle field.
      Obviously, the newfangled soldier armor is silicone-powered...
  • ...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 @09:58AM (#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 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @09:59AM (#4180223)
    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.
        • To plagiarize is right right right.
          That's how society makes progress.
          If I can't use your stuff, why should
          I want it? It's only by plagiarism
          that intellectual labors gain value.
      • 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."
        No, it wasn't presented as an actual design or purported to be what the final product would look like--it was just an illustration to give the "flavor" of the concept, much like th use of similar swipes in advertising proposals.
        • i believe he ment finished product in the advertising sense. you have a demoish poster that the advertisers show to the client and say: "this is what the advertisement will look like" and you have the ad agencies finished product which is what is distributed. the parent is saying that using it in the demo is one thing but pushing it as the finished product (from an ad campaign perspective) is another.

          i dont believe he was saying the comic book drawing is the what the actual suite will look like. unless they can find a whole bunch of fembots to wear them.
          • i believe he ment finished product in the advertising sense. you have a demoish poster that the advertisers show to the client and say: "this is what the advertisement will look like" and you have the ad agencies finished product which is what is distributed.
            Similarly, the illustration was only to be shown to the client, and not for general distribution. The actual product is the technology to produced under the grant, which will probably not look much like the illo.
      • But who did decide to use the image "in the final ad" (the publicity release about the deal), MIT or the Army?

    • Re:Handy Swipes(tm) (Score:3, Informative)

      by dhogaza ( 64507 )
      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 ...
      • 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 ...

        Please tell me your company doesn't actually try to enforce this policy. It'd be like going to Banana Republic and getting charged for trying on clothes. Almost all the major stock houses tend to take a very liberal approach to comping images. (Here's an example [comstock.com].) Given the state of the industry these days, seems like it'd be economic suicide to do otherwise.

        • Almost all the major stock houses tend to take a very liberal approach to comping images.

          And therein lies the difference. They're stock houses - they don't create artwork specifically for the client on order, artwork which may have diminished (or no value) for anyone else. Not to mention, they're probably a one or two-person outfit, who need to pay the rent and eat.

          A better analogy would be comissioning a suit designer to tailor the perfect suit for your business presentation, and then saying (after you try it on), not in my style - sorry. Wouldn't you expect that they would still get paid?

          While I agree, you have to be more flexible during the current economy, consistently doing work for clients and not getting paid for it (also known as doing work on spec) is a bad practice.

          You may think you need to do this in order to get work, but all you're doing is saying "I'll do work for free." The kinds of people who hire people on spec are generally not the kind of people who will then turn around and pay you full price for your work in the future.

    • Just because something is done often, because it has a catchy name, and "everyone understands it" doesn't make it legal. That's a weak argument. Don't candy-coat it: 'swiping' (unpermitted use of copyrighted material for commercial gain) is illegal, we know it's illegal, but since the other guy probably won't find out, and it's an industry standard, everyone does it anyway.

      I don't buy your argument about dirty pool. It's like a card sharp calling the guy across the table a cheater. You're all guilty. Reasons like 'swiping' are why I don't trust most people.

  • 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 @10:41AM (#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.

    • This is not an issue of the originality of the concept. I think that everybody would agree that the concept of powered body armor long ago passed into the public domain. This is a swip of a specific illustration.

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

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @10:50AM (#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?
    • Only half? Look at darned near anything put out by Image or Marvel nowadays and the numbers get considerably higher than that.
    • Is it just me, or does the character look like half of all the manga/anime characters?
      Well, Lai is quite obviously a chinese name, so it is not surprising that the comic character be full of oriental comic influence. If the author was french, it would definitely look heavy-metal...

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

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @11:16AM (#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?

    • what's the big deal?
      I can find one if you want... hmmm let's see..
      what about:
      the us army is ready to invest 50 millions dollars in a project where ideas come from a comic book?
      • the us army is ready to invest 50 millions dollars in a project where ideas come from a comic book?

        It's hard not to react sarcastically to that comment, but I'm going to try....

        Such "concept pictures" on a proposal are ignorable, and I assure you that the picture is not what sold it. MIT is quite capable of putting together a proposal that would interest the U.S. Army, and they have no need of comic book art to inspire it.
        • yes, and I would react sarcastically also if I hadnt read the links above:
          Beyond images, the traits of Radix' characters share strikingly similarities with MIT's proposal. Radix features characters who "scan" for life forms, wear invincible body armor, can become invisible, and display physical skills enhanced by machinery. MIT described its future solders as "seemingly invincible warriors protected by armor and endowed with superhuman capabilities such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls." MIT also claimed its soldier could become invisible.
          I wasnt talking about the picture ONLY.
          Also that the mit AND the us army are capable of putting together a reasonnable project doesnt exclude the fact that one of them:
          1/ could be giving a lot of money (maybe because it isnt so much money for the us army or because it isnt exactly its money or because they could need to give that kind of money fast in a nanotech project just in order to have more the next time) in a ridiculous project.
          2/ could be really willing to receive money with a ridiculous description of a ridiculous suit.
  • So, for an assignment, if an MIT student took someone else's code and just used that (instead of implementing it myself), would MIT be OK with that? Even if the snippet of code was just a small part of a huge assignment, but it could be proven with almost certainty that the code was swiped?

    According to the MIT Policy for Academic Dishonesty [mit.edu], the VP for Research is supposed to investigate reports of dishonesty.

    Here's a snippet from a random course handout [mit.edu] at MIT's site (STS001, The History of Technology in America):
    As in any historical report, you are expected to footnote all of your sources (for text, images, sounds, and anything else you use - copyright and plagiarism laws do apply to the web).

    It would be interesting to see what other faculty at MIT, especially those who teach courses like Intro to Ethics [mit.edu], think about this affair.

    In any case, I think this episode has taken the glitter off of some of the shine at MIT. Lets see whether MIT values the $50M more than ethics and honesty. The only honorable thing to do would be for MIT to fire the offending researcher.

  • The more and more I read about the people at MIT, the less and less I am suprised about articles like this. From the numerous pranks, to the vegas article, to the general I go to MIT, I am above everyone else attitude that exists amongst 99% of the student population - simple copyright theft doesn't seem too far fetched.

    Smart enough to get into MIT, not smart enough to realized copyright theft, or the consequences of actions ... sand, lamp, gun
  • Does the U.S. Army want to let somebody get away with stealing, cheating and lying?

    No! Never! Killing, maiming, mangling, burning, blinding, bone breaking, lacerating, bitch slapping, poisonning, drowing...that's all fine, but stealing? Cheating? Never! This isn't that kind of military organisation!

    Everybody knows you don't put your name on somebody else's work. If I went to MIT and did that, I would be thrown out of school.

    Or you'd be a particularly sucesfull teacher...one or the other...

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

    by imr ( 106517 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @02:11PM (#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!!!!
  • You should see the fangs MIT and its licensees come out with when it is their intellectual property that is used, knowingly or otherwise. Compare this with the cavalier and legally naive response to this claim of copyright infringement: we didn't make that many copies.

    Whether or not it was fair use, it was inane and stupid to use it without consent. Consent is virtually trivial and often cheap to obtain for the asking beforehand, and sometimes VERY expensive to obtain afterward. The problem is that the Institute seems to have plural standards to apply -- hands out, when doling out the licenses; but "come on, we're just a poor little educational institution" when seeking free use of the property of others.
  • They ripped of Radix and called it the soldier of the future, and the army bought it. The Osprey plane, which does not fly and has killed many of our servicemen was also based on a comic book. Billions have been wasted on that boondoggle. The Avrocar was a failed attempt to create a real flying saucer. It was based on flights of fancy as well. That multi billion dollar turd barely hovered. Will the military ever wake up and smell the coffee?

  • This is funny... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @03:13PM (#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 original MIT press release was covered a few months back in /. :

    Original slashdot post [slashdot.org]

    As a previous poster mentioned, MIT has apologized. I think the huge concern here is not so much that the artwork was plagarized. I mean, what the heck were these folks doing flipping through comic books in preparation for a grant? The fact that they received the grant at all is itself plain scary. How well would an aerospace company competing for a NASA grant fare if they clipped a comic book spaceship and sent it in?

    Bob

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close