 |
 |
Images above from Youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com
Chelseamca from YouThoughtWeWouldntNotice.com has pointed out the uncanny similarity between the above two illustrations.
Thing is, the image on the left is from Emily Strange, created by Rob Reger in 1991 and now a comic book series slated to become a film in 2010. The image on the right is from Nate the Great Goes Undercover by Marjorie Weinman Sharmat (author) and Marc Simont (illustrator), published in 1978.
And then compare the text. I sense a lawsuit coming…
For more details, see Chelsea’s full post. Thanks to my friend Ray for the link.
(Update: Ray just pointed me to this article as well.)
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
a lot can happen in 15 years. I’d bet it’s a coincidence. Dig far back enough and I’d bet that you’ve inadvertantly ripped a few people off Inkygirl, or should I say INKYTHIEF!
I went there…
It is hard to believe that it is a coincidence when the text matches almost verbatim. And Nate the Great is definitely still around. We have a couple of his books and as soon as i saw that picture I remembered reading it. THis stinks because I love Emily the Strange. He may not have consciously copied it but rather had the idea in his head because he had seen the old book already. But it is just way too close…
Ry: if it was just the illustration, I’d give the author the benefit of the doubt and say it was just an uncanny coincidence. But the text is just WAY too similar to be a coincidence, don’t you think?
Holy theft of intellectual property, Batman!
Dear Emily the Strange Friends and Foes,
I’ve been made aware of this blog and some similar ones with inquiries regarding the origination and creation of the Emily the Strange character. As you may be aware by what has been noted in many interviews and on Wikipedia, Nathan Carrico first conceived of and used Emily as a character for a skateboard design back in 1991. After seeing a sticker of the design, I thought the quirky “looks strange” design was in line with other tees Cosmic Debris was doing, and that it might resonate well with the crew I was selling to. I asked and received permission to use the design from Nathan. We then began creating Emily’s gothic, nonconformist, dark world by using a variety of original expressions (”I want you to leave me alone”, “Teacher’s Pest”, “Emily doesn’t search to belong…” etc.) and unique Emily designs on our t-shirts and other products. Several years thereafter, the character of Rosamond from the children’s book series Nate the Great was brought to my attention for the first time.
Although the designs and worlds of Rosamond and Emily are different and readily distinguishable, and although we never received any complaints from the author, the artist, or the publisher, we phased out the original skateboard design upon learning of the Rosamond character, and worked with the creative team to further distinguish Emily and her universe. Regarding copyright law, there is legally nothing wrong with sharing or implementing a unique variation on a concept. I have never drawn inspiration from the Nate the Great series or Rosamond. In fact, we at Cosmic Debris have always moved to individualize the idea of Emily the Strange and her universe, which are original to Cosmic Debris.
Today Cosmic Debris prides itself on what it has become over the years: the creative design house that is responsible for providing consumers with strong messages about feminism, empowerment and individualism. Through years of development, Emily the Strange has grown from simple graphics into a concept that reaches far beyond design. Through our fan forum, I have learned that Emily has comforted the suicidal, helped people accept their sexuality, and get through very taxing personal situations. This is all in addition to making everyone know it is okay, and even better, to be different. I am very proud of this, because that was and is my goal: to make the world feel more comfortable in its own skin.
We applaud your interest and hope you continue to stand up for what you believe— that’s what Emily would do.
Sincerely, Rob Reger
i hate it when people copy other people’s works
I would like to believe that sometimes an image just sticks with you. If in my future I draw an alphabet where “S is for Sarah who perished of fits” with a similarly colored girl sprawled over the edge of an ottoman, have I deliberately plagerized another’s work? Well, if I’m consciously aware of the fact that Gorey drew exactly that image in black&white with a girl named Susan, then yes; I’d be a git and deserve suing. However, if I draw it because it resonates from something I heard and saw as a child on my mommy’s knee when I was not more than 2, have I plagerized it? Well, by the letter of the thing, yes I have plagerized the works of Ed Gorey, but by the spirit of the thing, no – the work is an original pulled from old memories made vague by time.
Perhaps the gentlemen, if called to task for it, should concede the uncanny similarity, offer some monetary restitution, and make efforts to ensure his work is utterly original in the future. -H…
I think everyone is forgetting how powerful this character can be and IS for millions of adolescent girls! Emily the Strange creates, nonstop, thousands of powerful messaged tees that gives to many a voice or a chance to choose their own paths or at least gives a laugh with quirky art. Why would you want to take a voice or a positive message away from the youth of a society who often overlooks those voices.
I have to agree with Mellie – adolescent girls are marginalized in our society and have no way to express themselves except through overpriced tshirts and other branded items. Emily Strange and other trademarked fictional characters provide a voice for the voiceless to express their deepest personal and political aspirations by providing a choice of handbags to suit any outfit! Imagine where Japan would be today if Hello Kitty didn’t exist! How could the modern office function with colorful Disney ties around the necks of downtrodden white collar workers? Shame on those who wish to silence the shrill and nasal voices of teenage girls!
http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/shop/index.php?pageurl=page_goodsdetail&uid=2725
http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/imgs/save/upload/bookpage/kizC01_tardy_1.jpg
How can you say THIS looks like Emily the Strange? You cannot copyright a girl with bangs and cats.
Because that seems to be the only similarity. Why not look at every other girl with bangs or cats and say they should be sued for a character with Rosamond traits?
She bares no resemblance. OBVIOUSLY she has changed since that drawing.
Seriously? you left almost the exact same comment on another blog about this issue…apparently you want to spread your links, but you do not have any more to say to support your opinion…as everyone else seems to have noted, the text is almost identical. The bangs and cats are not the copyrighted images, but the girl with all inclusive details and accompanying text are. And no…i will not hit your link to see if you have a point.
I agree with Maedbh7.
And Rob has it 100% correct: “…there is legally nothing wrong with sharing or implementing a unique variation on a concept.”
It’s similar to me making a dessert for you using a Julia Child Recipe and you like it, you love it in fact. So you go home and try to figure it out and, since you’re creative and brilliant in the kitchen, you do. It comes out exactly the same…or so close that most would not be able to tell. You also decide to publish a cookbook and include the recipe for what has become your “signature dessert”. Someone reads it, maybe makes it, and…OMG! This is almost exactly the same as Julia Child’s! Is it plagarism? Copyright infringment? Nope. It’s a variation on a concept…and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s not even unethical. It just is.
I wrote more about the Emily/Rosamond thing including the Hot Topic connection here in my blog: http://dysmindseye.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/hi-its-emily-isnt-it-or-maybe-rosamond/
Yeah, it had some really good lines. ,
I need your opinion as to whether this is coincidence or plagiarism. The situation is this: Tthe author of Novel #2 writes for a mainstream publisher; the writer of Novel #1 is self-published. Novelist #1 shared her work with Novelist #2 via E-mail. Novelist #1 and purchased many of Novelist #2’s novels, and noted early on similarities between story lines, context, and phrasing. And though names cannot be copyrighted, Novelist #2 used 6 rather uncommon names — the same ones that were used in Novelist #1’s 2 manuscripts, which Novelist #2 admits to still having on her hard drive. Novelist #2 is denying the similarities. Here are only a few examples noted by Novelist #1.
Novel #1
Tom: “I could never make you such a promise.”
Novel #2
Dick: “I can’t make that kind of promise.”
——————————————————————
Novel #1
He caught her right arm in midair.
Novel #2
He caught her wrist midair.
—————————————-
Novel #1
. . .to yank her arm out of his grasp.
Novel #2
. . . yanked her wrist free.
Novel #1
Will: “The CEO of Thompson Techniques acting as courier? You could have sent me an E-mail.)
Novel #2
Rachel: “But you’re the CEO, with an army of assistants . . .
———————————–
Similar Scenarios
Tom and his mother argue over Rachel in the same way that Tim and his father argue over Jane.
Tim doesn’t know who his father is, and his real father turns out to be a man he’s already been dealing with, in the same way Gina doesn’t know who her father is, but finds out it is a man she has been dealing with.
——————————–
Tm sees something in the newspaper that makes him leave his office in a huff to confront the person. In Novel #2, Will sees something in the newspaper that makes him leave his office in a huff to confront the person.
In Novel #1, Will visits Rachel’s home office and notes the clutter. In Novel #2, when Jim visits Dianne’s office, she notes the clutter.
——————————-
Novel #1
Faye: “No matter what happens, I’ll always love you.”
Novel #2
“Whatever tomorrow might bring, she would always love him.”