To all of the morons saying Kris "stole" from Mary Stevenson, it's a LITERARY REFERENCE. The whole joke relies on the fact that you are familiar with the Footprints poem. That is not theft. That is a basic literary technique you should have learned in English class. Taking someone's artwork, defacing it and presenting it as your own by removing attributions is theft. Referring to a work and making a play upon that work is not theft.
Yes, and the altered cartoon relies on that same literary reference in the ALTERED text. They did steal the drawing and that should be credited properly. But the wording and meaning were completely changed in the viral version.
The edited version didn't "completely change" the meaning of the original. It just rephrased the second panel and lopped off the third. If that's "Completely altering the meaning," then I'm going to copy/paste Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven" into a Word document, lop off the last stanza, change every instance of the word "Nevermore" to "Nope," and publish it as an original piece of poetry.
Merry Christmas! Personally, I like the less cynical version, especially at this time of year, hint, hint…
By less cynical, you of course mean the version that wasn't copy-pasted and altered to remove any indication of its true provenience.
New version was better and way different anyways. Don't see the big deal here.
I see what you did there.
Apologies, I was just goofy around and tweeked the wording on a cartoon I liked. I did not expect it to go viral. Yesterday I put the link and artist in the comments and posted the original on my wall. I will be careful in the future and again I offer my apologies.
I sent Kris an apology. I also saw a death threat in the comments. I wish I could undo this one.
Oh, come on, Kris. Candle cove was "remove the attribution and pass around as a true story"-bait and you know it.
Lamberts text edit isn't even funny. What a loser. Makes me want to poop on the sidewalk.
Sorry you never got the credit for the original, however, I.would never have known about or shared your work, had I not seen the altered version, which I much prefer! I would be stoked my work was so good, someone chose to extend its shelf life ….
I agree. It's like that one time I intercepted an important e-mail from one of my cube-mates, altered the words a little to make it look like my work, and sent it on to the boss. I got a hefty bonus, and my co-worker was happy his work got noticed. OK I lied, he was actually furious. Man, I do not know what that guy's problem is. I mean, the couple of changes I made vastly improved that e-mail, at least in my opinion.
I just posted this to my facebook page. "I took a unattributed cartoon at face value and shared it. I then received this url [http://imgur.com/dtuDv] from my niece. A copy of a copy of a copy is pretty hard to trace and facebook's sharing system seems to be set up to make something seem to be in the public domain that isn't. Sharing the real owner's response back up the chain is the right thing to do. I think that Kris Straub's anger is well justified. I and, I am sure, many others who have shared this are not real happy being taken in by someone misusing another persons work." By the way, the original is funnier than the rewrite but in a different way.
my name is also Andrew Lambert and I FIND THIS FUCKING INFURIATING
Sorry some people don't know how to respect good work, Kris
I completely agree with you, Kris! :D
Having said that, I think there's probably a better way to deter art theft here. This post here may actually make the problem worse, rather than helping to reduce the problem and here's why: although people generally won't admit it (or frequently are unaware of it), their behavior is frequently influenced by the subliminal behavior of the people around them. They do things that they see other people doing, without even realizing they're doing it.
There's a great example of this that relates to one of the petrified forests here in the US. They had a big problem with people taking bits of petrified wood out of the park and gradually destroying the park piece by piece. So they put up a big sign that explained how it was a big problem and if people kept doing it the park was going to be destroyed and future generations wouldn't be able to enjoy it. After the sign went up, incidents of theft from the park increased! Why? Because the sign was silently telling everyone who entered the park "hey, everybody else is doing it". And that influenced their behavior, even though it wasn't actually true that everyone was doing it, just a small minority.
So the park hired some behavioral scientists to help them solve the problem and they replaced the original sign with a new sign that said "We plan to keep this park here for future generations to enjoy and we hope you'll help. The vast majority of people who visit this park leave the wood here. Please do the same." This new sign, while completely true (because most people don't steal), was very successful in reducing the theft problem.
So if you want to deter art theft here, probably the best way to achieve that is to emphasize the fact that the vast majority of people are ethical, law-abiding people who simply share the art as they found it. Hearing that will cause most others to follow suit.
Anyway, I hope this helps! Take care, Kris!
I'm curious if the new sign reduced the rate of theft to less than the pre-sign era or just merely less than the initial-sign era…
I just saw this posted by someone on facebook attributed to "chinasawsuit.com"
"I saw part of this cartoon on a friend's Facebook, loved the idea and did a different version." That is what Andy Lambert changed his post to – with over 40,000 shares now – after
By the way Andy, using bad photoshop (or MS Paint) skills to change the words on something does not make it a "version." What you have done is akin to taking a copy of the Mona Lisa, drawing a smiley face on it, and calling it your own work.
Looks like he's put a comment in directing people to the original.
Actually, there is a real obvious reason why the last third of the comic was cut. Cuz it don't really fit well with the religious implication that the first two panels have alone, which whoever edited it wished to get across. If they just wanted to steal it they could have cropped off just the top. the Attribution was most likely the unintended collateral damage of shortening and distorting the message of the comic. So,dumb, but not intentional evil. Goodness, guys, read the motive. You all are being rather childish just to get a few kicks in, it really is saddening.
It doesn't matter. This comic, and people seeing it is how Kris Straub pays his rent, buys his food, and generally gets by in day to day life. He is a full time cartoonist. The art and drawings were still his original ones, and the wording was changed slightly. The art wasn't even attributed to him, so it was like saying "look at this thing I may've made!" not "this thing someone else made and I changed slightly!"
And it was a slight change. The text changed in one panel of a comic is not enough to justify it as a parody or satire, and thus makes it illegal.
Lambert's version is better. Capitalization, grammar, and by removing the final panel, it goes from a somewhat sacrilegious comic to one talking about how how God will always do what's best for us, even if we don't want that. The lack of attribution was wrong, and the comic was improved.
I disagree. You can only claim improvement if the attempted message communicated was the same. The message was changed.
And sacrilegious? I assure you they make kosher hotdogs. Even God needs a nosh every once in a while, walking across sand is exhausting! Try it for a couple of hours and you'll discover muscles in your ankles you never knew you had, because they're all sore now.
but, but,… parody is a protected (i.e. legal) form of Fair Use. I don't know if you are showing excerpts here, or the complete work in each case, but I don't really see that a huge harm has been done, where income that you would have received (not could have, would have) has been lost to you, nor where somebody else is reaping income either.
we don't live in a perfect world, sometimes somebody bumps into me and I fall down. Do I need to act butthurt about it? my choice, of course.
Literally — literally, the correct usage — 90% of the people mentioning parody have no idea what parody is.
Parody, and fair use — which are not the same thing, I might add — use the components of a work to make a direct commentary on said work. The "commentary" part is crucial to fall under parody or fair use.
Parody would be like Mad Magazine, where you take existing characters and you show some absurdity about their narrative, their presentation, their morals, their situation.
Fair use would be when a TV or radio show is reviewing an album, and they play sound clips or quote the album in order to support a point.
Both parody and fair use aren't open-ended and have to fall within these constraints. You don't get to claim parody or fair use via mere duplication (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). Commentary must be made. Taking a drawing and changing the words slightly and removing attribution is neither parody, nor fair use.
"I don't see that a huge harm has been done" is also not an argument.
I think "Guest" doesn't understand how an internet based business works.
Kris provides comic content and then sells it in published books and related products. Any time an image gets shared and has his website's name on it, it's an opportunity for website traffic and potential income. The fact that this image was altered and shared without credit (over 40000 times) must be absolutely gutting, I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.
I wonder which Andy Lambert this is on facebook? Personally I like his version, but HE DID STEEL IT! I would like to tell him that I believe he is a thief and should privately ask for your forgiveness, then publicly apologize and make restitution [such as searching and posting his apology and a link to your sites every place it has been shared].
PS Could you add a Google+ button here?
Sucks… if it's any consolation, I never saw your strip before this post but now I love you and you're on my comics toolbar. (Clearly my individual adoration makes up for the thousands of people Liking the ripoff… but no, really, I'm sure I'm not the only one.)
Man that sucks. Stealing work is just wrong. If it makes you feel any better I just clicked your adsense ad !! lol
Eh, people should still give proper attribution when using another person's work in in this kind of way. No matter how old or well known it might be. As you can bet there are people out there that won't know about it and may mistakenly give credit to somebody else. Regardless if it's ok under fair use or not, it's still pretty much the same issue as using another person's work and not giving credit.
I mean think about. That was doing the exact same thing he complained about other people doing to his work.
And really, think about it. While it's not stealing in a legal sense because public domain and stuff, Kris took the original poem, altered it, did not provide it in full, and did not give attribution in the post.
I was happy when I saw someone finally post the full comic; it's funnier.
Of course I don't condone stealing, but he obviously didn't do this maliciously. It's common practice to "photoshop" images (he did not deliberately remove the URL, it was above the third panel which he did not use). I absolutely support what Kris is saying about income and showing credit where it is due, but whoever altered this wasn't out to ruin someone's career. I'm not saying this kind of thing is "OK," and the PSA is really necessary. But this guy doesn't deserve the hate (he may not even be the one who altered it).
It doesn't matter if he did it intentionally or not. In the eyes of the law doing it at all is illegal. Maliciously or not removing the text that attributes it to Kris is depriving Kris of his income. He could've easily put " Derived from chainsawsuit.com over the top of the bit he did keep.
This is becoming more and more of a problem.
I am an artist and me and my friends have been combating a site that has re posted all our work with no credit on their site. Whats worse is that they are an ad spam whole that hosts viruses and all sorts of stuff. They have changed isps numerous times and have tried to use a hosting provider in another country to get around US copyright laws. It's all pretty ridiculous how people don't really respect the rights of creators. It's like once its on the internet it doesnt matter.
I hope facebook would remove that picture and hopefully the guy will try and make up for things by linking his friends to you.
Dude's going to whichever hell he believes in.