Nice post, Kris. You're fightin' the good fight.
Oh my god, you actually wrote "you're". It's like receiving an award whenever I see "you're" on the internet. You just made my day.
Andy Lambert is a douche.
Saw the same altered image on a friend's wall and shared the original image and this post with her.
yup, i saw an image from domics with its text translated to spanish and no author. So I exposed them and put the author's page.
Same here. Also linked to parts 2 and 3.
Mind if I share this? I'll have to alter it a bit … and put in my own work … on my tumblr.
I miss Time Friends.
and this is why the Gov need to "patrol" the internet for Copywrited material and block and remove so said infringments
You have got to be shitting me. You can't honestly be this dumb?
Maybe we should put the government by your side 24/7 to make sure you don't rape or kill anyone.
You mean a group of specially selected people policing the country? What a terrible and dystopian idea!
So your solution is for artists to spend any spare time patrolling the Internet for stolen pieces of their own work and either sending letters requesting takedowns or failing that filing lawsuits, instead of spending time creating art in roder to pay their rent ? Is that your solution or do you have another solution you haven't shared yet ?
Fight back with your own take on "Buttprints In The Sand"
The worst part is probably replacing your handwriting with Comic Sans.
I understand the hate for Comic Sans about as much as I understand the love for Gangnam Style.
I have no understanding at all.
THANK YOU. I agree. I can understand comic sans is not the most professional of fonts….but there are worse ones….so why the hate.
(except I also enjoy gangnam style)
So Andy Lambert, a believer of some conviction, stole somebody's work. Dude's going to whichever hell he believes in.
Plus, you know, altering someone's creative endevour is just kind of douchey.
No, no, you don't understand. He's been "saved" already. He's going to heaven. Period. See once you're "saved" you'll never go to hell no matter what you do, you've just gotta say "I'm sorry" without doing penance and you're good to go. Hooray evangelism, it's the "feel good while being a dickbag" religion.
I'm pretty sure he's a Quaker; they're not evangelicals and they don't do the "saved" vs. "not saved" thing. Still a douche, though.
Obviously, you've never heard of Evangelical Friends International (EFI). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Friends_…
I grew up in a Quaker church affiliated with the Northwest Yearly Meeting. EFI Quakers aren't like the stereotypical meeting house Quakers where the men sit on one side and the women sit on the other and they wait quietly for the Holy Spirit to inspire them to say something. EFI Quakers are more like Free Methodists, but without baptism and communion.
Unlike stereotypical Quakers, the majority of EFI Quakers aren't strictly pacifist. Most will try to encourage their friends and coworkers to go to church with them — i.e., evangelicalism — and they encourage their kids to do the same at school. (I was often asked what I would say to Jesus at the time of my death if I had squandered any opportunities to convert my non-believing friends to Christianity.)
So yes, EFI Quakers do believe in being "saved" and "not saved." However, unlike many other denominations, they are willing to allow their members to transfer to other Protestant denominations without making much of a stink about it. But they will do their best to talk you out of converting to Catholicism, Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon both came out of EFI churches. Neither of them fit the mould of the stereotypical Quaker, but they were both fairly typical for EFI Quakers. (I was a kid when Nixon was president and about 80% of the members at my church — all but the most liberal ones — just LOVED that hard-drinking, foul-mouthed, racist, paranoid old Cold Warrior.)
To be fair, he may have found it already altered. For some reason, certain sites, like Reddit, like things without credit, because sharing your own work with other people is "karma-whoring". Or maybe it reminds them that they're generally the parasites of the internet, feeding off of other's creativity.
That site is like the a cross between an inbred commune and high school.
That religious lot are all the same – that guy St Mark? His gospel was a total ripoff of St Luke's stuff…
Maybe Time Ruiner went back and messed things up, perhaps he was tired of proper attribution.
(In all seriousness, though, I agree 168%.)
I've had this happen too. The text taken out, reshared, and it got like thousands of reddit upvotes. Why do people love stolen comics so much?
I was just thinking of how this was similar to the dice joke. I remember when I first heard of Dysfunctional Family Circus, and how it exploded all over the 'Net. It's always going to happen, since the days of Xerox Abuse, when Wite-Out and a photocopier was all it took to tack a dirty version of a comic strip by the watercooler. Technology just makes it easier for more boneheads to be boneheaded. There should at least be a byline for you guys about the original art
let's use reddit to share how incredibly douchy these morons are.
it's probably already there, somewhere, though.
Currently the number two post on /r/atheism.
I wonder what happened to "thou shalt not steal?"
In my experience, some of us gentiles think that we can genuinely follow the God of Israel without taking His commandments very seriously. And that would be an entirely wrong way of thinking.
Dude, that was a total ripoff of the comment before you. With no attribution either.
Goodness, Andy Lambert seems to be a John Smith of Facebook. So many people with that name.
You might think a Pastor (https://www.facebook.com/andy.lambert3 http://www.forbushfriends.org/site/ks/contactus.asp) would have a little more sense than to steal someone's art; or to be diplomatic about it: a little more sense as to what might be considered theft, but you would be wrong.
The guy is a senior pastor who I guess skipped the whole commandments class at divinity school.
I… I don't even…
Hmm, maybe you could have attributed Mary Svenenson? (the author of the poem you're riffing on…) Maybe a 'tip of the hat' ala Zippy. http://www.footprints-inthe-sand.com/index.php?pa…
I saw it on facebook and did not know at all about the controversy before I shared it. How can I make this right? Can I go back and put the credit and your web site in the comment section? I would rather give credit than remove it altogether.
I think the person I got the post from made the same innocent blunder I made and got it from someone else, Those of us sharing it are not trying to do injustice. I assure you it was an innocent mistake.
While sharing without attribution is pointless, rude, horrible, etc, etc….I have to admit that I feel like that comic would have actually worked better without the third panel.
I'm afraid I think Kris' original is far better and funnier.
I'm confused; at what point did BuzzFeed get ahold of this?
I definitely want to send him so irritated person-of-faith to person-of-faith email, yeah. What a dope.
It's too bad, Kris. But unfortunately this is the web nowadays. I think perceptually, people simply see this as a "stick figure drawing" – regardless of the work and thought behind it. There's no moral issue with people stealing it as such. And I'll bet you many people think because they changed it, and it's "only a stick figure drawing" that it's a perfectly okay thing to do.
I think unfortunately this is probably the down side of doing a simple gag-type strip that you can quickly publish ideas with. And unfortunately, people are probably going to continue to steal things like this, regardless of any attribution rights. Honestly what average person knows/cares about such things anyway?
Apparently yours was not "uplifting" enough.
For some people putting out an "uplifting christian message" is a higher concern than all others, as crazy and contradictory as that seems.
Plagiarism is small potatoes. After 9/11 there were a number of con artists who made their living pretending to be survivors, giving uplifting talks at churches, and then asking for money. Even when the churches were made aware that the speakers were con artists, many of them refused to cancel the appearances, because they had an "uplifting christian message".
Obviously, not all Christians are like this, but there's a weird small minority that value this kind of thing above all else, even honesty.
I had this discussion with a friend, in that he attributed quotes to Ben Stein that HE NEVER MADE. When I pointed this out, he said 'the message was all that mattered, not who said it or didn't say it'
Context matters twice as much! Silly people
"I saw this cartoon on a friend's facebook and tweeked the wording." – https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=101511757…
"I saw this cartoon on a friend's facebook, took a photo of it with my phone, cut out the third panel and all attribution, and tweaked the wording."
Fixed. Mr. Lambert has no need to thank me.
I've noticed a lot of Far Side comics that have been remade on the internet, without credit.
he did give the source in the comments, but it feels awkward that he tweaked the wording… and that it was comment #6.
(you may have to scroll to find it)
Just to be devil's advocate, but given what meme culture has become, some people just see material online as a 'template' they can build on.
Also just speculating, that the credit was removed, because it was a 're-interpretation' of what those drawings were.
Knowyourmeme, whilst does help increase the popularity of such a phenomena, it does do a fairly good job of recognizing the origins of where these ideas came from.
I feel your pain, and I've called people on blatant chainsawsuit abuse numerous times.
However, I'd just like to point out the date on this tweet of mine:
messed yo. Keep your chin up.
Holy dang! Seriously, I am incredibly sorry for asking now! I feel absolutely terrible, I didn't mean to discount Kris' work!
I'm reporting myself asking for this whole string to be removed.
I can't TELL you the number of times I saw a comic on a joke site or facebook and I wanted to find out what it was but the poster decided to crop the edges to remove the author and web address for GOD knows what reason.
When I enjoy a single comic, I figure I might enjoy more. But nope, people gotta be douche knockers.
the second image is better than the first one. WHY GIVE CREDIT TO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THAT GOOD ANYWAYS, the original work, with the url didn't make it cause it is not the second one.
Whatever your opinion of something is, you still have to admit that there wouldn't/couldn't be a second one without the first one, because the second one was blatant thievery.
There was a whole series of this gag during that week, and every one was comic gold. Chainsawsuit is quality in every panel.
You should always, always give appropriation. It doesn't matter what the quality of the work is. That's like saying it's ok to re-post Transformers III to YouTube just because it was a terrible movie. That doesn't make a lick of sense.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I love your comic though! So that's somebody at least!
Did you credit the original Footprints author? Because without someone else's poem, you would have no premise for your joke–sounds like a kettle/pot situation. BTW, I definitely shared your work on Facebook, after I found it on Google–I guess maybe sign the funny part next time?
I have credited her on twitter and Facebook, yes. I can readd it to the other page as well.
The world would be a somewhat inconvenient place if I had to say "by the way, Star Wars was created by George Lucas" every time I happened to mention lightsabers.
Big difference between a parody and copyright infringement…
What Kris did falls under Parody/Satire, and riffs off a well-known, familiar work. The punchline for that series of strips is where the screaming tangents from that familiar occur. Plus, it's Original Artwork that illustrates the jokes, which is where the whole changing the text issue comes in. It kind of becomes self-serving on the part of the alter-er (maybe not a word, but it's near where I was aiming). Or seems so, without at least a, "original strip from Chainsawsuit, used without permission" pasted in somewhere. Some reader might assume the poster did the artwork, and that's the real rub right there.
FYI, I nipped this in the bud on my facebook feed. I did only see it once, but I told them not to share like that again. If art doesn't have a name attached, it shouldn't be shared imo.
I did this once myself. I reposted a pic from the local online newspaper, but forgot to credit the artist. I was soon reminded by my friend who works at the paper. It was HIS picture! I now always credit the author if I post someone else's picture or quote.
By removing your credit information, the guy violated the DCMA. You should inform the jerk he could be going to jail for a long time.
Do you really not understand why they modified it?
1. They changed the meaning to be religious.
2. They removed the joke you made at the end as it doesnt relate to their message.
3. They probably wouldnt want chainsawsuit on a comic strip they have made about God.
Get pissed off that they stole and modified your work, not that they didn't post the original.
Man, your right, he should have titled this 'sharing and attribution' and then mentioned how artists should get credit for their work…
I absolutely loathe the idiots who hack up comics like that, it's pathetic and done by untalented hacks who couldn't create original content if their life depended on it.
I actually have a mutual friend with this guy. Sent him a little note telling him stealing is a sin.
You're doing the right thing Kris. We can't stop idiots from doing idiotic things, we can't stop thieves from stealing, but we can support the proper attitude. I do not really need a book or other merchandise but I will gladly make a donation of equivalent value in support of your faith in us and your enduring tolerance for dimwits.
What time did you put this comic up? The first comment here is "20 hours ago". Lamberts gives you credit in a comment "17 hours ago" (according to facebook). Coincidence? 🙂
You know what you should do? Redirect links to the footsteps comic to this comic instead 😀
Saw the butchered version on a Facebook post by a local Christian radio station and felt the need to hunt down the original author. I posted a link to your original in the comments for their post, but I don't know how many people will see it.
It so sad this happens to so many artists who do not consent to have their work shared. Their are people who put content out hoping for it to be shared, remixed, redone, etc., but people need to take the time to find the author's intent and seek permission before they do anything to someone's work.
Whats the URL to your site?
One of my facebook friends just posted the altered image, so I commented with the link to this page.
Dear Kris, Please accept my sincere apology. I saw the post on a friend's post in a version that did not have the third panel or your name attached to it. I liked the cartoon and naively and thoughtlessly re-worded it. I thougt it was something cute that a handfull of my friends would get a kick out of. I should have done more research and thought it through. Non of this is an excuse but I just wanted to set it in context. I was thoughtless and I am sorry. I have learned a lesson from this and will be more careful in the future. I have posted a link to the original and I hope this will steer some interest in your work.
Well, as you christians say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Wow! I didn't realize this comic was actually written by Mitt Romney! You're just another money-grubbing 1-percenter who wants to shut down the free and open Internet. Art should be free and accessible to everyone, not just the rich.
This is a joke, right? Some sort of absurdly meta comment? Kris is hardly rich. He's a web cartoonist for pete's sake.
I wouldn't say it was a compliment, it was an actual criticism.
i have to admit that i feel like your comment would have actually worked better without the second sentence.
get off kris' nuts, pelvis.
3rd panel wasn't that great. "disposable internet humor." don't take the perceived quality of the work so seriously.
Hey what do you know, the original gives NO credit to Mary Stevenson's work you ripped off either. Its ok for you to change others work and not give credit, but when other people do it to you, then theres a problem huh?
This is actually pretty ironic. Kris is complaining someone stole his work and changed the meaning of it, when he did the exact same thing and stole Mary Stevensons "Footprints in the Sand" and changed that, all the while giving no credit or reference to the original author.
Knowledge is power… http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/par…
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! 😀
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.