Both Comics212 and Comics Worth Reading weigh in on Nick Simmons’ plagiarism, which I propose we henceforth refer to as Detergent Magma-gate.
I believe I’ve done this before, but given some of the stuff I’ve been reading on forums and the like, I feel the need to once again address plagiarism and doujinshi, especially how the two are not related. But first, an anecdote I observed first-hand… a long time ago, I knew an American fan artist who posted some scribbles online, and he was emailed by several Japanese mangaka (one of them professional, in fact) who had discovered another Japanese artist tracing his drawings. The fan artist was polite and thankful that they thought to contact him at all, but he also made clear that he wasn’t concerned by the plagiarism. But the Japanese mangaka would have none of it… they not only managed to take down the offender’s website, but forced him to make a public apology (well, an apology on a public forum where he had posted the drawings.) At the time, I remember being surprised by the ferociousness of those Japanese artists, especially considering that the offender was just another amateur, and the American was not at all offended by it. But since that time, I’ve come to appreciate and accept the viewpoint held by those mangaka… claiming credit for tracing is not just an offense against the original artist, but a calculated deceit perpetrated against everyone who views the image. It’s an intentional misdirection that shows contempt for the audience. It is therefore an issue greater than even the wish of the artist.
Yet how do Japanese artists and readers reconcile their rejection of plagiarism with the wanton copyright infringement observed in most doujinshi? Well, plagiarism is only a subset of copyright infringement, one which seeks to obscure true authorship. Parody doujinshi are derivative work, but there is no confusion over the originator of the characters and ideas, no attempt to hide the source. And there is still an expectation that the expression is original, that what one sees in a doujinshi – the artistry, the craft, the performance – is honest and real. Comic art is indeed a performance, the paper is its stage. Sometimes, one might borrow other characters for his play, but one cannot scratch the name off the director’s chair and replace it with his own.
-
I agree with you. I’ve asked two mangaka directly about fanart in communities I’ve run about them, and they love it. Maybe it’s because they started out drawing fanart and doujinshi themselves, but they understood that fanart’s an homage by fans of a series and is an expression of excitement that is to be encouraged. It’s a celebration of the original. But someone claiming your work without attribution is a completely different ball of wax – the original is meant to be obscured and hidden and unacknowledged, and that’s what’s wrong.
-
I’m surprised to hear that people are conflating doujinshi-style appropriation of characters with the tracing of an actual work. For artist’s, an image is a representative example of their unique talent/skill; how they frame it, the angle, light and shadow, depth, etc. It is their style, their vision in the medium. To trace a work is to steal the essence of someone’s basic *craft*.
A fan-work using the characters/ideas of another artist may be derivative, and has obvious issues of it’s own, but it does not infringe on the artists actual *craftsmanship*. The character’s are an ‘idea’. the execution is ‘craft’.
It’s like the difference between an architect copying another architect’s style, as opposed to using the other architect’s actual blue-print. In the former, he/she is copying another’s style while utilizing their own skill to bring it to life. In the latter their taking the craft and vision of another architect and calling it their own.
You can find fault in both, but using the characters/story ideas of an artist has room for positive/acceptable outcomes (homages, permitted fan works, etc.). Directly tracing actual work is simply stealing some else’s vision at the most basic level of craftsmanship.
-
Simon: Very good post. I’m digesting it.
KingTaco: So for you, an artist’s craft is more important than an artist’s ideas? That’s interesting, I hadn’t seen the debate framed in that way.
To me, the artists’ ideas are far more important than the craft. Craft is function, and functionality can (and is meant to) be learned. That’s what art schools generally do, and they teach people to do it BY imitating it.
The ideas are the stuff that are unique to the creator, and appropriating those is far worse to my mind.
Either way, tracing work and putting it out into the world as your own is fucking weak.
-
“So for you, an artist’s craft is more important than an artist’s ideas? ”
I honestly wouldn’t say that the craft is intrinsically more of value than the idea in a work. That scale changes based on whatever work you’re viewing; some are masterworks of craft which bring mundane subjects to life, some are rustic in craft but succeed on the vitality of the idea. What I will say/state above is that directly copying the craftwork of an artist is a theft on a more fundamental level than copying an idea.
Ideas/imagination are oft the life-blood of artistic works, in any medium. I do not view appropriating another’s efforts in that area with lightness. But on a basic level, ideas/imagination exists in everyone, we all have our share. It is through craft, whether in painting, sketching, photography, writing, etc., where the expression of ideas becomes art. Which leads to….
“Craft is function, and functionality can (and is meant to) be learned.”
I believe in this you sell craft somewhat short. Craft is composed of technical elements for sure, but there is also a component of vision as well. Do two trained photographers approach the same still-life the same? Two painters the same model? Every artist will show unique traits, however rustic or polished, that illustrate how they bring their ideas, technically, to life.
As consumers of art, as opposed to the artists themselves, we may become inured to this process. Often we look for what’s original, fresh in terms of content or storytelling. But for artists, who know even in their best of output had inspirations from other sources, what do they see at the fundamental level when they look at the work of another? Craft. Depth, color, framing, lines, angels, etc. These variables come together like DNA, they from a unique trait. That’s why those Japanese artist in the story above were so upset, they occupy a world in which ideas are heavily traded and copied, which more than ever makes the craft the telling point of artistic talent.
To steal the craft is to steal the most basic identity of the artist, who uses craft to elevate idea to art. Look at the panels that were plagiarized, they aren’t representative of any great idea. They are striking in visual composition, energy, and framing. That’s reinforced because it struck the plagiarizer enough to want to copy it. In doing so, the plagiarizer represents that vision of his own making. The plagiarizer doesn’t copy an idea of ninja’s and tournaments, he takes the very way another artist makes art unique to themselves.
-
-
This really goes back to your original post, some people just don’t get it. They don’t get the difference between something pretty and a piece of art, they don’t get the difference between free and value, they don’t understand how something can be culturally enriching without being exploitable by everyone.
-
“But tracing is a more fundamental kind of theft; it very literally steals someone else’s physical labor.”
YES YES YES. This is something that no one on the “stealing is okay” part of this argument understands. Depending on the exact circumstances, a piece of artwork can take anywhere from hours to WEEKS to complete. But it takes SECONDS to trace or erase off their name. The artist spent time and effort to make the original, but the thief gets all the credit for doing basically nothing.
“They were not subjected to the deception first-hand.”
This is the key to this debate. All the assholes who think stealing art is okay are people who have never created anything and then seen it stolen. They have no idea what it’s like to slave over an artistic creation, spending time and money and sweat to make something, and then have some selfish loser get all the money/credit for their efforts.
Chris, why don’t you try actually MAKING something…I’ll steal it and get the credit, then see if that wipes the arrogant sneer off your face.
-
I was talking to a friend about this the other day, who offered the thought, “It’s not really the theft that bothers me, but the fraud.” I think I agree. Ideas, they are viral. Once you release an idea, it’s not just yours anymore; it’s everywhere, it’s in everyone. But taking something else and saying that you made it, that’s fraud. It’s a lie.
-
Pingback from Oh, Nick Simmons at Comics212 on February 27, 2010 at 9:42 pm
-
One can’t say “doujinshi is different from plagiarism because there is no fraudulence” and then draw the conclusion “therefore, doujinshi is okay.” I can’t assume that’s the gist of this article, but I wanted to mention it all the same. Just because doujinshi aren’t performing the same kind of wrong as plagiarism, doesn’t mean that doujinshi aren’t performing a ‘wrong’ altogether. That argument doesn’t reconcile the secondary legal/moral problem of “borrowing” someone else’s characters without permission, and the tertiary legal.moral problem of benefiting (monetarily or in self-promotion) from said act of “borrowing”.
It’s one thing to make a doujinshi and pay tribute to an artist. It’s something else altogether to sell it and try to make a profit off of it. That’s crossing a line from un-authorized tribute into selfishness. Even if the supposed “profit” isn’t monetary and is more for self-promotion, there’s still that level of selfishness that comes from it ~ that desire to actually benefit, without permission, from the borrowing of someone else’s characters. No matter how you slice it, there’s a moral dilemma in that.
When does “profiting off of someone else’s work” become okay, morally and legally? Only when the original artists are okay with it. In Japan they’ve come to an informal cultural understanding that doujinshi can actually be helpful and complementary to the industry, and so for the most part the doujinshi industry has been allowed to go on as it has.
One still has to keep in mind, however, that the original copyright holders still have every right to stop any ‘derivative’ works that they disagree with. Take, for example, the Korean Pop singer Ivy’s lawsuit for her music video inspired by Final Fantasy Advent Children (which resulted in a payment of 400 Million Korean Won to Square Enix), Nintendo’s halting of the online availability of the “The Hero of Time” Zelda-inspired homage movie, and Square Enix’s cease-and-desist order to the Chrono Resurrection group.
Derivative-work copyright only exists when the value of the derivative work is said to be drawn sufficiently more from its original expression than it’s derivativeness. When you completely borrow characters to tell your own story, the perceived “worth” of the work would almost always be considered less attributable to the works originality than to its derivative nature.
There is, however, protection for derivative works under Fair Use (in the United States at least). Fair Use allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. This is how parody derivative works are often legally justified ~ they are a form of expression that provides commentary/criticism on the original work. Most doujinshi, however, would not fall under Fair Use’s protection, as they effectually are not a commentary/critiquing on the original works they derive from, nor are they scholastic or informative in nature.
-
I love the “Detergent Magma-gate” idea. Maybe someday it will become the comics equivalent of “jumping the shark,” e.g., “That’s not just a swipe; he’s getting into Detergent Magma territory there.”
Once again, Simon, you have managed to neatly crystalize a phenomenon a lot of people can’t seem to wrap their heads around. I have seen variations of that drama play out too many times to count.
Kickerman28, I see your point, but, as Simon pointed out, “doujinshi exist only to the extent that the copyright owners choose not prosecute it.” And there are very good reasons they tend to not prosecute it. It’s not just because they are big-hearted or don’t have the resources to pursue the violators. Certain properties are protected ruthlessly (though selectively). I remember Back In The Day, a few manga artists and publishers slammed a few doujin artists, and ended up regretting it. It made them look like bullies, and turned off some of the most passionate fans. They were perfectly within their rights, but they discovered that protecting their bottom line was more important than protecting their copyrights. Doujinshi are free advertising. Anyone who buys a “parody” doujinshi is sure to have a copy of the original, and probably a lot of officially licensed merchandise, as well. The number of tables alloted to parodies of particular titles in the semiannual Comic Market are a good indicator of those titles’ commercial success. Hell, a major chunk of the readers of Weekly Shonen Jump are girls and women who also create and/or buy doujinshi, and the editors make sure there is always sufficient doujinshi fodder in their lineup (though they would never admit that on record). Particularly in today’s market, where the transition from print to digital is wreaking havoc everywhere, and in which Big Hits are less common and Mini Hits more common, publishers dismiss doujinshi-buying otaku at their peril. That’s why profits at the Big Five manga publishers (plodding dinosaurs that are slow to change) fell last year, while profits at otaku-savvy publishers like Square Enix and Kadokawa rose.
Finally, not many doujinshi creators (or “circles”) make a real profit. The few that do (they used to be called “exit circles,” because at the old Comic Market venue there tables were placed by emergency exits so that lines could be routed out the doors) draw the sternest attention not from publishers or artists, but from the tax collectors. The vast majority of doujinshi creators end up spending much more than they take in.
-
Incarnate offends on multiple levels – it’s done for money, it’s tracing, and it’s presented as Simmons’s original work. While fan art or doujin manga may violate one or two of those points, they cannot violate all three.
We shouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of people who don’t find anything objectionable about doujinshi objecting to this.
-
Pingback from Otakunvirka » Koskien pesuaineita ja magmaa on March 5, 2010 at 5:02 pm
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.icaruscomics.com/wp_web/wp-trackback.php?p=4319