Batman's Original Origin Story Contains Stolen Art

[Rivethed]

I saw this on another forum.
http://www.comicspriceguide.com/forum2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=32540

There are some pictures that show that some of the pictures that Bob Kane gets credit for actually drawing were stolen from a Big Little Book called Gang Busters In Action. You can view the stolen material here.

http://henryvallely.blogspot.com/2006/05/gang-busters-secret-origins-of-batman.html
http://henryvallely.blogspot.com/2006/06/secret-origins-of-batman-part-2.html

The second one is the most obvious one. Some are having a debate about the first one. The guy who runs that blog claims he will post more examples from the Gang Busters book in the future.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Bob Kane pretty much stole everything from Bob Finger.

 

[CConn]

Bob Kane didn't steal anything from Finger. Finger just (unfortunately) didn't get credit for his work.

In any case, this relevation is an upsetting one. I'm not usually a part of the **** Bob Kane crowd, but as more of this comes out, the less respect I have for Kane.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Besides not getting credit, he was severely underpaid because he was a serious alchoholic and Kane would use that against him to pay him less than going rates.

 

[Beelze]

To think that the "creator" of Batman was such an a-hole...

 

[Joker]

well, I knew he used ghost artists, but this takes it to a whole new level...

 

[BatScot]

Up until recently I would have accepted ‘Batman created by Kane and Finger’ as fair and settled, but I’m so jaded on Kane now that I’d believe just about anything that came to light, and I can’t help but wonder if that credit shouldn’t read ‘created by Frank D. Foster and Bill Finger, art by Bob Kane et. al.’

And people wonder why Kane guarded that 'created by' so fervently… well at least he knew how to draw up a contract, and he deserves credit for that, if for little else.

"I think I signed Bob Kane's name more than he did"
Jerry Robinson

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Basically, there was a loose studio system. DC hired Kane, who hired a couple of guys with what they paid him. Under work for hire, yeah, it was legally Kanes work, just as DC owns Super-Man, or Marvel owns Alpha Flight (which John Byrne created and even published in college).
I believe the comics industry even has the Finger Award to recognize special achievment. I maybe wrong on that, tho.
Think about the acceptance speeches..."Thanks for giving me the Finger!"

 

[BatScot]

I believe the comics industry even has the Finger Award to recognize special achievment. I maybe wrong on that, tho.

http://www.comic-con.org/cci2005/cci_finger.shtml

http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_finger.shtml

Think about the acceptance speeches..."Thanks for giving me the Finger!"

... you're welcome

 

[mrbarbar]

Hi Gogo Bananas, can I point you to my thread from last week. It details Bob Kane’s deal with National Comics for Batman.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238074

 

[Spike_x1]

I think the first example given in the first post is kind of a stretch to say that Kane directly stole it. It's just a guy thinking. Nothing really complex or original to steal to begin with.

The second example, however, does give one pause. It's pretty obvious that Kane was... "influenced" by Vallely to a large degree.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So, Finger drew that original stuff?

 

[BatScot]

I think the first example given in the first post is kind of a stretch to say that Kane directly stole it. It's just a guy thinking...

It's a blatant swipe... as the say, it's all in the details: consider the two fingers highlighted within the red circle above. Those two fingers appear in Kane's swipe in the exact same place as the original; it's just that in Kane's case the colorist inked over them (at least for the publication of this rendition), and the odds of such congruence occurring by chance coincidence—of which the fingers are only one such point—are zero.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Take a look at the stuff Rob Liefield as outright stolen - it's absurd, but it happens all the time.
It's 'reference' gone too far.

 

[Spike_x1]

It's a blatant swipe... as the say, it's all in the details: consider the two fingers highlighted within the red circle above. Those two fingers appear in Kane's swipe in the exact same place as the original; it's just that in Kane's case the colorist inked over them (at least for the publication of this rendition), and the odds of such congruence occurring by chance coincidence—of which the fingers are only one such point—are zero.

I like how you left out the rest of the paragraph from what you quoted of me, "Nothing really complex or original to steal to begin with." I made that exact pose almost every day in school whenever I had a test. Does that mean that I had to look at Vallely's art to get my position just right?

Yes, Kane probably did steal that pose directly from Vallely in all likelihood, but there's nothing original at all about that particular frame to begin with. In fact, Vallely probably stole the pose from some guy he saw on a park bench one day. Doesn't matter. It's a very common position to show that a character is deep in thought.

 

[BatScot]

I like how you left out the rest of the paragraph from what you quoted of me, "Nothing really complex or original to steal to begin with."

It is not a question of commonality; it is an observation of multiple points of congruence and specific similarities that exist in the two drawings and as such I found it unnecessary to comment on your second point due of the obvious appropriation of the Vallely drawing by Kane. And as the swipe is self-evident it is irrelevant to consider any notion of coincidental duplication—nothing more than the two drawings is required in order to prove one is an explicit copy of the other.

But you’ve admitted as much yourself:

Yes, Kane probably did steal that pose directly from Vallely in all likelihood

Kane either stole it or he didn’t. It’s either a copy of the Vallely or it’s not. It’s that simple, and all you need to answer those questions is in those two drawings—everything else is beside the point!

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Yeah, that's a dead on match.
It's practically traced.

 

[CLARKY]

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT !!!
I'm so disgusted !
I knew that Bob Kane was not the big head behind batman and I usually name him WITH bill Finger but this !!!! I can't believe it. I don't know how to take it !
As TheJoker wrote it "this takes it to a whole new level..."

 

[Spike_x1]

It is not a question of commonality; it is an observation of multiple points of congruence and specific similarities that exist in the two drawings and as such I found it unnecessary to comment on your second point due of the obvious appropriation of the Vallely drawing by Kane. And as the swipe is self-evident it is irrelevant to consider any notion of coincidental duplication—nothing more than the two drawings is required in order to prove one is an explicit copy of the other.

But you’ve admitted as much yourself:

Kane either stole it or he didn’t. It’s either a copy of the Vallely or it’s not. It’s that simple, and all you need to answer those questions is in those two drawings—everything else is beside the point!

I never disputed whether or not Kane copied Vallely's art. I'm saying that it's a stretch to say that Kane directly stole it. It's a very common pose; so common that that single frame alone could be chopped up to coincidence. Of course, combined with the other examples, we are fairly certain that it was no coincidence at all. But, if this were in a courtroom, those two frames compared to each other would not hold up or even raise an eyebrow. Combine it with the others though, and yes, they could very well prove that Kane plagiarized the art, but alone, no.

Vallely might have even stolen the pose from the Thinker with some very small changes.

Does that mean that we should all start chastising Vallely? It's just a pose of a guy thinking. There's nothing original about that particular frame at all (the other examples, sure, but not that one). Perhaps if the character's position were something to actually speak of in the first place, I'd be with the other guys here who are mad at Kane.

 

[BatScot]

It's a very common pose; so common that that single frame alone could be chopped up to coincidence.

It is not a question of commonality… It’s either a copy of the Vallely or it’s not. It’s that simple, and all you need to answer those questions is in those two drawings—everything else is beside the point!

It's just a pose of a guy thinking. There's nothing original about that particular frame at all (the other examples, sure, but not that one). Perhaps if the character's position were something to actually speak of in the first place, I'd be with the other guys here who are mad at Kane.

… it is an observation of multiple points of congruence and specific similarities

… let’s all sing along:

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others?

You can Google 'hand-on-chin' all you want, but you'll never find a third image that matches the Vallely in the exact manner that Kane's swipe does, so exact a match that...

It's practically traced.

... and even if Vallely had 'The Thinker' in mind (not that it matters), at least he drew it himself; Kane, on the other hand, misappropriated the work of another artist and passed it off as his own, and therein lies the difference.

 

[Spike_x1]

… let’s all sing along:

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others?

You can Google 'hand-on-chin' all you want, but you'll never find a third image that matches the Vallely in the exact manner that Kane's swipe does, so exact a match that...

... and even if Vallely had 'The Thinker' in mind (not that it matters), at least he drew it himself; Kane, on the other hand, misappropriated the work of another artist and passed it off as his own, and therein lies the difference.

Did you actually read my post? I'm not disputing any of what you're saying, and yet you seem to be carrying on as if I am.

 

[The Fonz]

I heard about this two weeks before this thread was created. What's done is done I say. I'm pretty sure Batman stories have many other influences like this example but we just don't know about them. But I'm still reading Batman anyway.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

Anyone who doesn't believe these two panels prove Kane was a plagarist:
Everybody on Earth has a finger print. Leave one at the scene of a crime and what the cops will do is put it side by side with the suspects and examine both for what they call compares, or points of comanality.
Look at those two images.
See how not just the poses match up, but even the angles of each line? How you can follow, say, the lower curve of his collar and see how each line changes its angle by the same degree for the same distance on each. And in multiple places in the figure?
That's way more than coinckelleedinkleeincidence.
Lay those two images directly on top of one another and you'll see a dead on match.
I'm an artist, a competent one, by no means a professional, and I know tracing when I see it.
The only differences between the two are because of a) one is coloured and the other is black and white so there's a degree of optical illusion where size is concerned, and b) Kane or whoever inked the swipe flubbed it in a couple of places - couldn't colour inside the lines as it were.
If any of you are in high school, show the art teacher these two panels and see what their opinion is. I can tell you now they'll see their copies.

 

[BatScot]

Did you actually read my post?

I did, in it's entirety, for example:

I'm saying that it's a stretch to say that Kane directly stole it. It's a very common pose...

1. I do not believe it is a stretch in the least; I believe Kane directly copied the Vallely.
2. I do not believe the supposed commonalty of the pose refutes the claim that Kane copied the Vallely.
3. I conclude from an observation of the two drawings that Kane did copy the Vallely.
4. I do not believe any other consideration is required other than these two drawings in order to come to this conclusion.

I'm not disputing any of what you're saying, and yet you seem to be carrying on as if I am.

At the very least you dispute points 1 and 2, do you not?

That is what you're saying here:

I think the first example given in the first post is kind of a stretch to say that Kane directly stole it. It's just a guy thinking. Nothing really complex or original to steal to begin with.

... correct?

You have also disputed a direct comparison of the two drawings as being sufficient to settle the argument in-and-of-themselves, arguing—incorrectly, in my opinion—that the similarity could be the result of chance coincidence.

So in essence you also dispute points 3 and 4.... that’s a lot of disputing for someone who say’s they're not disputing anything.

 

[mrbarbar]

Try laying the pictures on top of each other in photoshop and slide the opacity up and down.

While not a direct ‘Trace’ it is unquestionably a copy, the similarities are too strikingly obvious.

Have a read of the Wizard article that Bat Scot posted a link to on the “Bob Kane – Short history” thread earlier this week. Here is a quote below and a link to the article itself:

Kane relays in Batman & Me. "Here’s a picture of the Joker character,’ Bill exclaimed. ‘Copy it and I’ll write the first Joker story." Kane, "a superb copyist" in his own words, copied; and Bill Finger wrote the Joker’s first two stories.

http://www.thebatsquad.net/finger.htm