Partially resolved...but

[ampersand]

I did confront Cassaday Motown Marvel...
I addressed this several times.
You should read before you go flapping you gums.

You told us that the DC editors made him change it, not that you confronted him. You even went so far as to say that Cassaday didn't know who drew the picture he was copying.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Every point you have asked to be addressed has been addressed and every contention you have made has been refuted.

I did not engage you in an ad hominem attack or start the mudslinging; you need only look in the mirror to find that person. I stated—as succinctly as possible—my opinion of your character based on the fallacies you have perpetuated in this thread, in which you have shown yourself incapable of reaching anything other than false conclusion.

the topic of this thread isnt about your opinion of my character. and your opinion of my character is a personal attack (Calling me a fool, a liar, and pathetic). i have perpetuated no fallacies int his thread, merely an opinion ont he matter different from the popular belief in this thread.

again, if the drawing was traced, it would be exactly the same drawing, it is not exactly the same drawing, therefore it is not traced.

 

[BatScot]

Humor me.

I don't have a sense of humor, remember?

But if you go back and read your own posts in this thread you’ll find all the laughable material you’ll ever need.

 

[BatScot]

i have perpetuated no fallacies int his thread, merely an opinion ont he matter different from the popular belief in this thread.

again, if the drawing was traced, it would be exactly the same drawing, it is not exactly the same drawing, therefore it is not traced.

Fallacy #1.

 

[ampersand]

BatScot, even if you are right, you need to get off your ****ing high horse.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Fallacy #1.

ohhh, nice defense there. i really like how you explained you're rationale.

 

[BatScot]

BatScot, even if you are right, you need to get off your ****ing high horse.

I like the view from up here, thank you very much.

 

[BatScot]

ohhh, nice defense there. i really like how you explained you're rationale.

It is explained in Post #88.

If you had read this thread in it’s entirety as you claim to have done then you would have realized this.

But I suppose that's Fallacy #2.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It is explained in Post #88.

If you had read this thread in it’s entirety as you claim to have done then you would have realized this.

But I suppose that's Fallacy #2.

the problem with "post 88" is that its completely based on speculation. you can only speculate what his work precess is, and you can only speculate that he traced the drawing then later made changes. i can just as much say that he didnt trace the drawing, but was merely influenced by, inspired by, or based the drawing on wams' as an explanation of the similarities. so, unless you have any actual facts that arent just speculation, then the only fallacy here is your claim that the drawing was traced.

p.s. anyways, im off to work, you kids play nice while im gone

 

[Saint]

We don't need to speculate. We can use our eyes to scan the drawings, then use our brains--which are connected to our eyes--to determine that the plagiarism is obvious. From there a theory can be developed as to why the minor differences exist, but ultimately that theory is irrelevant because the relevant conclusion has already been made--the work is copied.

On an unrelated note, the extent to which BatScot has owned this topic is hillarious.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Here's what I want to know, for what reason was the drawing changed? Did the DC editors make him or did Wams personally ask him? I don't think the two pictures are enough alike to be considered stealing another person's work, but I don't really know the laws on that.

That's what I'm thinking.

I think for it to be considered image stealing, it'd have to be EXACTLY alike. Copyright laws are so flimsy, and they keep changing and getting more and more narrow b/c of the internet and such large trading of images.

Artists do change things. JG Jones did the same for WANTED, where he actually CHANGED entire panels b/c after he finsihed the piece (and it was ready to go off) he had to draw it again on a seprate piece of paper and make a note to the editor as to which to change it for.

I don't have a sense of humor, remember?

But if you go back and read your own posts in this thread you’ll find all the laughable material you’ll ever need.

tr.v., -mored, -mor·ing, -mors.

1. To comply with the wishes or ideas of; indulge.
2. To adapt or accommodate oneself to. See synonyms at pamper.

the problem with "post 88" is that its completely based on speculation. you can only speculate what his work precess is, and you can only speculate that he traced the drawing then later made changes. i can just as much say that he didnt trace the drawing, but was merely influenced by, inspired by, or based the drawing on wams' as an explanation of the similarities. so, unless you have any actual facts that arent just speculation, then the only fallacy here is your claim that the drawing was traced.

Far as I know, there IS no proof.

No motives, and no proof of means and opportunity.

Cassaday's innoncent far as I can tell. A jury of his peers would absolve him.

 

[Motown Marvel]

We don't need to speculate. We can use our eyes to scan the drawings, then use our brains--which are connected to our eyes--to determine that the plagiarism is obvious. From there a theory can be developed as to why the minor differences exist, but ultimately that theory is irrelevant because the relevant conclusion has already been made--the work is copied.

On an unrelated note, the extent to which BatScot has owned this topic is hillarious.

and using the same exact method of deduction based ont he evidence at hand i have been able to formulate a just as likely and rational situation that doesnt involve cassaday tracing.

 

[BatScot]

the problem with "post 88" is that its completely based on speculation...

The explanation given in Post #88 is an accurate description of the process in question and one that fully accounts for the minor differences in the two drawings. This explanation refutes—without need for further consideration—the fallacy: The end result of a trace must be an exact duplicate of the original.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

We don't need to speculate. We can use our eyes to scan the drawings, then use our brains--which are connected to our eyes--

HOLY GODDAMN ****ING ****!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought they were connected to my goddamn funny bone.....Jesus....wow....

to determine that the plagiarism is obvious.

Your kidding...

From there a theory can be developed as to why the minor differences exist, but ultimately that theory is irrelevant because the relevant conclusion has already been made--the work is copied.

Theory......hmmm......that's like, the opposite of fact.....right? Or is that thing connected to my brain too?

This is all heresay guys. This guy would have no chance in court, fellas.

On an unrelated note, the extent to which BatScot has owned this topic is hillarious.

LMFAO.

 

[BatScot]

Cassaday's innoncent far as I can tell. A jury of his peers would absolve him.

You're a defense attorney's w*t dream.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The inconsistencies can most likely be explained by the artistic process. Artists do not draw a page in one attempt---there are many steps. The common method I know of--and use myself--involves drawing a rough, then drawing each panel or component seperately before puting it back together and drawing the final. Each panel may be re-drawn several times to change or correct details. If Cassaday did indeed trace Wams drawing--and I think it's pretty clear he did--changes may have occured when he re-drew the the panel and eventually the final page on a lightbox.

Let me ask you this, just to see.

In the 70 years of Batman's existence.

In the 70 years of Batman art.

And the millions of people who drawn the character, professional and otherwise, how many times do you think a pose like that- which is classic- with Batman just ****ing standing there at an angle...has been done? Just, a round numer....a guess, if you will.

Okay, now- how about the chances that out of those billions of pieces- that some artists might draw based on reality, human bodies. That is, the character isn't exaggerated, not too muscular, but looks like kinda a real dude. How many do you think, along with the classic pose?

Okay, how about designs one the cape and trunks, and so on? There's not many different designs out there. DC Comics, once changing the Bob Kane and Bill Finger (Cheers, Batacot ) have basically kept his costume the same.

So, let's just say.....whatever you THINK is copied, are coincidence.

What are the chances of that, do you think?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You're a defense attorney's w*t dream.

And your a Prosecutions **** Fantasy.

 

[T'Jai]

went to eat bout to crush a few give me a minute

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Sure, take your time. We'll still be here when you get back from brunch.

 

[BatScot]

So, let's just say.....whatever you THINK is copied, are coincidence.

How is it, after all that's been said, that you still miss the fundamental point of WAMS claim; that it is based on a specific series of events and not the general history of art in comics?

What are the chances of that, do you think?

Zero.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Dude.....you need to re-think that.

This is an icon, billions and billions of people draw the character in that pose as well.

Btw....how about that "humor" definition, eh?lmfao.

 

[BatScot]

This is an icon, billions and billions of people draw the character in that pose as well.

You're still missing the point: Two drawings by two individuals are all that matter in this case.

Dude.....you need to re-think that.

...................... Zero.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Now, your humoring me.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........get it? This time you ARE....ah, forget it,.....