Forum - View topic

NEWS: Nick Simmons' Incarnate Halted Over Alleged Bleach Plagiarism

Kubo seems interested on Nick and may get a lesson from the one highest rising writing manga in a long time.

Possibly Kubo may come down there to the US and have discussion with NIck Simmons and his family, then get an autograph with the Kiss members.

That's true, but they're still using someone else's characters to sell their fanart and doujinshi. At least Simmons changed the names and altered the characters appearances (as slight as it may be), unlike fanartist who are flat out selling someone else's characters. Is what Simmons did plagiarism? No doubt because it's obvious his stuff is a little more than "inspired by", but fanartist are even more obvious examples of plagiarism. I don't think fanartist should be excluded simply because they're fans and Simmons should get ragged on because he "lightboxed" it. Only reason Simmons is getting busted is because he has a big name and is making real money.

Note that I don't have anything against fanartist, but don't tell me they're not plagiarist as well- they're just doing it on a smaller scale at little cons, unlike Simmons who's selling his stuff on Amazon and in comic book stores.

Original question:

The King of Harts wrote:

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but don't artist in the Artist Alley of cons sell fanart all the time?

Answers:

spartydragon wrote:

That's always been a legal gray area (technically illegal but people let it slide for various reasons). And... this is a bit different. Fan artists are (usually) drawing stuff freehand, this guy flat out TRACED these characters - they're not "inspired by" established characters, they aren't even an artists take on those characters (fanart) they ARE the characters.

mufurc wrote:

At least those artists acknowledge that it's fanart. Simmons just traced the art and called it his own.

That's true, but they're still using someone else's characters to sell their fanart and doujinshi. At least Simmons changed the names and altered the characters appearances (as slight as it may be), unlike fanartist who are flat out selling someone else's characters. Is what Simmons did plagiarism? No doubt because it's obvious his stuff is a little more than "inspired by", but fanartist are even more obvious examples of plagiarism. I don't think fanartist should be excluded simply because they're fans and Simmons should get ragged on because he "lightboxed" it. Only reason Simmons is getting busted is because he has a big name and is making real money.

Note that I don't have anything against fanartist, but don't tell me they're not plagiarist as well- they're just doing it on a smaller scale at little cons, unlike Simmons who's selling his stuff on Amazon and in comic book stores.

Well, I think fanartists could make very original things, without tracing, "lightboxing" other people's work. In my opinion fanarts are in somewhat gray area, because fanartists just do not own the characters (and their designs) themselves, but they could very well make original fanarts by using their own skills and imaginations which could be count as derivative works which again can be protected by copyright laws and "fair use"; unlike Nick Simmons who just traced, "lightboxed" several works of other mangakas and changing their names and appearances in his comic book, with other words he tried to mask the plagiarism, and then sell it as his own.