[Vesuvius]

the work of either sijuner Kaiju or Chapel (don't remember which one posted it) was edited and used by MIT without giving them credit.

apparently it was the result of nepotism on the part of a professor, who hired his own daughter to do the work. He either approved of his daughter stealing or he has no idea what sort of artwork his daughter is truly able to make. They also were quite unapologetic regarding the theft. This is not suprising as it was discovered earlier this year that the MIT researchers had also falsified results of testing to secure government grants. It's sick how little respect they have for anything other than money.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vesuvius ]

[[Shizo]]

What's MIT?

[worm]

...

[Vesuvius]

MIT = massachusetts institute of technology

article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20020829/od_nm/comicbook_dc_1

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vesuvius ]

[sacrelicious]

Fucking bastards.

P.S. Chapel and Kaiju are the same person.

[[Shizo]]

Aren't they both Dhabih Eng?

[Shadow-X-]

ACtually, I read about that yesterday in the Local newspaper here in Waterloo. The original artist attended the University of Waterloo a while back (I live 2 mins away from the University). I just noticed the story because there has been a few comic book artist/start up related articles the past few days, and they all seem to be focusing on students from the U of W (there's a huge anime fan club there at the university, attended by a lot of caucasians). the U of W has been known world wide for its extensive Computer Engineering program, and there are a lot of Asians that come from around the world to attend it (that is, if they can get the high enough average of 95% or so to get into the program). I didn't know that the person was a fellow Sijun'er. I dunno, something about the feeling of being in the same vicinity of a great artist...... hehehe. I just thought I'd say my two cents on my connection with that article and this post. I could find it later and scan it and upload it somewhere if people are interested in reading about it (my local newspaper article on the MIT fraud thinggy). Anyhow, enough rambling, gotta go update my resume. Cheers!

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Shadow-X- ]

[social drone]

people make mistakes...but, the fact that these people say they did nothing wrong is unexcusable.

i say sue them untill they bleed dirt.

[Awetopsy]

either way... Radix just got a lot more media hype. thats always good.... even if its bad.
but Id sue them. Im sure they could part with part of that 50 million dollar grant

[delo]

what's funny to me is that i have an appleseed poster from 1992 that looks just like the 'original'. i'm not saying the radix boys are lifting art, and mit is clearly in the wrong in this situation, but it begs the question on what is truly original anymore when most of us are drawing upon similar influences.

six degrees of shirow, anyone?

;-)
d

[Vesuvius]

actually delo, it doesn't beg that question. if you look at the two pieces, it isn't a matter of 'influenced by', it's a recolor of one part, and piecing together two other parts of the original image. none of it was drawn by the MIT source, it was all photocopying.

[delo]

i think you miss my point, vesuvius. i said that mit was clearly wrong in this situation, and as you point out it's obvious that their work was merely a piece of recomposition ad color. what i'm saying is that it's difficult to make a case that the 'original' is in fact original, as the pose of the character, the male character behind her, the weapons, and the helmet that are all found on the original source pages and lifted by MIT are in fact charitably 'inspired' by shirow. and if i'm not very much mistaken, the buildings in the background look very much like otomo designs from akira.
now i'm not arguing that radix team are thieves in their own right, as i absolutely do not believe that is the case; inspiration and iteration are a fact of the industry and in many ways it's healthy to draw upon and further explore the familiar and highly regarded in alternate media. but i do contend that it's unseemly to pursue legal action beyond the necessary injunction on the basis of 'detriment to owner's wholly original concepts and works', as MIT has hardly done detriment to the license (on the contrary, it's probably contributed far more publicity than the comic could ever have garnered alone), nor can the argument be made that that the illustration in question is wholly original.
in fact, i think it sets a dangerous precedent if artists begin to lay litigatable claims to basic concepts in such a manner, particularly if they are not wholly their own. if augmentive armor, thermoptic camouflage, and helical magazines are struck from the public domain, what's next?
d

[Basement bound]

I am probably stating the obvious here. But, I believe that Chapel was doing the colouring (only) for Radix.

[Rinaldo]

I doubt it has anything to do with the concept delo. I know you are in that industry and think in terms of original creation etc. but it's just illegal to use an Illustration of someone's unless you pay them. simple.
the image was used to get a grant of 50 mil, some of that is no doubt due to the illustration. if you are doing this kinda thing (we are not talking about a backyard operation for fun) you pay someone to do it. stealing someone's art and making money off it = please sue me.
it could have been of anything.