Is it Swiping or Homage if...?

[RocketBoy]

Soooo, my question is, if an artist copies a work that they themself did less than a year ago, is it swiping, homage, or just plain lazy composition?

http://usera.imagecave.com/RocketBoy/UFF21_crop.jpg http://usera.imagecave.com/RocketBoy/ULTFF31_crop.jpg

[Jake V]

It's Land, so it's lazyness.

[Mr.Musgrave]

Lazy and swiping since it's Land. More than likely he traced the orignal image anyway so he's just tracing a trace. Plus you can't pay homage to yourself. The guy makes me sick.

[foxfire]

Ummmm... read has glasses in one and doesnt have them in the other! :D But yeah I see your point...

[EZMOHR]

Wow, it seems like everybody in the last week shows a post of the same topic from awhile back in a new post doing the same topic. Can't somebody just do that here, and end this thread quick. It's like the deja vu is becoming deja vu.

We get....people hate Greg Land because...
A.) He copies and steals things
B.) You wish when you did the same thing to hang in your bedroom/dorm room/basement, it looked 1/100th as good as Greg Land does it.

[Alan2099]

Wow, it seems like everybody in the last week shows a post of the same topic from awhile back in a new post doing the same topic. Can't somebody just do that here, and end this thread quick. It's like the deja vu is becoming deja vu.

We get....people hate Greg Land because...
A.) He copies and steals things
B.) You wish when you did the same thing to hang in your bedroom/dorm room/basement, it looked 1/100th as good as Greg Land does it.
C) The majority of his work lacks any kind of energy, looking stiffy posed even during the action scenes and even the style is distracting. The viewer's attention is drawn more to trying to figure out whether a certain is supposed to be Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt instead of jjust being able to look at the picture and see the artists own designs.

[Jake V]

I don't think jealousy has anything to do with it. Land was a good artist back before he started tracing fashion magazines.

The tracing and stiff posing robs his work of any sense of movement or energy that would have been there if he just drew without any photo reference. It's lazy and a waste of his talent.

[garin]

The expression on Ben's face in that first pic cracks me up.

[Sam T.]

wow no love for Greg Land,huh??

[EmmettHULK]

What happened to the Greg Land that did such beautiful, DYNAMIC work at CrossGen?

All his work for Marvel is completely devoid of energy...just horribly stiff, static traced drawings of celebrities...and he doesn't even seem to try to make it look somewhat different from the originals...


Ugh....why is this man a superstar again?

[Mr.Musgrave]

Because people are stupid and they accept his laziness and theft. Personally, I believe any editor that hires him should be ashamed of themselves. His "work" is a slap in the face to every actual illustrator out there.

[Micro]

I think it depends. If it is intentionally done as a tribute or parody then it is okay. If it is just copied with no referance or credit given, then it's swiping. Examples:

Homage:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/AmazingFantasy15.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Deadpool11.jpg

Swiping:
http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20incredible%20hulk%20340.jpghttp://www.spyder-25.com/COVERS/powerless/powerless_05.jpg

[Micro]

and possibly this also:
http://www.ragnoman.com/Uncanny_X-Men/UXM101.jpghttp://comic.eck24.de/images/AVENGERSWESTCOAST9171.jpg

althought it is possible you could argue those are tributes aswell...

[dingo]

Micro, that Land drawing is a homage, not a swipe.
Look at it again, he has given credit where it says "after McFarlane"

They are all homages.

[Micro]

Micro, that Land drawing is a homage, not a swipe.
Look at it again, he has given credit where it says "after McFarlane"

They are all homages.

Ya you are right, I didn't see that before. Those were the closet things I could find to swiping as far as a cover goes. I think swiping is more common in the interior of the books.

[BizarroBeachHead]

What's Land's Wolverine from? And what is on his hand???

[Porfat]

Ya you are right, I didn't see that before. Those were the closet things I could find to swiping as far as a cover goes. I think swiping is more common in the interior of the books.

I call the X-men/Avenger cover a swipe. The spider-man cover is a classic cover so its obvious* it's being referenced. (FF #1 is also referenced alot).

And the wolverine cover due credit is given.

And I don't care for Land UFF art.

[garin]

I think the X-Men cover is too well-known and the Avengers cover way too similar for it to be a swipe. Theres no way an artist would think they could get away with it, or not realize that they've copied it so minutely.

[RocketBoy]

We get....people hate Greg Land because...

B.) You wish when you did the same thing to hang in your bedroom/dorm room/basement, it looked 1/100th as good as Greg Land does it.
Oh MY GOD!!! You're right! How could I have ever been so blind?! That gem of infinite wisdom has forced me to see the light at last.... but wait! hold the phone... if that is true then why are there so many artists I can think of whos work I do nothing but sing praises of? Shouldn't I also then be jealous of them? Wow, it's all so confusing; I guess that must mean that the good ol' "jealousy" dismissal is just simple-minded drivel.

[Jake V]

What's Land's Wolverine from? And what is on his hand???
I believe that is from the "Powerless" miniseries. It was a story about what various Marvel characters would have done if they never got their powers.

Wolverine had this claw contraption that he kept on his arms.

The book was pretty lame.

[BizarroBeachHead]

I believe that is from the "Powerless" miniseries. It was a story about what various Marvel characters would have done if they never got their powers.

Wolverine had this claw contraption that he kept on his arms.

The book was pretty lame.
Ah yes, now I specifically remember not reading that.

[Regicide]

I think most work is better for using photo referencing. It certainly fits with the Ultimate universe to have people further developing their ability to draw from real life, as opposed to artists like the Image founders who clearly learned to draw from other comic books. Alex Ross gets away with it because it's quality work, and I seriously doubt Brian Hitch can draw NYC that well from memory.

Land, I can take or leave. But his drawing is pretty consistant, Ultimate Reed Richards always looks like the same person, for example. The drawings in question aren't even very telling. I've drawn a hell of a lot of different characters in remarkably similar poses, usually to simplify the creation of a new character. As for him, well, how many other ways do you see the same main characters coming towards the reader?

If anything, fault him and the colorist for making the first image too convoluted and resulting in the Invisible Woman not being as hot.

[Cimmerian]

One more time. Check out Sue and Ben in the first panel of this Ultimate Power page. Awfully familiar.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/aquilonian-king/fftrace.jpghttp://usera.imagecave.com/RocketBoy/ULTFF31_crop.jpg

[atxbomber]

I call the X-men/Avenger cover a swipe.

Because...?

Besides being obvious as to what cover AWC 71 is paying homage to, it pays proper respect to Dave Cockrum with the credit: "Morgan '91 (after Cockrum '76)".

[Nesteaman]

Ive noticed lots of this from land, I bet it's because that art work, is pretty damn good, if you're not looking for problems you won't see problems. But his cover from Nightcrawler issue 3 or 4, is an actual identical duplicate to a picture of nightcrawler used in Phoenix end song heh, but who really cares, it is pretty amazing artwork probably saves his 30 minutes.

[Jeff-E]

Here's something I want to know, why is it when Marvel uses a DC idea its called a "rip-off" but when DC uses a Marvel idea its called "paying homage" or people get really freaked out when DC does it? (I realize that this could start a little mini-war and sorry about that this is just something that has always really bugged me.)

[Mr.Musgrave]

but who really cares


Anyone who appriciates true artistry and especially those artists who put the actual time and effort into learning their craft instead of tracing and stealing from others maybe? :rolleyes:

Land is a tracer, a thief and a hack. He's the modern day Rob Liefeld.

[Young Avenger]

One more time. Check out Sue and Ben in the first panel of this Ultimate Power page. Awfully familiar.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/aquilonian-king/fftrace.jpghttp://usera.imagecave.com/RocketBoy/ULTFF31_crop.jpg

OMG, those face expressions are awful. Are they in middle of a fight or are they yelling at each other?

[marshal99]

I would take Land's tracing anyday over the likes of paco Medina , Young and his likes.
There's nothing worse than having to endure drawings that resemble a cow and chicken cartoon for 6 years old.

[The Foreigner]

OMG, those face expressions are awful. Are they in middle of a fight or are they yelling at each other?

Uh, both, actually.

[joe bloke]

" Land is a tracer, a thief and a hack. " Mr. Musgrave.

Such vitriol. Who cares if he traces, or not? So what if he's repetative? What about Roy Lichtenstein? There's a man who made a lifetime's living out of tracing other people's work. And Jackson Pollock spent much of his career simply producing variation after variation on the same theme. Jack Kirby drew exactly the same Captain America pose over and over again across twenty odd years, and I've never heard anyone slagging him off. I'm not the man's greatest fan, but there's FAR worse than Land working in comics today.

[Doom Hammer]

" Land is a tracer, a thief and a hack. " Mr. Musgrave.

Such vitriol. Who cares if he traces, or not?


Anyone who appriciates true artistry and especially those artists who put the actual time and effort into learning their craft instead of tracing and stealing from others maybe? :rolleyes:

Land is a tracer, a thief and a hack. He's the modern day Rob Liefeld.

You understand he answered this in the very post you cited, right?

I can't believe the amount of people who will defend Greg Land, the unethical tracer. I can't believe the amount of people who don't understand why tracing is bad and wrong and unethical.

[Butch Mapa]

It's not swiping or homaging. You can't do either to yourself.

Difference is, Liefeld traces other artist's art. That's unethical.

Land mostly traces from pictures. It might be lazy, repetitive, and uninentive, but that's not unethical. Hitch does it. Deodato does it. Ross does it. I think Sean Phillips does it. These people trace, they don't look at a picture and transfer it. They light box the picture. I don't think anyone does it as much as Land, but you can't really draw a line when it comes to this.

[Ryan Day]

More (http://www.girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/index.php?entry=entry060630-230506) Fun (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/1191744.html)with Greg Land.


Difference is, Liefeld traces other artist's art. That's unethical.

Land mostly traces from pictures. It might be lazy, repetitive, and uninentive, but that's not unethical.

Really? Land is using art that was created by someone else (and yes, photography is art). He's copying/tracing it, putting his own name over it, giving no credit to the original artist, and getting paid for it. That's not unethical?



Hitch does it. Deodato does it. Ross does it. I think Sean Phillips does it. These people trace, they don't look at a picture and transfer it. They light box the picture. I don't think anyone does it as much as Land, but you can't really draw a line when it comes to this.

I don't know about Hitch, Deodato, or Phillips, but Alex Ross takes his own photo reference (as does Tim Bradstreet). It's all his work. Land, on the other hand, uses other people's work for his art. That is where you can draw a line.

[Mr.Musgrave]

You understand he answered this in the very post you cited, right?

Of course he doesn't.


I can't believe the amount of people who will defend Greg Land, the unethical tracer. I can't believe the amount of people who don't understand why tracing is bad and wrong and unethical.

It just goes to show you the quality of those people. Simple as that.

[RocketBoy]

Really? Land is using art that was created by someone else (and yes, photography is art). He's copying/tracing it, putting his own name over it, giving no credit to the original artist, and getting paid for it. That's not unethical?

...Alex Ross takes his own photo reference (as does Tim Bradstreet). It's all his work. Land, on the other hand, uses other people's work for his art. That is where you can draw a line.
I completely agree with both of Ryan's points here. This is exactly why I have a problem with Land, Proctor, et al, and not with Alex Ross or Tim Bradstreet.

[joe bloke]

" It just goes to show you the quality of those people. Simple as that. " Mr. Musgrave.

Perhaps it's because some people like what he does and aren't too bothered about the roads taken in it's execution. It appears to me, Mr. Musgrave, that your venom is directed not only towards Land himself, but also towards anyone who might dare to disagree with you.

It's called FOUND ART. It's a technique that's been used for the best part of the last century, not only by illustrators, but by painters, sculptors, and musicians. You may not like it, but to brand it as unethical displays nothing more than a monumental snobbishness on your part. You don't like Land, that's cool, we live in a big world, we're all big boys and girls now; as I've already said, I'm not the man's greatest fan, myself, but resorting to attacks against those who voice opinions that don't tally with your own only draws attention to the short comings of your argument.

[Agentum]

I think classic covers (Action 1 or something like that) in new versions can be fun, i don't consider that bad work, it's easy to see and they don't try to hide it.
But to take more unknown work and copy comes of a bit cheap i think, i mean most don't recognize it.

[joe bloke]

I totally agree with you, Agentum. But only in a case where the artist in question is trying to pass that work off unequivacably as all his own work. To the best of my knowledge, Land has never denied that he uses photographs for reference. So I can't see any problem there. Were he to deny out and out that he uses photographs for reference, then there would be something to take him to task over.

[Ryan Day]

It's called FOUND ART. It's a technique that's been used for the best part of the last century, not only by illustrators, but by painters, sculptors, and musicians.

It's not "found art." Artists who favour that technique make no attempt to claim the work as their own; the entire point is that it's something presented in a different context. If Land were literally cutting and pasting swimsuit models onto paper to illustrate comics, that would be more in line with the idea of "found art."

[joe bloke]

He's taking an image that he's found somewhere else and modifying it for his own purposes. That pretty much covers found art. And once again, I don't recall a single instance when Land has turned around and denied that he uses photographs for reference. The argument that he's " passing it off as his own " holds no water unless he specifically denies the usage of photographic reference.

[Ryan Day]

And once again, I don't recall a single instance when Land has turned around and denied that he uses photographs for reference. The argument that he's " passing it off as his own " holds no water unless he specifically denies the usage of photographic reference.

For one thing, that doesn't make any sense. If you publish a book and reference or quote other works, you need to make that clear with footnotes/bibliography/acknowledgements/etc. You don't wait until someone says "hey, did you take that passage from another book?" to mention it. If you're using other people's work, you should be up front about it. At the very least because it's the honest thing to do, but also because copying other people's work without permission or acknowledgement is a good way to get sued.

And another, the issue isn't that he uses photo reference; it's that he uses other people's photos as reference. If Land were hiring models and taking pictures, there would be no issue. (His art would still look stiff and posed, but it would be honest, at least)

[dingo]

He's taking an image that he's found somewhere else and modifying it for his own purposes. That pretty much covers found art. And once again, I don't recall a single instance when Land has turned around and denied that he uses photographs for reference. The argument that he's " passing it off as his own " holds no water unless he specifically denies the usage of photographic reference.

No, that is not found art. Found art is an item that is presented by an artist as it was found.

Land takes others art, make no mistake that photography is art, and copies it and then presents it as his own. He may not deny that he uses photo reference, but neither does he give credit to the appropriate photographers. By allowing only his name to appear in the credits he is passing it off as his own.

Tracing a photo to look real or using it as a reference is a skill to be sure, but not one a comic artist is being hired or asked for. JRjr is considered to be one of the best artists not just because of his style, but for the composition, flow and layout of his work. Land is effectively stealing composition and layout from other artists and not giving credit.

Does it happen all the time by people other than Land? Sure.
Does he deserve to be the brunt of all the attention? Probably not.
But is it fair for fans to be annoyed with him? Definately.

[1WEBHEAD]

http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/hmmmmm4kt.gif

Nuff Said!!

[Exo]

He's taking an image that he's found somewhere else and modifying it for his own purposes. That pretty much covers found art.

And I'm sure alot of artist have skimmed through google, magazines and movies. Especially those who aim for certain realism found in their art. Land on the other hand is a very lazy when it comes to "modification". It's fairly easy to spot the resemblance in his art to the source material. Add to the fact that he repeatedly keeps copying character models, that have already been used once, some readers on the web get turned off.

Not me though.

[Mr.Musgrave]

Perhaps it's because some people like what he does and aren't too bothered about the roads taken in it's execution. It appears to me, Mr. Musgrave, that your venom is directed not only towards Land himself, but also towards anyone who might dare to disagree with you.

My "venom" is directed at anyone who steals other people's work and passes it off as their own and anyone who supports said thieves. Land is not an artist. He is a thief and a tracer.



It's called FOUND ART. It's a technique that's been used for the best part of the last century, not only by illustrators, but by painters, sculptors, and musicians. You may not like it, but to brand it as unethical displays nothing more than a monumental snobbishness on your part. You don't like Land, that's cool, we live in a big world, we're all big boys and girls now; as I've already said, I'm not the man's greatest fan, myself, but resorting to attacks against those who voice opinions that don't tally with your own only draws attention to the short comings of your argument.


It is most certainly NOT found art:

The term found art—more commonly found object (French: objet trouvé) or ready made—describes art created from the undisguised, but often modified, use of objects that are not normally considered art, often because they already have a mundane, utilitarian function. Marcel Duchamp was the originator of this in the early twentieth-century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_art

What Land does is copyright infringement. What he does is illegal and if caught he could be sued right out of existance for it. What he does also ISN'T photoreference. He takes other people's photographs and traces them. That is tracing, not photo reference.

[joe bloke]

What about Paul Gulacy and P. Craig Russell, then? Both have made extensive use of stock media photoimages ( Russell, of course, uses his own photos, as well ), without giving credit to the relevant publications, models, photographers, movies, etc. By the logic that's being displayed here, then, surely, they, too, should be arrested. And I can't recall Bryan Hitch giving any credit to Samuel L. Jackson, or the various photographers and movies that he draws those images from.

And in all found art there is a degree of manipulation of the object or image used, whether this is something as simple as signing it ( Duchamp ), re-arranging it's components to form a new whole ( Emin ), or the complete bastardisation of the original object or objects to create a new object or objects ( Blake, Picasso, Miro ). The only essential criteria is that the original object should not become completely lost. Land takes Stock images and reforms them to his own ends. I'm not saying that I particularly like this. I'm simply asserting his right to do so should he choose.

[Exo]

The term found art—more commonly found object (French: objet trouvé) or ready made—describes art created from the undisguised, but often modified, use of objects that are not normally considered art, often because they already have a mundane, utilitarian function. Marcel Duchamp was the originator of this in the early twentieth-century.

Whether readymade is true art or not is still up for debate with the public opinion against it and the art community split in half over it. In my opinion found art is nowhere near as justifiable as tracing (though depending on execution). For example:

"Pure" readymade art (in its simplest form):

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4972/fountainfr2.png
Duchamps Fountain (nothing more than a storebought urinal)


http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6954/shovelir4.png
Duchamps Shovel (yes, just a shovel)

Impure readymade art (manipulated to a certain degree):

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1646/bicyclewheelvt0.png
Bicycle Wheel

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2005/lhooqwo1.png
L.H.O.O.Q.

I don't consider such amateurism as art. Atleast Land puts an effort, a very good one at that, into his work.


And I can't recall Bryan Hitch giving any credit to Samuel L. Jackson

Actually they did ask for Jacksons permission to use his face.

[Ryan Day]

What about Paul Gulacy and P. Craig Russell, then? Both have made extensive use of stock media photoimages ( Russell, of course, uses his own photos, as well ), without giving credit to the relevant publications, models, photographers, movies, etc. By the logic that's being displayed here, then, surely, they, too, should be arrested. And I can't recall Bryan Hitch giving any credit to Samuel L. Jackson, or the various photographers and movies that he draws those images from.

If those artists are directly copying/tracing/photoshopping copyrighted images, then yeah, they're being unethical, too. But none of them are as obvious about it as Land. Land looks like he's copying photos - and has the nerve to do well-known ones, like Sports Illustrated Swimsuit covers - so he gets a lot of flack.

Most of us don't know how artists do their work, so who knows who does what. But if you're a cheater and lazy, like Land or Mike Mayhew, you're going to get caught and you're going to get some flack.


Land takes Stock images and reforms them to his own ends. I'm not saying that I particularly like this. I'm simply asserting his right to do so should he choose.

Land's not taking "stock" images. There are companies that collect a wide variety of photos for use in advertising, publishing, etc, for a fee. Maybe Land uses these, but he's also using shots from magazines that almost certainly aren't provided by any stock photo archive.

[Mr.Musgrave]

Land takes Stock images and reforms them to his own ends. I'm not saying that I particularly like this. I'm simply asserting his right to do so should he choose.

Land does NOT take stock images and reforms them. He takes COPYRIGHTED images and reforms them which makes it illegal and unethical. What about that is so hard to understand? The law is against your "argument."

Ryan answered the rest of your so-called "points" so I'll skip those.

[joe bloke]

The law is obviously not against my "argument." If Land were in any way in breach of any copyright laws what-so-ever he'd already have been arrested and Marvel would have had the arses sued off them. Do you honestly think that a company as big as Marvel are going to take any chances like that?

What about that is so hard to understand?

And as far as ethics go, your ethics are not neccessarily the same ethics as the guy who sits next to you on the bus. If you mean, " I don't like the fact that Land traces, and I believe it to be unethical, " then that's cool, your ethics are your ethics, but ethics, much the same as art, are subjective. I personally do not believe that what Land does is unethical. Lazy, yes. Uninspired, yes. Not very good, absolutely. But not, in my eyes, at least, unethical.

[dingo]

The law is obviously not against my "argument." If Land were in any way in breach of any copyright laws what-so-ever he'd already have been arrested and Marvel would have had the arses sued off them. Do you honestly think that a company as big as Marvel are going to take any chances like that?

What about that is so hard to understand?

And as far as ethics go, your ethics are not neccessarily the same ethics as the guy who sits next to you on the bus. If you mean, " I don't like the fact that Land traces, and I believe it to be unethical, " then that's cool, your ethics are your ethics, but ethics, much the same as art, are subjective. I personally do not believe that what Land does is unethical. Lazy, yes. Uninspired, yes. Not very good, absolutely. But not, in my eyes, at least, unethical.

Perhaps you are confusing 'illegal' with 'worth pursuing'.

It would simply not be worth it for Sports Illustrated to sue Land over this. A lengthy litigation process which would require them to prove it, in spite of the fact that they almost certainly could.

I would almost be certain that they would be suing Land and not Marvel too. I would say that in any contracts Marvel would have artists sign that this possibility has been covered.

[Doom Hammer]

The law is obviously not against my "argument." If Land were in any way in breach of any copyright laws what-so-ever he'd already have been arrested and Marvel would have had the arses sued off them. Do you honestly think that a company as big as Marvel are going to take any chances like that?

I think no one's called him on it yet is all. Remember the huge deal when Mike Mayhew (I think it was) traced the image of some Spanish royalty for the House of M special newspaper? With comics getting more attention, I think stuff like this needs to stop.

[Ryan Day]

The law is obviously not against my "argument." If Land were in any way in breach of any copyright laws what-so-ever he'd already have been arrested and Marvel would have had the arses sued off them. Do you honestly think that a company as big as Marvel are going to take any chances like that?

First, you're mixing up civil and criminal proceedings, of which copyright violation is the former; no one is going to arrest Greg Land for anything. And just because no one has sued Land or Marvel for copyright violation doesn't mean he's not doing it; the various sources might not be aware of the issue, or maybe they don't think it's worth the effort of pursuing.

Marvel has been sued for this sort of thing before, when they used a picture of Amy Grant on a Dr. Strange cover. And when Mayhew ripped off the King of Spain's official portrait, there was talk of a lawsuit; while I don't think anything formal was ever filed, Marvel ultimately pulled the cover.

[Mr.Musgrave]

Exactly, Ryan. And stealing someone else's art and passing it off as your own is entirely unethical and illegal. It is copyright infringment and it's illegal. People have been blacklisted from the commercial art industry for that kind of thing. There was a girl in japan who pulled stunts just like Land. She was found out then all of her books were pulled and destroyed and she was forced to make a public apology. So really, not only is Land unethical but so are his editors.

[CyberCoyote]

OMG, those face expressions are awful. Are they in middle of a fight or are they yelling at each other?

Who's the woman? She looks EXACTLY like Sue, down to the hair.

Kinda like Sue and Johnny's Mom who Namor called an old cow, but she basically was a brunette Sue with a better figure.

Land's finished products are pleasant to the eye, if not particularly dramatic since he seems stuck only using images and poses he finds in magazines and not the superhuman dynamic ones comics SHOULD feature. But I agree that it's not comic-art, just a fashionable technique which totally ignores giving credit to the source.

[marshal99]

As a consumer , i don't have to care whether Land swipe this or not , i only liked what i see in the books. His art is pleasant to the eyes and is better than some of the crappier cartoonish artists they have at marvel.
I do not care nor should i care about where he copied them from , it's not my duty to know or care. I buy comics because they are nice to read and pictures that are nice to see.

[protonik]

wow no love for Greg Land,huh??

Why should there be?

[protonik]

" Land is a tracer, a thief and a hack. " Mr. Musgrave.

Such vitriol. Who cares if he traces, or not? So what if he's repetative? What about Roy Lichtenstein? There's a man who made a lifetime's living out of tracing other people's work. And Jackson Pollock spent much of his career simply producing variation after variation on the same theme. Jack Kirby drew exactly the same Captain America pose over and over again across twenty odd years, and I've never heard anyone slagging him off. I'm not the man's greatest fan, but there's FAR worse than Land working in comics today.

So then tell me how it is any different from Liefeld swiping poses here and there? Just looking at Land's body of work since joining Crossgen he's the worst swipe/thief since Rich Buckler's FF run. Tracing is wrong but for some reason people are giving Land a pass and his tracing is a HUGE body of work and also very illegal. At least Liefeld or the others alter the image to fit their styles. It isn't the same as drawing the same pose either. Kirby might have redrawn the same pose for Cap but it was never the "same" pose. There was always something that made it look unique and fresh. Land just looks to be using photoshop with a selection of stock photos from movies and magazines and then building his layouts. Ugh.

Jason

[protonik]

It's not swiping or homaging. You can't do either to yourself.

Difference is, Liefeld traces other artist's art. That's unethical.

Land mostly traces from pictures. It might be lazy, repetitive, and uninentive, but that's not unethical. Hitch does it. Deodato does it. Ross does it. I think Sean Phillips does it. These people trace, they don't look at a picture and transfer it. They light box the picture. I don't think anyone does it as much as Land, but you can't really draw a line when it comes to this.

Another difference... they don't trace, they use reference and it is pictures that THEY TAKE. They pose the models, set the lighting etc. Land grabs a Playboy or Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly or whatnot and then lays it on a lightbox and traces it. That is illegal. Those photograph's are copright to those magazines and movie studios. The photographs that Alex Ross and Brian Hitch use are their own. Hitch is drawing a likeness when he draws Samuel L. Fury, he isn't literally laying down a photograph of Sam and tracing over it. He also doesn't trace photos of New York, he references them to get the buildings right etc. THAT is the difference.

[protonik]

" It just goes to show you the quality of those people. Simple as that. " Mr. Musgrave.

Perhaps it's because some people like what he does and aren't too bothered about the roads taken in it's execution. It appears to me, Mr. Musgrave, that your venom is directed not only towards Land himself, but also towards anyone who might dare to disagree with you.

It's called FOUND ART. It's a technique that's been used for the best part of the last century, not only by illustrators, but by painters, sculptors, and musicians. You may not like it, but to brand it as unethical displays nothing more than a monumental snobbishness on your part. You don't like Land, that's cool, we live in a big world, we're all big boys and girls now; as I've already said, I'm not the man's greatest fan, myself, but resorting to attacks against those who voice opinions that don't tally with your own only draws attention to the short comings of your argument.

So would you say the same thing about Liefeld?

[spyridona]

Oh dear God on a cracker, I'm defending Liefeld.

The man can't draw, but every horrible figure he does, every overdone hatch mark he uses, all comes from his pencil and his ability. And for that, I give him credit.

Even if his art abuses my eyes... :p

[Regicide]

Really? Land is using art that was created by someone else (and yes, photography is art). He's copying/tracing it, putting his own name over it, giving no credit to the original artist, and getting paid for it. That's not unethical?

Photography being art is a bit debatable, imho. I'd say what Land is doing takes a bit more skill than clicking the button on top of your camera.
But lord, the authoritative nature of 'art' probably isn't going to be solved by comic nerds on the internet, so forget I said anything... the way you have with everyone else thats disagreed thus far.

I'm sure Da Vinci would have loved to have just taken reference photographs than make Lisa Gherardini sit still for god knows how many hours, so I find the root issues raised by this debate kinda inconsequential. I like the way UFF looks, though. Simple as that.

[Cimmerian]

Another difference... they don't trace, they use reference and it is pictures that THEY TAKE. They pose the models, set the lighting etc. Land grabs a Playboy or Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly or whatnot and then lays it on a lightbox and traces it. That is illegal. Those photograph's are copright to those magazines and movie studios. The photographs that Alex Ross and Brian Hitch use are their own. Hitch is drawing a likeness when he draws Samuel L. Fury, he isn't literally laying down a photograph of Sam and tracing over it. He also doesn't trace photos of New York, he references them to get the buildings right etc. THAT is the difference.
Alex Ross takes his own photos but Bryan Hitch is tracing photos that aren't his. He's said so in interviews.

Check out this thread for more on Land and Hitch
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=127592&page=4

[Mr.Musgrave]

Photography being art is a bit debatable, imho. I'd say what Land is doing takes a bit more skill than clicking the button on top of your camera.


If you think that's all there is to photography you are sadly mistaken. There's just as much technique in photography as there is in illustration. Like a camera automatically sets up the layout, lighting, and scene of a photograph.

[Stony]

Keep it civil, guys
Keep to the arguments and refrain from attacking other posters or I'll close this thread.

And don't even think of playing the "He started it!" line, it didn't work with the Kindergarten teacher, it's not going to fly here.

[Alan2099]

So would you say the same thing about Liefeld?
Even if you don't like his style, his art still seems to have energy. He might get details wrong, but his characters are still destinct from pannel to pannel.

That's a lot more than I can say for Land.

[Alex Dragon]

Wow. You guys are all over the place with this one.

From what little I know about Land and what he's doing, yes it's illegal and yes if the person who took the photo really wanted to go after him they could. BUT....they more than likely wouldn't for several reasons. First reason being that this type of thing has been going on since the invention of the camera. It's one of those things that no one really makes a big stink over unless it goes too far. In this "sue happy" world of ours some people tend to forget that for one to sue there needs to be some sort of "damages" for the plantif to sue for. Realistically, it isn't worth the photographer to pay a lawyer to go after an artist using their photo because it really does "hurt" them in any real manner. If you say Land is profitting from the use of the photographer's photo then you have to figure out how much he profitted from the use of that one photo. The important thing to remember is that Land uses lots of photos from different photographers. One photographer may go after Land but perhaps Land only used one of his photos in an issue. That photographer can't sue on behalf of all the other photographers.

So after that photographer proves that Land used his photo then it becomes all about what actual damages it caused them, if Land actually changed enough in the photo to make it a whole new composition and all sorts of little things that wouldn't make it worth persuing.
On the other hand if Land took a coffee table book of photos from one artist and used many of the photos from that book to fill his comic with then that may indeed be worth persuing.

Remember, when Amy Grant went after Guice it was because her image was on a comic that could be considered a book of the occult or at least one that went against the christian image she's worked to maintain. Those were worthwild "damages" to take legal action over.

When the artist who sued one of the Batman movies over use of his work to help create the look of Gotham City he had a strong suit worth going after because several of his designs were used and the entire look of Gotham was based offf of those designs. Plus, more importantly the movie made millions. There was enough money involved to make it all worth it. With something like comics it's not even worth paying a lawyer to go after a settlement that probably would be enough to pay the lawyer.

Long story short on a technical level what land does is illegal but it's illegal much in the same way recording something from tv is for you or me. It's widely known that it's done but very, very unlikely that anyone will ever do anything about it.

[dingo]

Wow. You guys are all over the place with this one.

From what little I know about Land and what he's doing, yes it's illegal and yes if the person who took the photo really wanted to go after him they could. BUT....they more than likely wouldn't for several reasons. First reason being that this type of thing has been going on since the invention of the camera. It's one of those things that no one really makes a big stink over unless it goes too far. In this "sue happy" world of ours some people tend to forget that for one to sue there needs to be some sort of "damages" for the plantif to sue for. Realistically, it isn't worth the photographer to pay a lawyer to go after an artist using their photo because it really does "hurt" them in any real manner. If you say Land is profitting from the use of the photographer's photo then you have to figure out how much he profitted from the use of that one photo. The important thing to remember is that Land uses lots of photos from different photographers. One photographer may go after Land but perhaps Land only used one of his photos in an issue. That photographer can't sue on behalf of all the other photographers.

So after that photographer proves that Land used his photo then it becomes all about what actual damages it caused them, if Land actually changed enough in the photo to make it a whole new composition and all sorts of little things that wouldn't make it worth persuing.
On the other hand if Land took a coffee table book of photos from one artist and used many of the photos from that book to fill his comic with then that may indeed be worth persuing.

Remember, when Amy Grant went after Guice it was because her image was on a comic that could be considered a book of the occult or at least one that went against the christian image she's worked to maintain. Those were worthwild "damages" to take legal action over.

When the artist who sued one of the Batman movies over use of his work to help create the look of Gotham City he had a strong suit worth going after because several of his designs were used and the entire look of Gotham was based offf of those designs. Plus, more importantly the movie made millions. There was enough money involved to make it all worth it. With something like comics it's not even worth paying a lawyer to go after a settlement that probably would be enough to pay the lawyer.

Long story short on a technical level what land does is illegal but it's illegal much in the same way recording something from tv is for you or me. It's widely known that it's done but very, very unlikely that anyone will ever do anything about it.

I think Land is most likely to find himself with a problem because of the movie stills that he uses. Movie studios have a reasonable reason to be protective of their copyrights and often have enough money to spend in order to go after him just as an example.

[Alex Dragon]

When comparing Liefeld to Land in my opinion what they're both doing is technically illegal but what Liefeld is doing is lower on my integrity scale. With Land he's taking art from one medium and making it work in another. That takes some skill and effort to pull off well. Liefeld is simply taking line art and making it line art again in the same medium. He's pretty much ripping off his fellow creators. Land is at least bring new images to the comics medium but Liefeld simlpy tracing what's been done (in some caes). In some cases I've seen Liefeld doesn't even try to make it look like his style.

Bryan Hitch uses photos but is far better about not being so obvious about it. With Bryan's stuff I think he only uses it for accurracy or for a certain amount of "realism". he also is able to blur the lines of what's referenced and what isn't because it all blends together into his style. Bryan does most of the drawing from his imagination from what I can tell and uses references to enhance things.

What Alex Ross does is different from Land and Liefeld (for the most part) for several reasons. First because Alex actually draws (lay outs) the page first and have people pose to match what he's drawn or finds pictures to match what he's drawn. Secondly, Alex doesn't trace. Lastly Alex usually creates an entirely new composition everytime and isn't taking another artist's composition and building a picture from it.

It sounds like I'm bashing Land but I'm just point out what I think he does. There are many things I like about land's finished product and some things I don't. The pictures overall are very pretty and I like pretty art. My problems with what Land is doing these days is that I think he's relying too heavily on photos and doesn't seem to make up or fake anything. There's a few panels in Utlimate FF where Reed is suppoed to be putting together some complicated futuristic machine and land just traced a car's transmission to be that that machine. It looked pretty lame. How hard would it have been to make up some gobbly gook stuff to make it look more impressive.

Also, his action scenes are lacking because real people simply don't move as gracefully as comicbook drawings. They also don't get into the situtations that comicbook people do so finding great poses to reflect what's happening in the story is next to impossible so his action scenes generally lack any typical comicbook power. For me Land's stuff works great for certain types of stories but not ones heavy on action.

[Alex Dragon]

I think Land is most likely to find himself with a problem because of the movie stills that he uses. Movie studios have a reasonable reason to be protective of their copyrights and often have enough money to spend in order to go after him just as an example.

I doubt it. Again, what real harm is he doing to them and is it worth the time to go after him? If he just totally rips off a movie still without changing anything and makes it a cover that's one thing, but to do it in one panel of a story where things are changed enough so that it isn't that obvious isn't worth anyone's time. What 's the point of making an example of him? Is this such a huge problem for studios that it needs to be addressed? A big studio coming down a on one little guy is bad publicity also.

[protonik]

Well, the movie studios can sue over dilution of product. Also the celebs used can sue over the lack of permission to use their likenesses in the product. It has happened before.

Jason

[dingo]

I doubt it. Again, what real harm is he doing to them and is it worth the time to go after him? If he just totally rips off a movie still without changing anything and makes it a cover that's one thing, but to do it in one panel of a story where things are changed enough so that it isn't that obvious isn't worth anyone's time. What 's the point of making an example of him? Is this such a huge problem for studios that it needs to be addressed? A big studio coming down a on one little guy is bad publicity also.

Read it again, I said he was most likely to be pursued by movie studios, I didn't say that was likely. It is just far more likely to come from there than from a magazine or a photographer.

[Zengei]

..it's illegal much in the same way recording something from tv is for you or me.
Actually it isn't, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

[Cimmerian]

When comparing Liefeld to Land in my opinion what they're both doing is technically illegal but what Liefeld is doing is lower on my integrity scale. With Land he's taking art from one medium and making it work in another.
Land is also tracing other comic artists work.

Travis Charest Spider-Man
http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/20060717/travisspiderman.jpg

Land Swipe
http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/20060717/GregLandswiping.jpg

Land swipe from Scott McDaniel's Nightwing
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/aquilonian-king/fc3cf094.jpg

[Exo]

Land is also tracing other comic artists work.

Land Swipe
http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/20060717/GregLandswiping.jpg

I can safely say that each and every character, in that cover of Ultimate Power, has been traced. Hope I didn't ruin the rest of your day. :)

[Alex Dragon]

Land is also tracing other comic artists work.

Wow! I stand corrected. I wasn't aware he was doing this. It really doesn't make any sense. I've always assumed that he could actually draw and thought before going to CrossGen he was drawing from his imagination or at the very least not tracing. The examples you posed are things that even if ripped off the pose he should've been able to draw it on his own without tracing them. Neither of those pics are so tough to do that he needed trace them and they aren't so great that he needed to copy them in the first place.
He must spend more time actually looking for reference than actually drawing.

That's a bummer. He just went down a few pegs in my book.

[Alex Dragon]

I can safely say that each and every character, in that cover of Ultimate Power, has been traced. Hope I didn't ruin the rest of your day. :)

Like I mentioned before, the sad part is that there's nothing in that pic that was so tough to do that any halfway decent artist couldn't pull off without tracing. I can inderstand using a reference to enhance your work but needing to trace everything is just ridiculous. Tracing another comic artist's work just makes it kinda pathetic on something so incredibly simple.

l know some illustrators do this type of thing all the time but it's usually for a single image. It must be a huge pain to try and find pics for a whole comic. I have to wonder if Land has ever altered a story because he couldn't find the proper pic(s) and just changed the story to make use of what he did find?

[Cimmerian]

I can safely say that each and every character, in that cover of Ultimate Power, has been traced. Hope I didn't ruin the rest of your day. :) You talking to me or just quoting me to use the pic?

[Cimmerian]

I've always assumed that he could actually draw and thought before going to CrossGen he was drawing from his imagination or at the very least not tracing.He actually can draw if you go back far enough. His earliest DC work and everything before that looks to be all him.

He must spend more time actually looking for reference than actually drawing.Exactly.

[R Krippler]

Hey can you guys, show more samples. I still like Lands art, but i also like seeing what he traced.

[Regicide]

I agree. I've been defending photo referencing the entire time, because it seriously did help me learn to draw more realistic people. I've always been good at drawing technical things (Mechs, High tech weapons, technical gauntlets, vehicles, etc.) in the main characters comic I created. as the straight lines kinda help me with perspective, amongst other things. But I find it hard to defend Land when shown these examples.

I still don't think he's without talent. I mean it isnt like he had a giant rock creature or a man on fire to photograph and trace. At most I think he simply isn't comfortable with his artistic skills. If any of you talked to Land I think he'd be harder on himself than any of you have been thus far.

I am a skilled artist, I haven't the slightest idea if I'm talented, but if you spend thousands of hours doing something (as I have with drawing) it would almost be sad if you didn't have it down. Land wants to do this perfectly, and he will not develope his own style untill he learns to trust himself.

Land, please, do an issue without tracing just to prove yourself.

[Alex Dragon]

I agree. I've been defending photo referencing the entire time, because it seriously did help me learn to draw more realistic people. I've always been good at drawing technical things (Mechs, High tech weapons, technical gauntlets, vehicles, etc.) in the main characters comic I created. as the straight lines kinda help me with perspective, amongst other things. But I find it hard to defend Land when shown these examples.

Using reference can be a great learning tool. I use reference all the time but it's almost always to enhance or help along a drawing I've done. If I'm having trouble with an expression or smile or whatever I'll use a picture to help fix cetain things but I don't just copy the whole picture. And I certainly don't trace it. The only time I trace is when I'm doing a portrait and it's critical to get things right on portraits if something is even slightly off it won't look like the person. Even then I don't trace every line I just get the proportions and sizes right and eyeball the details.


I still don't think he's without talent. I mean it isnt like he had a giant rock creature or a man on fire to photograph and trace. At most I think he simply isn't comfortable with his artistic skills. If any of you talked to Land I think he'd be harder on himself than any of you have been thus far.

I'm sure if anyone asked Land would tell them that using reference is an age old practice and that doing it helps him meet deadlines. I would imagine the hardest part of the job for him now is just gathering the reference. After that the rest is a breeze. No erasing or struggling with a pose, no having to waste time trying to think up poses.


I am a skilled artist, I haven't the slightest idea if I'm talented, but if you spend thousands of hours doing something (as I have with drawing) it would almost be sad if you didn't have it down. Land wants to do this perfectly, and he will not develope his own style untill he learns to trust himself.

I still think Land can draw. Earlier in his career he appeared to be drawing on his own or at least not tracing and being so dependant on reference. It appears that while he was at CrossGen he started using photo reference a lot more. Probably because they had really strict deadlines that couldn't be missed. Somewhere along the way he must've just figured it was just quicker and easier to trace stuff. What also probably happened when he actually had draw on his own again he probably sat there struggling with something and decided it's not worth the hassle and it's just quicker and easier to trace everything. I'm guessing all this of course.


Land, please, do an issue without tracing just to prove yourself.

That's probably not going to happen. I'm sure Land is aware of what he can do without tracing and is comfortable with his skill. Plus, fans seem to react much stronger to the traced stuff so there's no real reason not to give that to them.

[Exo]

You talking to me or just quoting me to use the pic?

I was quoting you right? But the same applies to anyone else for that matter.

You should be thanking me because, by stating the obvious about Lands way of working, I've spared you alot of time from your "investigation". Or do you enjoy searching for similarities? If so, with the use of your detective skills, help me find the original artwork for this guy:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4253/landrl1.png

I'm dying to know (honestly). :o

[Ryan Day]

Hey can you guys, show more samples. I still like Lands art, but i also like seeing what he traced.

Well, there's this infamous example:
http://www.ninthart.com/images/bbsoj.jpg

[Regicide]

Could you show me some of your artwork? Because adding the realistic folds in clothing has always been the most difficult part for me, and thats the part he took the time to add to that pic.

I get the feeling that Erik Larsens recent "One Fan's Opinion" column was made after reading the CBR forums. You people seem to enjoy talking $#!+ far more than you like to talk about a comic you actually enjoy. Why don't you just not buy the comics Land works on, if his art bothers you this much?

[dingo]

Could you show me some of your artwork? Because adding the realistic folds in clothing has always been the most difficult part for me, and thats the part he took the time to add to that pic.

I get the feeling that Erik Larsens recent "One Fan's Opinion" column was made after reading the CBR forums. You people seem to enjoy talking $#!+ far more than you like to talk about a comic you actually enjoy. Why don't you just not buy the comics Land works on, if his art bothers you this much?

Just because we can't draw does not mean we are not entitled to an opinion.
"I can't lay an egg but I am a better judge of an omelette than any chicken"

Why do we not buy his books? Because Millar is writing a brilliant run on UFF.
Why is it important for us to talk about this? Because his tracing is actively harming comic books reputation as an art. It is embarrasing and likely to cause guilt by association for other artists in the same field.

You don't want to hear it? Fine. Keep out of these threads.

[Ryan Day]

Could you show me some of your artwork? Because adding the realistic folds in clothing has always been the most difficult part for me, and thats the part he took the time to add to that pic.

If you read the thread, few people are arguing that Greg Land is untalented. I've seen some of his earlier work, and it's pretty good. No, most of the complaints have been that
a) he traces other people's work;
b) he traces photos and makes little effort to disguise it (and as a result his work looks stiff and posed).

[Alex Dragon]

If you read the thread, few people are arguing that Greg Land is untalented. I've seen some of his earlier work, and it's pretty good. No, most of the complaints have been that
a) he traces other people's work;
b) he traces photos and makes little effort to disguise it (and as a result his work looks stiff and posed).

I'm not sure who you're talking about specifically but for me personally I never said he isn't talented, I said I was disappointed that he feels the need to do this to this extent. In fact I think he's talented enough to not have to do it but it probabaly helps him get the work done faster. If it works for him, works for his editors and Marvel, and the fans enjoy the end results then I don't blame him for what he does.
However that doesn't negate the fact that he traces other people's work and tracing photos exactly makes his characters "stiff".

[Cimmerian]

I mean it isnt like he had a giant rock creature or a man on fire to photograph and trace. No, but there are other artisits depictions of these characters for him to trace.

[Cimmerian]

It appears that while he was at CrossGen he started using photo reference a lot more. Probably because they had really strict deadlines that couldn't be missed. The photo referencing started before Crossgen, he was already doing it heavily when he started Nightwing. In order to meet the strict Crossgen deadlines though you'll notice he would repeat the same drawings of characters every few pages.

[Cimmerian]

I was quoting you right? Yeah but I didn't think you'd take the time to type that to tell me something that I obviously already know, but now I see you're just trying to start an argument.


You should be thanking me because, by stating the obvious about Lands way of working, I've spared you alot of time from your "investigation". Or do you enjoy searching for similarities? Apparently it's not that obvious since some of the posters here didn't know he was tracing other artists work. No searching was involved. I found the McDaniel swipe because I'm a big fan of his and spotted it right off. The Charest swipe was presented in Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters column, which has also had several other exapmles of his swipes. I haven't personally attacked you, any other poster in this thread, or Greg Land. I haven't called him a thief, said he was talentless, or that he couldn't draw. I haven't attempted to tell anyone whether they should or shouldn't support him or enjoy his work. I simply presented a few examples of the process he uses to make his art so the readers could make their own informed opinions as to how they felt about his work. If that makes you so angry that you have to get on a message board and try to bait fellow posters into arguments, then I'd say that's a problem you should take up with yourself not me.
That's all I have to say to you, if you want to keep arguing have fun doing it with yourself.

[Exo]

If that makes you so angry that you have to get on a message board and try to bait fellow posters into arguments

Ironically, this is the same guy who already directed us to an older thread,


Check out this thread for more on Land and Hitch
http://forums.comicbookresources.com...=127592&page=4

, and took out old material (such as Scott McDaniel's Nightwing) already found and discussed. Some would say, "the guys ambitious". But to what end? There was no reason for you to pursue this any further (by bringing "new" information to the table) if you didn't intend to engage in an argument down the line. Ergo, it's actually you who are "baiting" fellow posters into an argument by digging around in the archives.

Now, with that said. I think I've found a match, but I need a second opinion:

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/7132/land01pn6.png http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/8925/skeletor01bs5.png

The similarities are staggering!

[protonik]

Something people seem to be missing is that there is a difference between referencing and tracing. In referencing you look at the photograph and draw it. You don't lay it under a piece of paper and slap it on a lightbox, you don't use one of those dandy tracing devices that are all the rage on TV infomercials. There is no tracing involved whatsoever. You can redraw John Byrne's Days of Future Past cover but key elements won't line up, they won't be exact copies. Most reference is costuming, hair styles, buildings and such like the layout of Peter Parker's apartment. Anytime you look at an apple while you are drawing an apple you are using reference.

Tracing has NOTHING to do with reference. You can LEARN from tracing but you should not use tracing professionally... EVER. Even swiping doesn't involve a lightbox. Tracing is not immoral or anything and you guys are putting these high faulting standards on comic book art.

As far as how traditional art would see it, a swiper is no big deal, to reuse a pose is a meh but to trace the image, especially as obvious as Land's tracing has been. right down to jewelry etc.

Jason

[marshal99]

People seemed to go round and round the same thing in this thread , i personally do not care where he swipe it from as i like his work. For those who don't , don't buy the issues that he is working on , simple as. Case close.

[Zenith23]

His art doesn't affend my eye so I'll put up with it. I suspect it's more prevalent then you think throughout the industry.
It's a shame people can't get as heated about some of the crappy unimaginative writing out there.

[Tommy]

I find it interesting that he is called out for "All his female characters are facially indistinguishable."

When I pull out my Essential TPBs I have often found that with out color I cannot tell Sue from Alicia and Jean from Lorna when they are out of costume.

[Alex Dragon]

Tracing has NOTHING to do with reference. You can LEARN from tracing but you should not use tracing professionally... EVER. Even swiping doesn't involve a lightbox. Tracing is not immoral or anything and you guys are putting these high faulting standards on comic book art.

Jason

There are plenty of professional illustrators who trace. The good ones are good at gathering reference and putting it all together to make a final piece but they trace all the time. In fact many of them have to trace because they really aren't good artists (I'm not saying that's the case with Land). This is very common. We all see it all the time. People just don't make a stink about it until they discover the reference material. There are various reasons for tracing something. Sometimes it's because the illustrator can't draw that well, sometimes it's because it saves time, sometimes it's because something needs to be exact.

Comic fans tend to get worked up over it because they seem to believe that the artist is somehow cheating/ripping them off and take it too personally. A couple of years ago some people were complaining and calling artists lazy because they were doing stat panels that they copied their panel and repeated on a page or throughout the book.
I read about an artist that used clip art in his comics work. Doesn't bother me but it would upset some fans.

[The Foreigner]

Comic fans tend to get worked up over it because they seem to believe that the artist is somehow cheating/ripping them off and take it too personally.

No, I get worked up over it because they are cheating/ripping off other artists, and that is wrong.

[PretenderNX01]

I find it interesting that he is called out for "All his female characters are facially indistinguishable."

When I pull out my Essential TPBs I have often found that with out color I cannot tell Sue from Alicia and Jean from Lorna when they are out of costume.
Yeah, that complaint can be used on any number of artists. I mean- what does Jean's face look like? She's usually just the redhead. Alot of times Storm is just the girl with darker skin, heck I remeber people wondering why Jubilee was asian in the X-Men Movie.

Well, I wondered how Land got his work to be so realistic- I ssumed the painterly quality of the colorist helped but I guess he uses alot of "inspiration"

[Pyro]

Wow. I enjoy Land's art, but certain tendancies of his have always bothered me. Most of them have already been mentioned and after reading through this thread, I'm sort of disappointed in him. I understand the value of photo reference, but continually stealing and tracing... it's hard to forgive. I wish I could hear his thoughts on this.

[protonik]

Yeah my big complaint with Land is actually the fanboys that support him because I have seen some of the same fanboys rip into Rob Liefeld for using a pose from random comic A or for obvious homages... And here is Greg Land, the worst swipe artist since Rich Buckler and I like Rich Buckler..

[Jerkmeister]

OMG, those face expressions are awful. Are they in middle of a fight or are they yelling at each other?

You're right, their facial expressions should be calm and placid because, like you said, they're in a middle of a fight. How could I have been so dumb, people don't shout at their teammates when they're fighting for their lives or something.
You're a genius.

[bouyiaka]

I'm sorry guys but i really can't see what u are seeing.
All i see is that land's characters have the same pose as someone in some photograph. I mean how many poses can there be when removing a helmet or how many modeling poses are there. In referance of the sojourne cover , there must be a million girls making the exact same pose for some other magazine or something.

[oanswat]

wow no love for Greg Land,huh??

I think he's an amazing artist. I don't care if he's tracing. If it looks good, which it does to me, then it's good art. I wish Yu would do a little of that in New Avengers for christ sake. Also, I think it's kind of fun if I'm reading through his stuff and I spot a celeb's face, it just adds a little movie quality. I also think that Lands Doom is the best I've seen in years.

[oanswat]

Yeah my big complaint with Land is actually the fanboys that support him because I have seen some of the same fanboys rip into Rob Liefeld for using a pose from random comic A or for obvious homages... And here is Greg Land, the worst swipe artist since Rich Buckler and I like Rich Buckler..

Yeah, but when Liefeld does it it actually looks way worse than the original. Land makes the original look muddy because he's so damn crisp.:D

[xmanson]

Hitch copied a bunch of Saving Private Ryan photos in one issue of Ultimates. Lame.

[Crimson]

I'd make the arguement most of these cover swipes aren't swipes at all... You'd have to be an idiot to try and pass off a cover design as your own, especially some of these which are key moments in comics.

Swiping is more common in the inside of a book, where people are more likely to forget specific panels.

[krauser]

I was horrified when I stumbled across this thread. Whilst there are some pretty good homages about, Land's 'work' is tantamount to stealing and is in my humble opinion a disgrace to all the hard working genuine comic book professionals out there as well as those struggling to get a foot on the ladder.
Land should be made an example of by his publishers even if it is off the record. Marvel - send him home to study the work of greats such as Neal Adams and John Byrne's X-Men run or better yet re-employ him as a colourist. A little schooling should go a long way.

Speaking of tracers, I (controversially I know!) also don't go much on the work of Alex Ross. I tend to find that the majority of the faces he traces/paints look the same. Whilst this is likely down to a lack of models its like reading some weird infinite earths stuff over and over. I am amazed that Bruce Wayne hasn't been questioned about being Superman yet unless it's because he is already known to be Captain America! Lucky old Lois must be having a field day! And don't get me started on Cap's self castrating new costume...