New British film poster versus Edmund Bagwell

[Emperor]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/20/swipe-file-cradlegrave-robbers/

[Emperor]

Someone in the comments at SFX links an album cover that also uses the same image.

This doesn't seem to be the generally used cover:

www.discogs.com/Miserylab-Void-Of-Life/release/3190711

But they did use it on publicity material:

http://miserylab.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/void-of-life-pre-order-info/

It could be they spotted the problem and changed it.

[Professor Bear]

As Suzanne Collins can attest, it's just coincidence, the inevitable result of people drawing on the same sources of inspiration without actually actively ripping each other off in any legally actionable manner. /Touch wood.

[CrazyFoxMachine]

it's just coincidence, the inevitable result of people drawing on the same sources of inspiration without actually actively ripping each other off in any legally actionable manner. /Touch wood.

It's not the same "source of inspiration" it's a purposefully shot-and-composed piece of stock by Edmund Bagwell that was taken by the lazy-arse promo people. If that's not the very definition of "ripping off" I don't know what is!

But anyway - the droids that be have apparently sorted it now, so there's no more to see here. UNLESS THERE'S A FILM COMPANY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW SIFTING THROUGH PETE'S BLOG USING ALL THE STOCK MOCK UPS. Can we really be a million miles off from this....?

[Proudhuff]

As long as mr B get paid or at least credited there shouldn't be a problem ?

[Steve Green]

That's rather like saying shoplifting is OK if the shop gets the goods back when the thief gets caught...

[Pete Wells]

Mr Bagwell has just emailed me today's cover, I asked him about the Monster Project swipe and he said:

"I think the Cradlegrave thing is quite funny especially since this nice chap was gentleman enough
to mail me and ask permission to use the ref for an Attack the Block fan piece;

http://victoranomalous.deviantart.com/art/Attack-the-Block-278114771"

Double cheeky bastard! Edmund also included one of his hoody reference pics, I'll put it on the blog today...

[Emperor]

He also emailed that to me - see it doesn't take much effort to do the right thing. Of course, it doesn't take much effort to take some pictures of people standing around in hoodies, but I think that overlooks Edmund's skill in composing the image and Tharg's keen eye for spotting the most compelling image - if the lifting and copying is any measure of it then they struck gold there.

[Trout]

He also emailed that to me - see it doesn't take much effort to do the right thing. Of course, it doesn't take much effort to take some pictures of people standing around in hoodies, but I think that overlooks Edmund's skill in composing the image and Tharg's keen eye for spotting the most compelling image - if the lifting and copying is any measure of it then they struck gold there.

I think there's a great deal of skill involved in the composition of this image, and the fact it's been stolen twice illustrates that.

[Emperor]

Indeed.

Anyone a note from Mike Collins:

I've spoken to the studio (I did some design work on the film) and they said as soon as they were made aware of this, they withdrew the image and apologized.

[jamesedwards]

It's not the same "source of inspiration" it's a purposefully shot-and-composed piece of stock by Edmund Bagwell that was taken by the lazy-arse promo people. If that's not the very definition of "ripping off" I don't know what is!

But anyway - the droids that be have apparently sorted it now, so there's no more to see here. UNLESS THERE'S A FILM COMPANY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW SIFTING THROUGH PETE'S BLOG USING ALL THE STOCK MOCK UPS. Can we really be a million miles off from this....?

Also incidentally
and then and also (to a degree)

Yes, it uses Bagwell's photoref.

I think there are works out there that take huge liberties with 2000ad's conceptual work - I'm a believer Avatar stole from Firekind, obviously Hardware, which stole from a Walter's Wobot Tale and then there's DC Comics and their "Black Lanterns" which are LITERALLY Dark Judges (exposed teeth, twisted mirror images of lawmen, tear out hearts, want to extinguish all life). I think you could also make a case that Halo's use of supersoldiers/AI is extraordinarily like that of Rouge Trooper's (gosh I really should expand on these). Robocop was clearly based on Dredd to the extent the first mold made of his helmet would have been legally actionable. And so on. Can't be too long before someone makes an off-brand Nikolai Dante.

But this? It's a bit cheeky, but I'd argue it's a homage. The nature of sampling and collaging changes as we get further into the digital age but really this is just doing what the Buzzcocks did on the cover of "Orgasm Addict".

If it actually reuses the PLOT of Cradlegrave, that's different altogether (and John Smith has two features ripped off his work for 2000ad). But there's not much to be making a fuss about here as it stands I think. They've used the original reference in a different way and it puts 2000ad into the cultural consciousness.

[TordelBack]

Yes, it uses Bagwell's photoref.

Ah hey.  It doesn't 'use' it, it is Bagwell's photo, just with some shonky faces 'shopped in.  Look at the pixelisation/solarisation (or whatever you call it) on the left shoulder of the central figure - it's the exact same. 

That's not the sane as copying a pose or even retracing elements of a drawing.

[jamesedwards]

That's not the sane as copying a pose or even retracing elements of a drawing.

Well, my point was that retracing/lightboxing is an obsolete method of swiping. Photoshop exists and can be obtained through legal or non legal means to the extent it is ubiquitous (not to mention open source competitors like GIMP).

I actually think that Dante cover is a bit more insidious - Nikolai isn't standing like Cyclops, but Jena is pretty clearly modeled on that pose of Jean Grey, especially her neck! You have to sort of stare at John Byrne's original for a bit to see it. In comparison, that Monster Project image - which is being used to drum up seed funding for a film that is yet to exist - is completely bare faced. Which is why I call it a homage - it's literally beyond deniability. It isn't the movie poster for Monster Project, and it probably wouldn't have been anyway. Contrast that with the Harrison Blade Runner cover which was used to sell an extant issue of 2000ad (I love Mark, I love his work, I love his use of photoreference, I think it is very beautiful and challenging but that cover is  way below his standard).

To clarify I find Monster Project's image inept. What makes the Cradlegrave cover so special, what makes it iconic is what they changed - the Cradlegrave Hoodies are literally faceless, the Monster Project hoodies look like a confused grime/nu metal fusion band. If the poster was riding on the menace of those empty hoods it would be worse.

I think they may be going for a sort of The Knife kind of thing:





Still, in future, maybe best not to make exploitable photoshop materials available in blog form?

[TordelBack]

Sorry James, I just can't agree with you about the Harrison cover - it's an homage in the true sense of the word, a new image that shows its respect for an original composition by evoking it in an amusing way.  It's far from his best work, but I don't think it deserves to be referenced in a thread on swiping.

[jamesedwards]

OK. How do you know the Monster Project image wasn't intended as a homage? 2000ad doesn't have the pop culture saturation of Blade Runner, I admit, but the guy who did it is a fan...