In the wake of his successful Indiegogo fundraising campaign, cartoonist Bill Day has landed in the middle of a controversy that has bubbled up among political cartoonists about plagiarism and where to draw the journalistic line when it comes to reworking old cartoons and making them new.  

As reported earlier this month, Day had taken to Indiegogo with the goal of raising $35,000 so that he could quit his day job at a bike shop and commit to cartooning full-time. Day has been juggling odd jobs and syndicated cartoon work ever since he was laid off by the Memphis Commercial Appeal three years ago.  

Day was able to meet his goal, but an issue came to light when Alan Gardner at The Daily Cartoonist reported that Day used a 3-D image of an assault rifle, originally created for video game development, in one of his cartoons. The cartoon in question featured the weapon labeled “NRA,” and included a hand-drawn image of the U.S. Capitol building in place of the gun’s silencer.  

Daryl Cagle — owner of Cagle Cartoons, which syndicates Day’s work (Full disclosure: I am a Cagle.com contributor) — said when he was alerted to allegations that Day had used the rifle image without permission, he asked Day to remove the cartoon and redraw the gun by hand. According to Cagle, Day said he thought the image of the gun was a photo, not a 3-D rendering created by another artist.  

Despite the request, Cagle said there was never an issue of plagiarism, since Day altered the image sufficiently enough and transformed it into his own editorial comment on the issue of guns.  

“Regarding the gun cartoon, I don’t see any plagiarism there,” Cagle said. “Had Bill Day put an attribution into his cartoon, such as ‘Apologies to Zach Fowler’ (the gun artist) I would not have asked Bill to take the cartoon down.”

It is difficult to develop editorial standards when it comes to defining plagiarism in the cartooning world. While cases such as David Simpson literally tracing the work of former Chicago Tribune cartoonist Jeff MacNelly are obvious and clear, less clear are the numerous times cartoonists working independently of one another come up with the same exact ideas (referred to as Yahtzees by Cagle).  

Chicago Tribune cartoonist Scott Stantis (syndicated by Tribune Media Services) wrote in to media blogger Jim Romenesko that the New York Post plagiarized his Lance Armstrong cartoon in a recent cover image, which featured Armstrong’s iconic Livestrong bracelet replaced with the word “Liestrong.”  

But as Romenesko noted, others have tweaked the name of Armstrong’s foundation in the same way, including Jamie Lee Curtis and GQ, as well as thousands of images on Google. Stantis conceded, writing, “I will give the Post the benefit of a doubt,” but the case underscores the complexity of calling out a cartoonist’s work as plagiarism.

Further clouding debate is the issue of editorial cartoonists altering their own images and repurposing them for new cartoons. Gardner linked to a Tumblr page called That Cartoon Critic that features several Day cartoons that have been reworked and updated. Some cartoonists refer to this as “self plagiarism” and decry it as lazy and hacky, while others see it as simply an opportunity for time-constrained cartoonists to take a shortcut.  

Comics historian Michael Rhode, who was on the panel that awarded Day the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award in 2010, said he thinks that in a perfect world, editorial cartoonists would produce original and excellent new cartoons on a daily basis. But clearly, with cutbacks and layoffs adversely affecting the ranks of political cartoonists, such a perfect world doesn’t exist.  

“Day has been struggling to make ends meet since being laid off by the Memphis paper, which later had the gall to attempt to buy his work through his syndicate,” Rhode said. “After working a full-time job and being let go after being injured, cartooning is a part-time job which probably doesn’t really pay any bills at all for him. I understand his reusing his own material in these circumstances.”  

Rhode said that Day is hardly alone, noting that Edward Gorey’s estate is using the same technique to publish new Gorey books despite his death in 2000, and that when newspaper syndicates introduced vacations in the 1980s, readers got “Doonesbury Flashbacks,” or repeats, at least twice a year.

Cartoonist Matt Bors (syndicated by Universal Uclick) disagrees, and said he believes repurposing old cartoons and presenting them in a new light diminishes the importance of political cartoons as a whole.  

“As cartoonists we should be constantly putting out new work,” Bors said. “That’s what editors and readers want, not re-worked old cartoons with new labels. It’s a sign of laziness to keep re-purposing cartoons with slightly different labels, and it’s cheating your readers.”

The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) weighed in on the issue with a press release written by the association’s board that said, “reselling old cartoons with only a few labels changed is just plain bad for both the art form and for business.”

“Like the statement says, these instances are damaging … and are very rare,” said Matt Wuerker, staff cartoonist for Politico (syndicated by Universal Uclick) and current AAEC president. “The best thing cartoonists can do to promote the profession is to focus on putting out the sharpest and most original work they can themselves.”  

The release struck a chord with Jeff Darcy, cartoonist for the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, who defended Day’s long career and said Day created “impressive cartoons with sophisticated draftsmanship,” noting that even Walt Disney employed similar time-saving methods.

“Now that the editorial cartooning standards and practices department has run its high horse over Bill Day, how about it run it over to the next convention of publishers and editors and lobby in person for retaining and hiring editorial cartoonists,” Darcy wrote on the Daily Cartoonist. “[That way] cartoonists like Day can be gainfully employed and not have to employ time and energy-saving shortcuts.”  


Rob Tornoe is a cartoonist and columnist for Editor & Publisher, and can be reached at robtornoe@gmail.com.  

Comments

Plagiarism debated

Jeff Darcy | Thursday, January 24, 2013

As the story points out this is not a clear-cut case of intentional plagiarism. Daryl Cagle makes a good case for why it's not
Having googled images of guns myself-to draw from- I can see how Bill Day could have mistook the image for a generic
-clip art - type image/photo
I'm willing to give Day the benefit of doubt that this was an innocent mistake. For the reason stated above and because
Bill Day can clearly draw well himself as he proved when he redrew the cartoon when it was brought to his attention. And his
fully hand drawn version is better then the computer graphic one.
Since computers started being used to create cartoons other cartoonist have used photo's of objects such as pencils,pens,guns and buildings
like the Capitol dome in their work as an artistic style choice. They can clearly draw a pencil or Capitol dome. But perhaps
they think the photoshop pics give their work a clean modern look. It's not my style or method....but it's not plagiarism either if used the correct way.
I'm not an advocate of hanging people for a petty crimes. I'm also not an advocate of judging someone based on 1% of their
work drawn under duress, when 99% of their work over 30 years had been well regarded and respected by peers and readers.
Kicking someone when they're down can look as bad as a recycled cartoon.

plagiarism debated

Jeff Darcy | Thursday, January 24, 2013

No one in the profession is defending intentional plagiarism. Clearly not everyone agrees that this
is a clear-cut case of intentional plagiarism. Daryl Cagle has made a case for why it's not. Having
googled images of assault guns myself -to draw from- I can see how Day could have mistaken the gun
image for a generic clip art type photo. Or a photo that had been given a graphic look in photoshop.
I'm simply willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a innocent mistake done without
malice. A few reason why are the fact that no one disputes the fact Billy Day can draw well himself.
When it was brought to his attention he redrew the cartoon and his second version is better then the first.
Since computers started being used to create cartoons, other cartoonist have used photo images of objects and
buildings like the Capitol Dome and White House. They appear not to be doing this to simply save time.
but for style reasons. The cartoonist who've done this can clearly draw a pencil,pen or Capitol dome.
So they're making a style choice. Maybe they think it gives their cartoons a modern look. That's a subjective
art,design choice. It's not my style or method...but it's not plagiarism either.
I'm not an advocate of hanging people for petty crimes, nor do I believe in judging someone based on 1% of their
work done under duress when 99% of their body of work over 30 years has been well regarded and respected by
peers and readers.

Responding to Rall

Mike Rhode | Thursday, January 24, 2013

Ted, you're a hard man. While Rob paraphrased what I said, I'll stand by it, but will also note that I've contributed to 2 Kickstarter projects for you, and 1 for Matt Bors. I don't regret any of them, and I trust that they kept you both working for a time.
And I still don't think self-plagiarism is a real concept.

Plagiarists Should Be Fired, Not Given a Raise

Ted Rall | Thursday, January 24, 2013

Of the many lame excuses that have been given to justify cartoonist Bill Day's brazen acts of plagiarism, recycling, and self-plagiarism - no, there is absolutely nothing unclear about any of this, not if you're honest and/or willing to pay attention – this one is one of the more nauseating: "...in a perfect world, editorial cartoonists would produce original and excellent new cartoons on a daily basis. But clearly, with cutbacks and layoffs adversely affecting the ranks of political cartoonists, such a perfect world doesn’t exist."
The recession that has devastated the American economy and impacted journalism and print media exceptionally hard is no excuse to cut corners on basic journalistic ethics and integrity. If you don't have the time or energy to produce high-quality original work, auction off your drafting table on eBay and go away.
Bill Day is a newcomer to the world that I and many other younger editorial cartoonists – I use the term loosely, since I will turn 50 later this year – been living in for decades. Bill Day has held numerous staff jobs, neither I nor any of the young generation of cartoonists ever have or likely ever will. He has won prizes that no member of the young generation ever has. In other words, he has had every advantage, yet he has squandered the accidental benefits of demographics – to be a baby boomer was to be able to walk into almost any newspaper and score a job – and wallowed in a cesspool of repeated ethical lapses.
I am broke. I don't have a staff job. Never have. I might lose my house. But you won't catch me plagiarizing, repurposing or self-plagiarizing my work. I do the best that I can with the talent that I have and let the chips fall where they may, as do many other hard-working impoverished cartoonists. We don't ask for much, but it is disgusting to watch excuses be made for and prizes awarded to people who betray the basic standards that are universally accepted within our craft.

Add Comment