"Swiping may be viewed by some as unethical but it is not illegal."

The same actions, when perpetrated in other art fields, ARE illegal and when touching upon valuable properties, pursued vigorously in the courts. While some swiping may be within the scope of fair use, parody etc  or covered by corporate copyrights and considerations, there are types of swiping that ARE illegal.

The fact that no-one in comics has been willing to spend the money required to pursue legal action for swiping (as in most cases it is hardly cost effective) does not mean that all swiping is legal. Just that most artists in comics who are swiped from choose (for various reasons) not pursue their legal rights.

If comics still sold in the millions, with large sums passing through the hands of publishers and creators, with the actual comics receiving high profile attention (as opposed to merely the "properties" ) there would be a greater likelihood of people being sued for swiping. Greg Land, for instance, known to have swiped directly the cover of Sports Illustrated - if that comic had made a lot of money, the photographer had been entitled to every dime of Land's fee plus a little extra for the blatant copyright infringement.

So, please, don't say that swiping isn't illegal.

QUOTE: Well, remember--not every panel was a swipe. A small portion of the panels constituted swipes.

I think this is an important point.  Each of those guys probably drew thousands of panels back then; how many have been identified as swipes?  A dozen or so?  I'm no apologist for Liefeld especially (because although I like many others "fell" for his art style in the early days, I quickly saw his style for what it was) but I don't think they deserve outright condemnation for a few examples.  As an artist myself, I'd have liked to see them use the poses of those panels drawn by JB and others and work out another angle or view to them rather than straight tracing, but I think the lesson has been learned and they would be foolish to try it again in any recent work.

I wonder if "swiping" is something that occurs only when money changes hands or when effort is not compensated.

If I were to copy one of JBs commissions (I mean copy by sight not tracing), do it up in ink, then frame it and put on my walls. Would that be swiping? How could the swiping be sanitized?

I would say yes: because it either (a) deprives JB or additional revenue (assuming he would re-do a commission for me) or (b) penalizes the original commissioner who had to foot the bill for both the composition and the actual art. I would have paid nothing for the composition.

In that case, would JB prefer I pay him for a line-per-line re-do and would he charge me for composition and original art or would he charge me only for original art as the effort of composition has already been charged to the first commissioner? Or would it be better that I contact the original commissioner, split the composition fee with him/her?

Now, say I copy a Ditko cover from Spider-Man, frame it, and put it up in a room in my house. Ditko is retired. Even if he weren't, it's not likely he would do a commission since I remember reading somewhere that he produced only material for publishing. So, (a) I'm producing a product that couldn't be produced otherwise and (b) it is costing no one money as the cover is not actually accessible for purchase or redo to me. Either way, no one loses money. Am I swiping?

As Erik says, the whole concept is not crystal clear. The discussion going on in this thread is probably much like the debate that would take place in judicial circles where the principles of intellectual property of original narrative art compositions be cast in stone.

And what about style? Can someone own the Kirby or Adams style?

I understand the value of swiping from one's influences but I draw the line at doing it in a published piece.  If it's for personal growth or an artistic excercise, I think it's okay.  As a shortcut or cheat to solve a problem, not so much.

While looking for a swipe by Frazetta of Foster, I stumbled across this:

 Just found this old issue of the Comics Journal in the basement this morning: #226.

It contains a transcript of a chalktalk given to younger artists at Marvel's offices in '82/'83 by John Buscema. Here's an excerpt:

JB: They tell me"gee, you know, your stuff looks like Jack Kirby." Sure. I swipe it! [Laughter] I swipe everybody that I liked: Alex Raymond, Hal Foster, Burne Hogarth... Everybody! Don't feel like you're cheating! You're not - you're earning a living!

I was surprized, when I first saw it, to see Frazetta "swiping" art since he is somewhat known for his ability to create things out of his head.  Sorry I couldn't find that example. But, as surprized as I was by that, Buscema's quote really threw me.  Reference is one thing, especially when trying to capture all the locales and environments that Big John showed, but to encourage swiping from other artists...by the "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" artist--it's disheartening.  To me.

"So--in a sense you're right--but swiping has not been something which
has been enforced with any vigor in the comic book field."

Yeah. I'd just hate to see someone less ethical come around with the attitude that "Swiping is legal. Even Erik Larsen says so."

And that's why I think creators in the field need to "police" themselves better. Find some "industry standard", a list of rules that people agree to that "this is not acceptable. this is a grey area and this is okay."

If there's a consensus to what is NOT acceptable, it makes it much easier to address an over-reliance on swiping in up and coming artists without them falling back on the argument that the legality or ethics of "Swiping" are subjective.

It's for their own good and for the good of the industry.

"But, as surprized as I was by that, Buscema's quote really threw me.  Reference is one thing, especially when trying to capture all the locales and environments that Big John showed, but to encourage swiping from other artists...by the "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" artist--it's disheartening.  To me."

Well, for what it's worth Buscema is using the wider application of swiping which includes using the artwork of another artist as reference in the same way you'd use photo reference (which was often referred to as swiping as well.)  In its least intrusive form, "Swiping" is used about looking at specific ways an artist have solved a drawing problem, or if you need to draw a dynamic looking horse and you've never seen a horse in your life you look at how Hal Foster drew horses in Prince Valiant.

(Just don't be as obvious as the very talented and critically acclaimed artist who was asked to submit samples when they were shopping around for Foster's replacement on the art for Prince Valiant, who swiped one of Foster's horses from the Sunday page that was published 3 weeks prior.)

I suppose this is the problem with terminology, because in no way do I think Buscema was advocating stealing whole page layouts outright or tracing entire books. He was much to good an artist for that. So was Wally Wood, who also advocated swiping.

A guy like Buscema was good eough to transform his inspirations into something that was not easily recognizable as a "Swipe". This is what they mean by (what was it?) "Good writers borrow, Great writers steal."

This is why the less technically accomplished an artist is, the easier it is to tell when they're swiping. Which is also why it's the worst time in your career to be caught doing it.