Oh that's awful. I really thought the comic was by Scott due to the content (I read 5 or 6 pages worth). Thank you for making that clear. That should have been the responsibility of the comic's...
Oh that's awful. I really thought the comic was by Scott due to the content (I read 5 or 6 pages worth).
Thank you for making that clear. That should have been the responsibility of the comic's author.
This sort of thing is why you shouldn't allow derivative works when writing an endorsement. (If they want to quote you, that's fine, it falls under fair use.)
This sort of thing is why you shouldn't allow derivative works when writing an endorsement. (If they want to quote you, that's fine, it falls under fair use.)
That's him in the comic strip. Changing the words in the bubbles is putting words in his mouth. It's impersonation. Edit: on second thought, it's more like the comic version of misquoting someone....
That's him in the comic strip. Changing the words in the bubbles is putting words in his mouth. It's impersonation.
Edit: on second thought, it's more like the comic version of misquoting someone. Like, in an article, would it be okay to make up an interview where you quote someone saying a bunch of things they didn't say?
Since the character in the original comic has the same name as the author Scott Mcloud, and since this doesn't seem to have been done by Scott Mcloud, I'd say the choice is in bad taste. Not...
Since the character in the original comic has the same name as the author Scott Mcloud, and since this doesn't seem to have been done by Scott Mcloud, I'd say the choice is in bad taste. Not immoral and certainly not illegal -- so yeah, "not cool" is a good way to put it.
But I wonder what Mcloud thinks about that, maybe he's cool with it, who knows?
Off-topic: Scott Mcloud's Understanding Comics is pretty awesome.
An easy way to make it cooler (depending on your moral propensities) would be to but comic character's name in quotes. OTOH, I suspect Scott is not the rightsholder. And as an anarch-ish, I don't...
An easy way to make it cooler (depending on your moral propensities) would be to but comic character's name in quotes.
Hi! I'm "Scott McLoud"!
OTOH, I suspect Scott is not the rightsholder. And as an anarch-ish, I don't feel too badly about mocking someone who supported something with great potential harm to society.
You don't need the quotes, just spell the name differently. (His real name is Scott McCloud.) Thanks for the idea! Passing it on. (I'm less concerned about the copyright violation than the...
You don't need the quotes, just spell the name differently. (His real name is Scott McCloud.) Thanks for the idea! Passing it on.
(I'm less concerned about the copyright violation than the impersonation.)
But the character isn't a fictional character, right? It's the original cartoonist. Then it's not like swapping out Garfield's text bubbles, but claiming a real person said something they didn't....
But the character isn't a fictional character, right? It's the original cartoonist. Then it's not like swapping out Garfield's text bubbles, but claiming a real person said something they didn't. Regardless of it being in cartoon format, that's a whole different can of worms.
...is this not a staple of parody and commentary in general? To me this feels like getting mad at SNL for having political figures say things they never said. I can hardly imagine something more...
...is this not a staple of parody and commentary in general? To me this feels like getting mad at SNL for having political figures say things they never said. I can hardly imagine something more normal and harmless.
It's a bit more complicated than that. When SNL has Alec Baldwin imitating Donald Trump, it is immediately obvious to everyone that it is a parody, a caricature which cannot be mistaken for...
It's a bit more complicated than that. When SNL has Alec Baldwin imitating Donald Trump, it is immediately obvious to everyone that it is a parody, a caricature which cannot be mistaken for reality. The comic in question, however, at first glance can easily be mistaken for something Scott McLoud actually made, and that he therefore approves its content.
It is not immoral and certainly probably not illegal, but I do agree with others that it's kinda weird.
SNL impressions are always done so that nobody could believe they are the real person. Also, the skits work because politicians are well-known public figures and viewers understand the context and...
SNL impressions are always done so that nobody could believe they are the real person. Also, the skits work because politicians are well-known public figures and viewers understand the context and real person being parodied. In this case, most people have never heard of Scott McCloud and have no way of knowing whether this is a parody of his views or what he actually believes.
I saw this comic a few days ago and I genuinely though someone named Scott McCloud had become disillusioned with Google and written this update of his own comic. I'm pretty surprised and annoyed as a reader to find out that's not the case, and I imagine Scott would be even more annoyed. I also think the comic seems less impactful if it's not actually a former Google supporter that has realized the error of his ways.
If not for the discussion here I would have thought this was McCloud updating the original comic, same as you. I think another way of highlighting the issue here is through the other named person...
If not for the discussion here I would have thought this was McCloud updating the original comic, same as you.
I think another way of highlighting the issue here is through the other named person in the comic: Shoshana Zuboff. Did she actually collaborate here, or are they just pulling ideas from her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism? We have no way of knowing, despite the fact that the comic definitely makes it seem like she was involved in its creation in the same way they did for McCloud.
Pretty well done, but I can't help but think that the people that don't need convincing are the ones that will keep reading past the first couple pages, while the people that don't already know...
Pretty well done, but I can't help but think that the people that don't need convincing are the ones that will keep reading past the first couple pages, while the people that don't already know this stuff will click away fairly soon past the first page.
Interesting thing I noticed: The site uses zero cookies. That's pretty cool.
I'm assuming Scott McCloud had nothing to do with this? Literally putting words in his mouth is not cool.
Oh that's awful. I really thought the comic was by Scott due to the content (I read 5 or 6 pages worth).
Thank you for making that clear. That should have been the responsibility of the comic's author.
The pdf is clearer on this point, explicitly saying:
and more prominently displaying the author's name. Perhaps the link should be changed to that?
It seems like attributing it to the author isn't enough, because they're still lying about what Scott McCloud said.
On the original comic it says
Does that settle the matter, or make it worse?
Makes it worse.
This sort of thing is why you shouldn't allow derivative works when writing an endorsement. (If they want to quote you, that's fine, it falls under fair use.)
I think this is a pretty clear parody. It's not "literally putting words in his mouth"
That's him in the comic strip. Changing the words in the bubbles is putting words in his mouth. It's impersonation.
Edit: on second thought, it's more like the comic version of misquoting someone. Like, in an article, would it be okay to make up an interview where you quote someone saying a bunch of things they didn't say?
Since the character in the original comic has the same name as the author Scott Mcloud, and since this doesn't seem to have been done by Scott Mcloud, I'd say the choice is in bad taste. Not immoral and certainly not illegal -- so yeah, "not cool" is a good way to put it.
But I wonder what Mcloud thinks about that, maybe he's cool with it, who knows?
Off-topic: Scott Mcloud's Understanding Comics is pretty awesome.
An easy way to make it cooler (depending on your moral propensities) would be to but comic character's name in quotes.
OTOH, I suspect Scott is not the rightsholder. And as an anarch-ish, I don't feel too badly about mocking someone who supported something with great potential harm to society.
You don't need the quotes, just spell the name differently. (His real name is Scott McCloud.) Thanks for the idea! Passing it on.
(I'm less concerned about the copyright violation than the impersonation.)
Yeah, I can't imagine having an issue with a parody/remix comic having a character say something they didn't really say.
But the character isn't a fictional character, right? It's the original cartoonist. Then it's not like swapping out Garfield's text bubbles, but claiming a real person said something they didn't. Regardless of it being in cartoon format, that's a whole different can of worms.
...is this not a staple of parody and commentary in general? To me this feels like getting mad at SNL for having political figures say things they never said. I can hardly imagine something more normal and harmless.
It's a bit more complicated than that. When SNL has Alec Baldwin imitating Donald Trump, it is immediately obvious to everyone that it is a parody, a caricature which cannot be mistaken for reality. The comic in question, however, at first glance can easily be mistaken for something Scott McLoud actually made, and that he therefore approves its content.
It is not immoral and
certainlyprobably not illegal, but I do agree with others that it's kinda weird.SNL impressions are always done so that nobody could believe they are the real person. Also, the skits work because politicians are well-known public figures and viewers understand the context and real person being parodied. In this case, most people have never heard of Scott McCloud and have no way of knowing whether this is a parody of his views or what he actually believes.
I saw this comic a few days ago and I genuinely though someone named Scott McCloud had become disillusioned with Google and written this update of his own comic. I'm pretty surprised and annoyed as a reader to find out that's not the case, and I imagine Scott would be even more annoyed. I also think the comic seems less impactful if it's not actually a former Google supporter that has realized the error of his ways.
If not for the discussion here I would have thought this was McCloud updating the original comic, same as you.
I think another way of highlighting the issue here is through the other named person in the comic: Shoshana Zuboff. Did she actually collaborate here, or are they just pulling ideas from her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism? We have no way of knowing, despite the fact that the comic definitely makes it seem like she was involved in its creation in the same way they did for McCloud.
It's technically a fictional character which is based on the author and with whom it shares the name.
But yeah, you're right.
Pretty well done, but I can't help but think that the people that don't need convincing are the ones that will keep reading past the first couple pages, while the people that don't already know this stuff will click away fairly soon past the first page.
Interesting thing I noticed: The site uses zero cookies. That's pretty cool.
Here is the original comic from Scott McCloud.