Talk:Greg Land

Not sure how to address this

It seems as though many Wikipedia articles about comic characters (particularly female characters) use art by Land as the lead picture. Now I know his drawings are sexier than many, but it seems that other artists have drawn more definitive versions of characters, and that those images should be used over Land's. For an example, see the article about Phoenix. I would think a John Byrne image would be more appropriate than Land's drawing. 99.153.132.205 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal Consequences?

Have there been any legal consequences for Land due to his..."borrowing" of characters/frames? If so, I think it would be appropriate to add some information to the Controversy section.75.69.110.227 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo-referencing

Prove the allegations against Land, or I will remove the reference. Dyslexic agnostic 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this isn't really a link that will be useful for the article itself but it shows where the allegations come from: side by side comparison. LauraOrganaSolo 12:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There were references for the allegations, but the references section was broken. It's fixed now, I think the references are strong enough to allow the allegations to remain in the article. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the Controversy section. In short, I think the beef against him is that his drawings are so suspect, you can find exact matches elsewhere. Of course, the problem is that I used like three different phrases to say "exact match." I wanted to express how well the outlines and composition match up between Land's art and the supposed references, but maybe I need better words to do so.

The only allegation against Land that can be proven is that he over-relies on photoreferences, which is, of course, plagiarism and something that beginning comic artists are forcefully warned against. The best Wikipedia can do is present the evidence and let people decide for themselves. The evidence against Land, I think, is pretty strong, so I wasn't afraid to use strong words; but, at the same time, we need to avoid using words like "swiped" (much as I thoroughly enjoy that word) or "has been accused," because the evidence against Land is crystal-clear.

("Tracing" is also suspect--my understanding is that a straight tracing from someone with no skill wouldn't achieve anything near Land's work--but "copying," while a bit inflammatory, is closer to the truth. Look at a professional police sketch artist, and you'll see that their sourced drawings match up just as well as Land's do. However, the "@$^!in' tracer" accusation does get thrown about the Internet a lot, so I suppose we should keep it as such.) 67.101.6.29 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I humbly request that the fact that Greg Land also traces porn (quite frequently, I might add), not just models and other artists, be brought up in the article. 75.68.69.219 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to put in something about how the promotional art for Fantastic Four basically looks like Arwyn from Sojourn wearing Sue Storm's costume? 89.138.77.192 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"?

While the "Controversy" section is fascinating, it sites no legitimate sources and amounts to an editorial smear campaign. I'm sure the issue can be more properly addressed by stating that "Many have noted..." or "Some sources show..." with a brief (read: two-sentence) summary of the allegations and external links to the "proof" supporting the issue. I suggest deleting the entire second paragraph (as it contains unnecessary detail with no included evidence), leaving the footnotes as external links to demonstrate the "Controversy". Alternatively, the author needs to cite reliable authority for every accusation. Kingphinger 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone went in and removed most of the controversy section, it reads like it's been cut in half. I found an independent source: a page dedicated to collecting Greg Land's image swipes, and I'm editing it in to the 'Controversy' section along with fixing that broken paragraph. I'll keep it short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Fool (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So now 'scottfavor' thinks it's necessary to remove the Controversy section altogether, rather than discuss it in here. I reverted his changes without realizing I wasn't logged in, so that's my IP, there. It is indisputable that there is currently a controversy in the comics field: the pursuit of photorealism mixed with Google Image Search has led to comics art by some artists being filled with familiar faces and poses. Greg Land is not the only person who has been 'caught' doing this, (John Bolton's obvious trace job in Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall comes to mind,) but Land's high-profile work at Marvel put him in the spotlight, and his name is the one cited by popular comic industry columns when they want to talk about or make a joke about the trend towards 'tracing' (see Lying in the Gutters 7-15-2008, "Swipe File Japanese Edition". Land isn't the only one doing it, but between his style and the high profile of his work, he is now notorious for it, and it's appropriate that a person coming to Wikipedia to learn about comic book artists know this detail. Once I saw that someone had compiled all of the images people have found that are attributed to Land in comics. I added the line "Land's work is often pointed to as being reminiscent of photographic references for which he does not hold the copyright" to the Controversy section because that is the controversy. It's certainly more appropriate than "Land's fans regard his work as ultra-realistic and commend the beauty of his work," with a link to an IGN preview of a video game, which I am removing. Jack Fool (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

People and Poses

Hope I'm doing this right~ hawhaw, wikipedia. If anyone needs some actual printed evidence of Greg's photocopying and tracing of photos, try pages 46-48 of People and Poses by Buddy Scalera. It's a demonstation by Greg Land on how to draw a beautiful woman. Here's part of a paragraph next to the original photo and his traced photocopy, "Make a quick photocopy, enlarging the image to the size you want for your final art. Using a marker, 'find' your character's outline." Yeah, someone else can find and add it if they think it's relevant enough. --Bastet (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep this page NPOV

It doesn't matter if you HAET Greg Land personally, the sourced "Controversy" section is enough in itself. You do not need to add snide little remarks or re-write the art sources to be a droll "Original" art by Greg Land. Apart from looking dumb, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Also, No Original Research. If something can't be sourced from a verifiable outside source, don't add it. Amphis (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I've nearly outright removed the controvery section. Blogspot fails WP:RS about as hard as it comes by. Find better sourcing. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? This stuff is referenced everywhere with visual proof. What more substantial proof do you need? I'm reinstating it with tweak to make it more NPOV. Consensus has been in favor of this for ages now. Fetternity (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comics don't have the body of academic work associated with other literary or artistic forms, and news and information about the field is distributed primarily in online periodicals like Comic Book Resources. Greg Land is treated as a notorious figure by such periodicals due to the similarity of his work to photographs for which he does not hold the copyright. The link to blogspot was actually to a static page where Jim Smash had collected a number of images for comparison, which for copyright reasons were removed from wikipedia. What you have done, in essence, is removed the possibility for the information to be included in the article, as no scholarly journals or 'serious' resources exist to argue the relative aesthetics or morality of referencing copyrighted material in the comics medium. Removing the section and leaving behind a link to a press release about a different subject does not improve the article, and limits the potential accuracy of the page as a reference about the artist. Furthermore, you can see from the page's history that the Greg Land article is a regular and frequent target of vandalism due to Land's notoriety, and retaining a section referring to that notoriety has helped reduce the amount of vandalism over the last year. Jack Fool (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

“Who are you going to believe... me or your own eyes?” -- Groucho Marx. Austinmayor (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Or should I say "NOR your own eyes?" Austinmayor (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Using pure visual imagery to draw conclusions is WP:NOR. The WP:BLP policy backs me up, which states never to use blogs or web forums as reliable sources. I am not kidding. Do no harm. I currently have the article watchlisted and will revert vandalism on sight. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to be a blind retarded monkey with A.D.D. to not see that he swipes other peoples work. There is a huge difference between photo referencing (which tons of artist use) and outright stealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.144.210 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter, blogs are not a reliable source, certainly not for backing up allegations on a BLP article. As Hbdragon88 correctly points out - using pure visual imagery to make that determination in the absence of evidence from a trusted source is OR. Until and unless the matter receives coverage in main stream media or other primary sources does not meet our guideline for inclusion. I am semi protecting the page as this information seems to be being repeatedly by various IPs. If there are some reliable sources then please use the time the article is protected to provide them here and come to consensus on a section rather than engaging in an edit war. Mfield (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So basially here's yet another way wikipedia's regulations are terrible. First the removal of spoiler warnings, ruining all kinds of fictional material when someone visits mid-reading to check something, and now clear photographic evidence with Land's 'art' next to the images it replicates is not a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.2.116 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

As has been mentioned, comics do not have many viable print publications devoted to the medium, and this sort of news is beneath the notice of the mainstream press. In fact, it is unlikely that Mr. Land has been mentioned at all in a mainstream publication. I would submit that this is grounds for complete removal of this article. Certainly what would be preferable to this sanitized piece of pablum which fails to mention any of the substantial issues that the topic brings to mind.

Until and unless the matter receives coverage in main stream media or other primary sources does not meet our guideline for inclusion. I am semi protecting the page as this information seems to be being repeatedly by various IPs. If there are some reliable sources then please use the time the article is protected to provide them here and come to consensus on a section rather than engaging in an edit war.

I love this statement. Are you aware why this information is repeatedly being posted by various IPs? It's because a consensus opinion has been reached. You just refuse to accept it. Oh, and speaking of the "rules."

Wikipedia content (including articles, categories, templates, and others) is collaboratively edited. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled they think they are (and may actually be) has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

You've set yourself up as the absolute arbiter of what belongs in this article and what does not. And you are 100-percent wrong. I'm not some Wikipedia guru, but I am a magazine editor. If a writer brought me this story I would have zero problems running it in my publication. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Mr. Land is a serial plagiarist -- a mortal sin in the world of publishing.

I've enjoyed reading this as an example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia: pedantic sniping from a tin-pot dictator who is more concerned with semantics than with accuracy. The fact (and it is a fact) that Greg Land traces or steals art from photographs and other artists is incontrovertible. There is photographic proof simply everywhere -- from many, many divergent sources. Denying that Land traces is tantamount to denying that Denzel Washington is black because you can't find an article from a medical journal confirming the fact.

Removing all mention of the controversy is an even more egregious and asinine whitewashing of established facts.76.105.26.49 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you going to believe -- me, or your own eyes? - Groucho Marx

Since links to Blogspot sites are naughty, there is no way to incorporate this site's [1] extensive documentation and examples of Land's swipes into the main wiki article. Nevertheless, I think that it is comprehensive and significant enough to include it in this discussion page. Austinmayor (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a venue for biased opining, no matter how eloquently delivered

And yes, before you pipe up, it is biased. I could sit here, pedantically itemizing for you just how it is, but then I'd be stooping to your level, wouldn't I? I wouldn't feel compelled to passive-aggressively remonstrate you like this if you didn't see Wikipedia as an outlet for such frivolous pabulum--which, incidentally, is what you accuse this article of being.

In any case, I've come across hearsay that Greg Land has an 'art degree'. Not to be derogatory in putting that phrase in single quotation marks, of course--I did so in order to denote verbatim quotation. Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness and balance, it would seem only natural that we should verify this scuttlebutt, and then include all salient information related to it in the article itself--things such as the college he obtained it from, of what caliber and delineation it belongs to, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. After all, it seems that it's our modus operandi to do so with other biographical articles. Ghost Lourde (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Page lock

I locked the page after several editors turned the lead paragraph into direct accusations of plagiarism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)