Tintin Forums

Tintin Forums / Works influenced/inspired by Hergé /

No “New” Tintin: Do newspaper drawings count?

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 

Harry Hayfield
Member
#11 · Posted: 12 Feb 2012 22:20
jock123:
whether or not Moulinsart granted permission

That aspect
jock123
Moderator
#12 · Posted: 12 Feb 2012 22:35
Harry Hayfield:
That aspect

But my question again – why? What has it to do with us?
Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that they didn’t; what difference would knowing that make?
mct16
Member
#13 · Posted: 12 Feb 2012 23:20 · Edited by: mct16
Well, for one thing it would be interesting to know if Nick Rodwell, the head of Moulinsart, has come down a peg or two. A few years ago he was involved in a great deal of controversy over the limitations he imposed regarding Tintin products: attacking some journalists to the point that his blog had to be removed from Moulinsart's site.

If he hasn't made a fuss that might suggest that he's moderated his attitude a bit.

What I find rather odd is that the artist of the cover used a scene from "Cigars" as a model for his own work, instead of actually scanning the page, extracting the picture of Tintin and inserting it into his fake cover - as has been done countless times.
jock123
Moderator
#14 · Posted: 13 Feb 2012 01:12 · Edited by: jock123
mct16:
Well, for one thing it would be interesting to know if Nick Rodwell, the head of Moulinsart, has come down a peg or two.

I’m not certain what you’re getting at – down a peg or two from where? The term “down a peg or two” is used to suggest that someone is dealt a reversal of fortune by another party, and I can’t see how it applies here. As it stands, Mr. Rodwell – and Moulinsart – are in exactly the same position as ever they were.

While it’s popular to demonize them, Moulinsart grant use of the books and images for all sorts of purposes all the time; presumably they also refuse requests too. Where they become reactive is when images are used without permission – but even then, they no doubt have to be selective about which issues they take on.

mct16:
A few years ago he was involved in a great deal of controversy over the limitations he imposed regarding Tintin products: attacking some journalists to the point that his blog had to be removed from Moulinsart's site.

That’s a bit of a red herring: the issues are not the same, as the question then was what he saw as journalists making attacks on him and his wife - entirely different from the actual use of the copyright property.

mct16:
If he hasn't made a fuss that might suggest that he's moderated his attitude a bit.

No, as I said, Moulinsart grant usage all the time – they did then, and do so now.

mct16:
What I find rather odd is that the artist of the cover used a scene from "Cigars" as a model for his own work, instead of actually scanning the page, extracting the picture of Tintin and inserting it into his fake cover

That wouldn’t be covered by parody or fair-use; plus the artist isn’t going for a slavish duplication of Hergé’s style, and anyway probably wanted to do the whole thing himself – there’s no need for him to scan and reuse.

mct16:
as has been done countless times.

The exhibition illustrations are images done by Moulinsart, not by a third party illustrator, so it’s hardly the same. They actually apply very strict guidlines to how they use the images, and take great pains not to combine items to create the appearance of new pictures.
mct16
Member
#15 · Posted: 13 Feb 2012 12:04
jock123:
down a peg or two

There have been times in the past when Rodwell has behaved like a dictator, such as drawing up a "blacklist" of journalist and critics whom he did not like (Benoit Peeters among them) and banning many of them from attending the opening of the Herge Museum.

Read this article from the Financial Times for details.

Many have attacked him for his attitude and methods. I was just wondering if he had become a little more open-minded since then.
jock123
Moderator
#16 · Posted: 13 Feb 2012 12:26 · Edited by: jock123
mct16:
There have been times in the past when Rodwell has behaved like a dictator, such as drawing up a "blacklist" of journalist and critics whom he did not like (Benoit Peeters among them) and banning many of them from attending the opening of the Herge Museum.

“Dictator” is a highly charged word to use, so I think that in the circumstances we’d better avoid it here.

Furthermore, the examples you bring up just don’t pertain - in what way could the fact that a benign Australian news-paper piece was accompanied by an illustration be construed as bringing anyone down a peg?
In the pantheon of actions designed to have someone reduced in stature in a public fashion, it must be right up there with having a small child with a poor aim pelt them with marshmallows from a great distance.

Throwing in the fact that Mr. Rodwell has had troubled relations with certain members of the press in the just seems irrelevant at best, and an ad hominem attack at worst.

If we address the intial question once more, as to how it came about that the paper ran an illustration they had had drawn of Tintin and Snowy, the straight answer is we don’t know.
Did they seek permission? We don’t know.
Did they get permission? We don’t know.
Would knowing the answers to the above get us anywhere? Not really. Such matters are dealt with on a case-by-case basis; that one person got permission to do something is no more indiciative of a general principle than the fact that someone else did not.
mct16
Member
#17 · Posted: 16 Feb 2012 12:42
Apologies, Jock123, but I decided that since there were questions over the issue of the Spectrum cover the best thing to do would be to go straight to the source and ask them. I've done this before when I and others have been confused over similar issues of copyright and those involved have been good enough to answer my queries and clarify the issue.

I therefore contacted the Sydney Morning Herald and they sent the following answer:

Thanks for your enquiry. We commissioned an illustrator to create an image in the style of Herge because of the precise constraints of a Spectrum cover. We needed to fit the image within a set space, leaving room for words and a masthead, and we wanted it to be tailored to our requirements, ie with Sydney in the background, and Luke Davies pictured alongside Tintin. I understand Michael modelled his picture on an actual Herge image, though I do not know the precise details - you probably know which one it was. In order to make the pictures of Luke Davies and Tintin consistent, Michael drew both. And yes, we did have permission to reproduce the other images! I hope this helps.

Kind regards

Elicia Murray
Deputy editor, Spectrum
jock123
Moderator
#18 · Posted: 16 Feb 2012 14:56
mct16:
Apologies, Jock123, but I decided that since there were questions over the issue of the Spectrum cover the best thing to do would be to go straight to the source and ask them.

There are always questions, but not all questions require or deserve answers; and as you see, the letter you got doesn’t answer the questions about the illustration one way or the other…
mct16
Member
#19 · Posted: 16 Feb 2012 16:34 · Edited by: mct16
To go back to Rodney's original questions:
rodney:
By running such stories, Newspapers are indeed making profit from this due to interest from the public and fans alike. Has Moulinsart given them permission based on the fact the new movie is being discussed to some degree? Is there a special clause which allows public press to create drawings in association with featured stories? Do newspapers pay Moulinsart a fee to let this happen?

We now know why the newspaper commissioned its own artist to come up with his own illustrations and that it had the permission of Moulinsart. It was not just a matter of parody but also practicality.

If you don't think the questions were fully answered then by all means contact the paper itself. Just go to their contact page and search for:

Letters to the editor

and you can get their main email address. Newspapers welcome feedback and comments. It shows that they've caught people's interest.
jock123
Moderator
#20 · Posted: 16 Feb 2012 17:33
mct16:
We now know why the newspaper commissioned its own artist to come up with his own illustrations and that it had the permission of Moulinsart.

You might want to re-read your letter – it doesn’t actually say that at all.
It says a) that their artist did the cover (as we already knew); b) that they had permission to use the other images. Nothing actually links the first with the second. The second point also just states what any periodical does when running pictures, that they got copyright clearance.
I still can’t see the point of what is being pursued here, and nor can I see that interrogating a newspaper about this is fruitful.

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 

Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the Forum Posting Guidelines.

Disclaimer: Tintinologist.org assumes no responsibility for any content you post to the forums/web site. Staff reserve the right to remove any submitted content which they deem in breach of Tintinologist.org's Terms of Use. If you spot anything on Tintinologist.org that you think is inappropriate, please alert the moderation team. Sometimes things slip through, but we will always act swiftly to remove unauthorised material.

Reply



  Forgot your password?
Please sign in to post. New here? Sign up!