Nigel Parkinson, Cartoonist

Nigel Parkinson, Cartoonist
This is him, at a recent Comic Con (Photo (C) Alan A Andrew)

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

Wednesday is Beano Day!

And Dandy day for a couple more weeks!
As I'm now apparently no longer allowed to show any artwork that is the copyright of DC Thomson, even drawings that I've done for them at any time over the previous 32 years, I can't promote them here except in words! So, here goes: BUY 'EM!


Kid said...

Feel free to pass my comments along to D.C. Thomson if you want to, NP. To deny you being able to feature your own artwork on your own blog is blinkered (to say nothing of mean-spirited) in the extreme. It denies you not only the means to promote yourself, but also advertise Thomson's products. Are they thick as sh*t or what?

Surely copyright laws allow limited useage of material for the purpose of review and promotion? What the hell's wrong with these thickos?!

James Spiring said...

And other artists seem to have no knowledge of a ban! Alexander Matthews posted a picture of last week's Baby Face story a couple of days ago (when the issue it was in was still on sale!) and Lew Stringer says he's only avoiding using pics of his work for the last print Dandy to preserve the surprise (which would be fair enough).

Lew Stringer said...

James, I've never posted images online I've drawn (that I don't own the rights to) weeks in *advance* of publication so no change there. Publishers naturally frown on that in case another publisher nicks the idea/design before it sees print.

As I said in my reply to your similar post on the unofficial Dandy forum yesterday, I can only speak for myself and I'm not contradicting anything Nigel has said.

Lew Stringer said...

Just to clarify something, as this seems to be being discussed in various places on the 'net. It's not "Lew's word against Nigels" as Swirlythingy claimed on my blog. There IS no conflict.

I consider Nigel to be a friend, I'm well aware of what he refers to, but I chose not to give spoilers on my own blog about my strips for my own reasons ('cos it'd ruin the surprise of what's in the last Dandy). Simple as that. No in-fighting, no conflict, no argument.

Plus he's bigger than me.

NP said...

So be told.

Kid said...

(Sorry, NP - a couple of typos and convoluted sentences compelled me to correct and repost.)

There seems to be a conflict in approach if nothing else. NP says that, as far as he understands, D.C. Thomson no longer allows him to publish any of his own artwork (and by implication, anyone else's) on his blog. This includes artwork over a period of 32 years.

Lew Stringer, on the other hand, DOES feature Thomson images on HIS blog, the cover of this week's Beano apparently being one of them, or so I am informed. Whether or not it is at the point of publication is neither here nor there in this instance.

Both artists are unlikely to be operating under different conditions, so why does NP feel he isn't allowed to use DCT images and LS apparently feel that he is? Or are we to assume that LS simply regards DCT's restrictions as unfair and chooses to ignore them? Or don't they exist? In which case NP's understanding would have to be erroneous.

LS may not be contradicting NP in words, but he certainly seems to be by his actions. It's all very well to self-righteously criticise readers for speculating, but surely the easiest way to clear up any confusion is to offer a simple explanation for a very real discrepancy?

So, what's the scoop, NP? Who's right and who's wrong? Because surely you both can't be - or can you?

Lew Stringer said...

It's good that you have people to "inform" you in the middle of the night about something that doesn't include you, Kid, but perhaps they should have also informed you that there is only ONE image (not "images" plural) on my blog pertaining to this week's Beano; a camera snapshot of the cover (not particularly well lit, a little out of focus in places). I'm presuming that's "fair use" but I guess we'll find out eh?

I hope that explanation is not too "self-righteous" for you.

Kid said...

Nice to see that you still harbour your elitist attitude and continue to look down on anyone not currently working in British comics. I'm surprised that you appear to consider contributing to a seemingly declining industry as the highest form of artistic expression. I've drawn cartoons for local businesses that have a bigger audience than The Dandy. (And also pays better.)

Also, I didn't suggest that you had any more than one image of this week's Beano on your blog, but you do regulary feature other DCT images (I am reliably advised), which is what I was referring to. So once again, you're splitting hairs and clouding the issue.

Also, I was not told of your Beano image in the middle of the night, I was advised of it in the middle of the day in an email. I was just too busy to address the issue sooner than I did.

As for the issue not 'including' me, I'd have thought that as NP posted his information on a blog for public consumption, then it includes anyone who reads it or is interested in commenting or enquiring about the matter.

But congratulations. You managed to vent your ire at me without actually addressing the issue (as is your wont). There still remains a minor mystery to be fully explained. As you yourself suggested, it seems to be of interest to people.

Lew Stringer said...

Kid, I'm not "looking down" on you or anyone, so your tirade about work is not only full of inaccuracies but it also has no relevance to this discussion. I shouldn't really rise to such obvious bait but you have a knack of putting people in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation.

Yes, of course there are many DCT images on my blog. Some are of characters I've drawn for them and some have even been sent to me by DCT themselves to promote their comics (Commando for example, and Classics of the Comics as was). Nigel also still has various DCT images on his blog (of characters he's drawn) so this discussion is obviously pertaining to RECENT events. Seems it's you who's mistakenly "clouding the issue" by trying to include older blog postings I'm afraid.

Kid said...

No. again you indulge in your usual obfuscation. I merely referred to previous DCT images on your blog to show that I was not, as you alleged, implying that you had more than ONE image of this week's Beano. However, whether or not it's one image or many, the point is that Nigel seems to feel he isn't allowed to use DCT images, and you, by your RECENT actions, appear to suggest that you are. Either that, or you are not complying with DCT's wishes.

People are puzzled about the apparent 'conflict' between your stance and Nigel's and have been discussing the matter on blogs, as you yourself admit. This is NOT to suggest, of course, that you and Nigel are at loggerheads over the situation, but it seems to me that if you're going to complain about people speculating on the matter, then the easiest way to dispel the shadows of confusion would be to shine a little light on the subject.

Two comments so far from you in response to my own, and in each of them you have misrepresented what I actually said when my meaning was clear. Contrary to your assertions, there are no inaccuracies in either of my previous two comments, but by suggesting there is you have once again managed to blur the actual issue under discussion and avoided addressing it.

Let me remind you what it is. Are DCT freelance cartoonists allowed to feature Thomson images on their blogs or not? If not, then why did you recently publish an image of The Beano on your blog? And if they are allowed, why does Nigel seem to think he isn't? It's that simple.

And as for not looking down on anyone, the dismissive attitude which permeates your remarks proves otherwise, I'm bound to say.

Lew Stringer said...

Let me repeat the two points I made above: 1) I'm not contradicting anything Nigel has said, and, 2) the recent Beano cover on my blog is a camera snapshot which I presume is "fair use", but I guess I'll find out if not.

If you read what I've written for what it is, instead of misconstruing my words to try and back up your wonky, mistaken opinion of me, it might save us both a lot of time.

Kid said...

And let me repeat that I wasn't accusing you of contradicting anything Nigel has said. I was referring to the impression that some people have that your recent inclusion of a Beano image on your blog in the wake of Nigel's own comments has naturally made people curious about the situation, and that your criticism of people's speculation as to the seeming discrepancy was uncalled for when such speculation could be dispelled by a categorical clarification on the matter.

Instead, you chose a 'read-between-the lines' approach rather than a direct and clear-cut explanation of the issue, which would have avoided any mystery or confusion from the start.

So, what you now seem to be implying is that you're also operating under the same restrictions as Nigel, but that you're dipping your toe in the 'waters of rebellion' to see what you can get away with under the law? It would have been simpler just to say so from the beginning - or just ask DCT if they'd permit a photograph.

I'd also point out that as you were the one who twice (at least) distorted the content of ny comments for your own ends, your last sentence is more than a little ironic - but thanks for the laugh anyway.

Anonymous said...

Kid Robson is a troll IGNORE

David said...

Beano artists may or may not have consent to use Beano pictures on their blogs - but what is a dead cert is that Kid Robson had no permission to publish four full pages from the then-current Beano and Dandy on his blog last week.

Kid said...

Kid said...

In response to anonymous, I stand in awe at such a concise, well-reasoned, thoughtfully-considered, cogent display of analytical argument. That's me put in my place then.

In reply to 'David', I assume that my use of the pages scanned from MY comics falls under the 'fair use' policy. I merely used the images for the purpose of review and did not financially profit from it.

If D.C. Thomson don't like it, then they're free to say so. It seems, however, that they only apply such stringent restrictions to their freelancers.

David said...

Kid needs a lesson in copyright law if he thinks he's entitled to publish Beano artwork on his blog.

Billy said...

I'd say one of you probably does.

"Fair dealing and other exceptions

UK copyright law has a set of exceptions to copyright known as fair dealing. Database right has a similar set of exceptions. Fair dealing is much more restricted than the American concept of fair use. It only applies in tightly defined situations, and outside those situations it is no defence at all against a lawsuit for copyright (or database right) infringement.
s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work, for the purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose, does not infringe any copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement of the source. s30.—(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work, or of a performance of a work, does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has actually been made available to the public."

David said...

Thank you Billy. Yes Kids use of reproducing full serials on his blog does go beyond fair use and fair dealing. I thought as much.