New Comic Spec Review Video for January 9, 2019

Each week Anthony from www.comicsheatingup.net puts out a video spotlighting the hot new comic book releases of the week. Here is this week’s for delivery 1//19

31 thoughts on “New Comic Spec Review Video for January 9, 2019”

  1. Another great looking cover that happens to be sold out at Midtown is Nick Bradshaw’s B cover for Web of Venom Unleashed #1. Venom books are always worth the grab – who knows what’ll happen in it.

    1. Do you have any more information regarding this Mattina ‘lift’? I dont do tweeter and cant follow the link you provided.

      1. His Batman who laughs cover is the Punisher Sideshow statue box art with Batman over Punisher, ripping off another statue like the Magneto Venomized cover.

      2. This is a really thin line I think. He’s not stealing the actual art per se but yet using it as a guide in his own rendition, making the end result his own. I know some will frown upon this technique but should we tell those people who spent thousands or millions on Andy Warhol paintings with Campbell Soup Cans that they just bought a painting that was copied or lifted since Warhol didn’t design the Campbell’s label? I think these types of things fall under the “Fair Use” rule, which is still fuzzy.

        I think it would be clear infringement if he drew a Punisher based on the statue or other work and called it his own.

        We need an IP lawyer to chime in.. that specializes in art, etc.

        1. So I guess along that logic of a car company comes out with a design, and another car company uses the same designed but rebadged as their own, it’s not copying and is fair use?

          1. Well, that’s clearly copying cause it’s just a badge on the car or design that’s changed. If that was the case here, Mattina would have only changed the logo on Punisher shirt which would be clear infringement.

            I’ve read cases where people take photos or images and after altering it enough, it becomes their own work. Now, the right thing to do if one does that is to give credit to the model used if any.

            If I go downtown, sit and look at a building and sketch it, am I infringing the Architects work or can I call it my own?

            Hence why I think in certain cases, you need some IP and Copyright lawyers to argue it out.

            If I was Mattina, I would at least give credit to other artists if I’m using their statues or other work as my guide in creating my own images.

          2. It’s not fair use I was thinking of, it’s Derivative
            Works and Compilations under Copyright that Mattina’s work would likely fall under.

            From: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

            A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrangements, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions,
            abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works. Another common type
            of derivative work is a “new edition” of a preexisting work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a
            whole, an original work.
            To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a
            preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.
            The derivative work right is often referred to as the adaptation right. The following are examples of the many different types of derivative works:
            • A motion picture based on a play or novel
            • A translation of an novel written in English into another language
            • A revision of a previously published book
            • A sculpture based on a drawing
            • A drawing based on a photograph
            • A lithograph based on a painting
            • A drama about John Doe based on the letters and journal entries of John Doe
            • A musical arrangement of a preexisting musical work
            • A new version of an existing computer program
            • An adaptation of a dramatic work
            • A revision of a website

      3. It’s like that person who goes to conventions takes an Artgerm print of Harley Quinn makes it look like it’s splashed paint adds a couple swirlys in the background and calls it their work and sells the print for $40. My daughter does what Mattina does takes a picture on her iPad draws over it using it as a guide and makes it different, while it’s artwork done by my daughter I don’t call it her art.

    2. I really think it’s time Mattina gives it up and retires or risk a huge class action lawsuit from all his ripoffs. I really do believe the majority if not all of Mattina’s work is based off someone else’s art, not even just comic art. Im sure if I flip through my BROM art books I’ll catch a Mattina swipe or two.

      1. I believe it was you, Alana, who first turned me onto Mattinas pose swiping with that statue. It was about 1 – 1 1/2 years ago, I think. I purged a lot of Mattinas from my collection at that point. It will be interesting to see if any thing comes of it this time

      2. I don’t even think he would be the person in the lawsuit if it ever came to that, it’s DC now using the art and work to make money.

        This is one reason why Marvel cut ties with him, they likely didn’t want to have the possibility of a lawsuit. But to my knowledge, there’s been no lawsuits against any of his work to date.

    3. I’m going to say that the only one that seems like the smoking gun is well the gun. That one is pretty clear but the other ones are a little bit of a stretch. I’m divided on this whole topic. He is definitely one of the best in the industry and his final product is usually much better than the one he “allegedly” copied. However, credit should be given when credit is due.

  2. Wow you didn’t lie. Big week. I did hear moans from my wallet as I was watching your vid. Great job Anthony.

Leave a Comment