→2013→05→14→Editorial cartooning→Magazine reworks Mike Peters anti-NRA cartoon to pro-NRA
Editorial cartooning

Magazine reworks Mike Peters anti-NRA cartoon to pro-NRA

1 minute 19 comments

The pro-gun news web site Ammoland did a bit of Photoshopping recently to recreate a Mike Peters anti-NRA editorial cartoon into one with the exact opposite message and posted it on Facebook.

Here’s Mike’s original cartoon:

Mike Peters original cartoon

And the blatant rework:

Cartoon rework

Mike tells me this isn’t the first time someone has altered his work and to recreate it to express the opposite opinion is an infringement on his free speech.

There have been people who have reworked my cartoons before but not an organization like this before. I have gone twice to the courts (once to the Supreme Court) about a cartoonist’s right to free speech. But when you take someone’s copyrighted, intellectual property and it goes exactly opposite of its original meaning is not right and going against copyright laws like this does indeed infringe on free speech.

Source: NoMoreMister.blogspot.com

Previous Post
The Cartoonist Studio launches blog
Next Post
Disney sexualized Merida character

Comments 19

  1. Not surprised, it’s one of the sleaziest organizations in the country.

  2. I hope Mike and his syndicate unleash a truckload of lawyers on these sleazebags for copyright infringement. They certainly have plenty of money to pay a settlement.

  3. Same thing happened to me a few years ago when some Republicans in Vermont changed one of my cartoons. Our lawyers sent a letter. That’s about all you can do unless you can demonstrate actual damage.

  4. ‘Cause, cartoonists don’t have the internet.

  6. Isn’t copyright infringement just ‘using without paying for use’….? This looks and feels more like out ‘n’ out thievery or hijacking and vandalizing in misuse of someone else’s work. The damage is basically the lost time in just having to deal with something that should never had to happen in the first place. It’s time Mike’s lawyers need to educate anybody and everybody who feel they have the right to mess with a commentator’s voice. This was intentionally premeditated and malicious….it was not an accidental crediting of another cartoonist or an overlooked reprint payment. I hope Mike has a ‘red line’ for this BS because if he doesn’t, we shouldn’t be that surprised when it happens again.

  7. @JP – that call for “original” cartoon art also says, “No experience required” – which apparently also includes copyright law.

  8. “No experience required” from those seeking cartoons means “don’t expect to get paid for your efforts”.

  9. I just wanted to write you to address some of you points, we did post this cartoon to Facebook with our watermark on it.

    We watermark all images to Facebook as a normal part of branding, but we did not intend to steal Mike’s work and deleted this image as soon as we learned that it was reworked and not original.

    We got this cartoon after we announced we were looking political for cartoons, from one of our readers, and thought it was their work, and we had no idea it was Mikes. What is it they say, “if it seems to good to be true?”, well we should have done our home work.

    If you can please pass along our apologies to Mike, your readers and anyone else we may have offend as it is never our intention to harm others work product.

    Please feel free to contact me if you any further questions or comments.

    Sincerely

    Fredy Riehl
    Editor – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
    PO Box 0465
    Manasquan, NJ 08736 USA
    news@ammoland.com
    http://www.Ammoland.com

  10. They stole his art, and didn’t give him credit and changed the meaning of the image. I can’t wait to see this go to court

  11. Ammoland has pulled the image off Facebook, so I guess they have some idea they are in the wrong…thank you, Alan, for looking into this.

  12. “Copyright” law is only for corporations and persons with deep pockets. Got a beef with someone stealing your work for publication? Poney up or throw your hands up; it amounts to the same thing no? Only be sure to send a cease and desist letter to preserve your copyright protection. Wait?

  13. It’s a clear case of theft for sure. I’ve had this done too, changing the meaning of my cartoons, but not by such a big organization. It simply shows what scoundrels run this group.
    Go after these thugs, Mike, in a very public forum!

  14. Can you sue the publication and then in turn go after the person who did the rework? I’m thinking that the precedent might be the music file sharing case here in Minnesota. (http://www.startribune.com/local/169320686.html?refer=y)

    if they can successfully go after the woman in Brainerd, can you go after the person that did the photoshop?

  15. Shouldn’t Mike Peters’ syndicate be going after things like this?

  16. My guess is it’s the work of a couple ‘rogue’ employees.

  17. I usually have to go to Facebook to read comments that were posted by people who clearly didn’t bother to read the other comments.

  18. Fredy Riehl’s post rings true to me, so if it were my work that were vandalized, I’d consider the matter closed. It’s not the first time a publication and its readers were burned by something like this. I’m sure next time they’ll add something like “you affirm that the artwork you submit is entirely your own, original creation” to their call for entries.

  19. Funny how the folks who howl about personal liberties are the first to step all over them

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.

^ Top