A lesson in art.
Dec. 3rd, 2008 02:47 pm
From this book in 1978, we have this character, image, and text:

Look familiar?
How about this one?

Yes, that's the original image of Hot Topic kid Emily The Strange, "created" in 1991.
EDIT:
A response from the current owners of Emily
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:19 pm (UTC)*the sound of routers exploding into flames*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:23 pm (UTC)Uh, yeah, that would do it. Cory Doctorow has a much bigger Internet Cannon than I do.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:26 pm (UTC)"To crash your enemies, see them offline before you, and hear the failures of their routers!"
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 08:57 pm (UTC)thats AWESOME
totaly stolen...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 09:01 pm (UTC)SPECIFICALLY, if your work is an almost DIRECT copy of another work.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 09:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 09:45 pm (UTC)I guess it is related to the way elderly people can quite earnestly tell you about some event they were present at, which you recognize from moderately well-known fictional literature.
(And of course, the right drugs can accelerate the process greatly.)
Obviously, copyright laws still apply. I think it would be very hard to claim independent invention in a case like this.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 09:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 01:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 10:00 pm (UTC)MMM YES JUST A COINCIDENCE, I'm sure.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-03 11:11 pm (UTC)Emily the "Strange" is a total poseur.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 12:23 am (UTC)I can understand wanting to create a spooky girl character. That kind of thing goes back to The Addams Family and Edward Gorey, and I'm sure even further. But to copy it so exactly and with the copied version having so little personality or originality...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 02:01 am (UTC)I agree with an above poster that this is likely a case of cryptomnesia; the original artist didn't realize he'd seen this image somewhere. And yeah, I do actually believe that it's possible to reproduce all those details from memory without realizing you were copying them. I've written a cute little guitar riff that sounded very sad and lonely, only to realize one day that it was from another song.
The important bit is that the company worked to phase out the similarities between their Emily character and the Rosamund character when they realized the problem. I'm more or less satisfied with that.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 02:55 am (UTC)Hrm.
I dunno.
The problem is that the establishment of the brand came about based on stuff that was 100% based on that other brand. So I'm not sure that phasing out the similarities over time covers the 'damage'.
They established the brand based on the over person's work, they then attempted to cover themselves by phasing away from that version. But there's no guarantee that whatever their 'final non-derivative' version is would have been as popular if their 'preliminary completely derived' version hadn't been it's precursor.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 03:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 04:35 am (UTC)BTW: I've meant to mention. Love the icon.