guest post by Doctor Popular
Emily Strange, the black and white character often associated with the Hot Topic brand, has become an international phenomenon with themed stores throughout Asia and Greece. Emily is seen by fans as an icon for individuality and uniqueness, but was her character originally based on a more obscure heroine from a 1970’s children book? CoffeeGhost.net was one of the first sites to point out the similarities to the black haired idol and a character named Rosamond from the “Nate The Great” series:
“Rosamond (who predates Emily by a decade) is a young, slim girl with long, straight, black hair and wears a short dress. She has four cats (named Super Hex, Big Hex, Plain Hex, and Little Hex). Emily’s cats now have distinguishing features, but originally they differed only in their sizes (exactly like Rosamond’s cats).”
The strongest argument suggesting that Emily the Strange was based on Nate The Great , however, was just recently published on the art theft blog You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice. YTWWN user chelseamca not only mentions the similarities between the two characters, but shows an actual scan of Rosamond and her cats taken from “Nate the Great Goes Undercover” that is nearly identical to the original Emily Strange stickers printed in 1991. Although the main character may vary slightly, the reworded copy and reversed cat poses are unmistakably inspired by the pages of this classic book.
The YTWWN article receives a lot of skeptical voices, but nobody defending the originality of the Emily character dares tackle the identical pages. Even Rob Reger, co-creator of Emily and founder of Cosmic Debris, acknowledges the similarities in a comment recently cross posted on several blogs:
“As you may be aware by what has been noted in many interviews and on Wikipedia, Nathan Carrico first conceived of and used Emily as a character for a skateboard design back in 1991. After seeing a sticker of the design, I thought the quirky “looks strange” design was in line with other tees Cosmic Debris was doing, and that it might resonate well with the crew I was selling to. I asked and received permission to use the design from Nathan. We then began creating Emily’s gothic, nonconformist, dark world by using a variety of original expressions (”I want you to leave me alone”, “Teacher’s Pest”, “Emily doesn’t search to belong…” etc.) and unique Emily designs on our t-shirts and other products. Several years thereafter, the character of Rosamond from the children’s book series Nate the Great was brought to my attention for the first time.
Although the designs and worlds of Rosamond and Emily are different and readily distinguishable, and although we never received any complaints from the author, the artist, or the publisher, we phased out the original skateboard design upon learning of the Rosamond character, and worked with the creative team to further distinguish Emily and her universe. Regarding copyright law, there is legally nothing wrong with sharing or implementing a unique variation on a concept. I have never drawn inspiration from the Nate the Great series or Rosamond.”
So according to Rob Reger, the original Emily design was acquired from another artist without any prior knowledge that the art was not original. Then, after realizing that the content was ripped from another source, Cosmic Debris made small changes to the character and her universe from the original inspiration. Emily the Strange is now a global brand, with a new line of comics and a motion picture on the way, but where does that leave the original creators? There appears to be no credit to Nate the Great writer Marjorie Weinman Sharmat or illustrator Marc Simont anywhere for their part in creating Emily. Nor can I find any public statements regarding the success of the character based on their work. With Emily merchandise being sold publicly for over 17 years, it is becoming increasingly unlikely they will reap the rewards based on their work.
UPDATE 1: Doc Pop links to this in the post, but here’s the Emily the Strange co-creator Rob Reger’s response to this controversy.
UPDATE 2: Doc Pop emailed Marc Simont the illustrator of most of the “Nate The Great” books. Here’s his reply:
Dear Doctor Popular,
Thank you for your interest in the Emily the Strange caper., which I just learned about a few days ago. Marjorie Sharmat, the author, and I have referred it to the legal department of the publisher. We have not had any contact with Cosmic Debris. Marjorie has the rights to the text and I have the rights to the illustrations. The illustrations are copyrighted in my name.
Sincerely
Marc Simont
UPDATE 3: Over on his blog, Doc Pop points to the elephant in the room.
image via You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice
Related Posts:
- Strange Beasts, The Art of Emily the Strange
- The Thing, An Object Based Quarterly
- Drinky Crow Show Pilot, Based Maakies by Tony Millionaire
- Strange Viral Video by Nokia Celebrating Web 2.0
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I always thought Emily the Strange was inspired by DJ Miss E from San Francisco aka Emily Griffin. http://www.uniteddivas.com/emilygriffin/emilygr...
Let's see — an anonymous author with an expired website who is apparently an aspiring designer is possibly bashing the successful Emily empire out of jealousy?
???
Really? Is that supposed to be aimed at me? I'm not anonymous, my name appears twice at the top of the article. My site isn't expired either. Click the hyperlink or check Google and you'll find DocPop.org is in perfect working order. You suck at Google stalking, but I'm not surprised considering you also missed that GIANT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM… The original Emily artwork is a total copy of someone else's work! You don't want to make a comment about that do you?
As a longtime reader, I am enjoying these new-ish like guest columns on squid in general, but this one is a bit below par. This is a worthwhile topic, but the post is sloppily written (typos, and it is “rob reger” not “rob regers”).
It doesn't seem very impartial to have a illustrator/clothing designer/cartoonist write this post – it comes off as disengenuous and has a tone of envy of emily the strange's commercial success. Also, when I read about this topic further there is an awful lot of speculation by people about copyright who know nothing about what they are talking about — I think it could have been written in a more impartial “reporter” tone.
The response from the writer in the comments doesn't look him look so good. I had wondered about this doctor popular as well and indeed the website wasn't working earlier today. Looking up the source of information is not “stalking”! Anyone educated person reading an article should do their research about the source – I did too!
Upon reading this, I imagined a typical conversation I have with 5 year olds:
Outraged Kid: “So-and-so is doing such and such to someone else!”
Me: “Is 'Someone else' upset about this? Do they need help solving the problem?”
Kid: No…
[The kids involved shrug like WTF]
It has nothing to do with you and the people who should be upset don't care. WTF?
The people who don't see what the big deal is, who figure it doesn't concern you unless you're on of the original parties involved, or who think it's jealousy have either never had their work stolen or are not creators in any way. The second someone takes their words or art or whatever they might make and claims it is their own then they'll shout for justice.
I thought she looked familiar, just couldnt put my finger on it!
Good job bringing this to light DocPop. This has nothing to do with someone being jealous. That's laughable. It's about defending someone's intellectual property. You can clearly see in the image at the top that Mark Simont's original work was stolen. The cats and copy are proof enough.
DocPop gets nothing for putting this out there. But hopefully Mark Simont will.
The tone of the article and some of the commentary seems to take the umbrage with the fact that Emily Strange is a popular money making brand. As if that alone is reason for Marc Simont, the original illustrator of Rosamond, to deserve compensation.
I'd place bets that there are several skateboard designs are based on unattributed prior art. Because of this I think Rob Reger's account of things is pretty believable. This drastically muddies the waters. I don't know how a judge would look at thus, but personally I wouldn't think there is a big enough connection to warrant much in the way of compensation.
Nice work, Doctor. Hopefully there is a lawsuit waiting around the corner.
Now, if only a class action lawsuit could be invoked against the infamous criminal Todd Goldman. Maybe this will begin a new age of non-artists staying the hell out of the art business. Dare I hope?
http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/shop/index….
http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/imgs/save/u...
How can you say THIS looks like Emily the Strange? You cannot copyright a girl with bangs and cats.
Because that seems to be the only similarity. Why not look at every other girl with bangs or cats and say they should be sued for a character with Rosamond traits?
She bares no resemblance. OBVIOUSLY she has changed since that drawing.
Why isnt anyone blaming Nate Carrico? It's not the creators drawing so why rub his face in mud when he is not deserving of it?
the people who think this is fine used to get angry when their friends in high school would refuse to let them copy their homework, who lecture you “that's how the internet works!” when they lift original text and/or photographs and/or illustrations from your blog or website without permission and without credit, and are probably related to the person at work who can't get a draft of a press release or a project plan started without copying, word-for-word, something someone did from another project.
YOU DON'T GET TO STEAL SHIT FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IT'S NOT HOW THE WORLD WORKS, ITS NOT HOW THE INTERNET WORKS. IT'S CALLED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. IT'S CALLED HAVING AN ORIGINAL IDEA…
..something you clearly are angry about that you don't have.
this is not directed at the author of the post, but at the people accusing the author of having an ulterior motive.
In claiming that the only similarities are the bangs and the long black hair, you neglect to notice the cats that are directly inverse to those in the Rosamond picture. You also ignore the blatant text rip off. Someone obviously took the text, erased two words and put their own in to make it seem not so bad.
Regardless of whether this was initially a diy skater sticker, someone's work was stolen. At any point in negotiating rights of Emily, Carrico could have pointed out that he got it from a book. Reger also should have asked. There were a ton of opportunities to differentiate Emily before she was put on the market. They were ignored. Also, at the point in time that Cosmic Debris noticed the Rosamond similarities, they could have immediately gone public and announced the new Emily changes. Better yet, they could have automatically offered the original illustrator and writer some sort of settlement to prevent a lawsuit.
Yes, I know Emily is cute and many people love her. I understand this is a reason for bashing anyone who points out this major flaw. Think about it, though- if you truly liked Emily, wouldn't you want the person who created her to reap the most benefits? Wouldn't you want to pay respect to the person who made this beloved character a possibility? The fact is that without Rosamond, there would be no Emily. You don't have to hate Emily to agree that they should be compensated. In fact, I would think that anyone who truly liked her would want dues paid to those who truly created her.
(I don't like Emily too much. I have some clothes of hers, but they were a gift and aren't an obvious Emily product. I feel screwed that someone paid money for my shirts for it to go to the wrong person.)
I think you need to go back and READ the information available. If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation then don't try
Good post, Doc…and no, I see no “jealousy” here. We all, as artists and writers, are aware of how easy it is to have work copied or blatantly stolen and how the real theft is not a monetary one, but a personal creativity theft. I think we should all look out for each other. The original creators do deserve retribution and acknowledgment, which they are now getting through this blog “vine”. They weren't even aware of EmStrange until these blogs went up, so I think you are doing a great service. Love the elephant!
Of course, the Emily character has taken on a life of her own and the Cosmic Debris people should not lose the entire line because of the first rip-off artist's act. “Nate the Great” is still around and being published though, so this cannot be ignored. Imagine children seeing how easy it is to copy ideas and profit from them. They may grow up to be creative thieves too.
An obvious plagiarism. Pattern recognition must be the privilege of the intelligent. For example, the coldplay rip of Kraftwerk’s ‘Computerworld’ or Broadcast’s rips of Al stewart, Mort garson and a plethora of other ‘obscure’ ’60s bands. Even Jennifer Lopez ripped the Yellow Magic Orchestra’s ‘Firecracker’… Everyone’s at it to some extent, thinking that ‘the kids won’t have heard this before’… to the downfall of originality. Pah.
Hexenfinger.
I think the problem here is that, while this Nathan Carrico fellow obviously drew heavy inspiration from Rosamond for his original sticker – and the sticker alone – this was seventeen years ago, and the entire franchise has changed a lot since then. Wouldn’t Simont suing Carrico over this now be kinda like whoever wrote The Honeymooners trying to sue Hanna Barbera over The Flintstones sometime next week?
Was stealing the idea for the sticker right? No. Seventeen years ago, you would have had a real point. But dude, it’s too late now. Let it go.
I keep hearing that the franchise has changed, and maybe it has subtly, but on the surface it doesn’t look that different to me. She still appears to be drawn the same as she was in that original sticker, and dressed the same, and still has the cats, and perhaps most importantly is still “strange”. So whatever changes may have been made are not obvious, and therefore the I would think the complaint is still relevant.
I am not sure just what everyone is freaking out about. But from what I have taken the time to read through, everyone in here is just out for the drama.
Doc Pop: I understand that you see obvious similarities between Rosamond and Emily the Strange. Shit, even I, who is a HUGE EtS follower, can see them. I just do not recognize, perhaps, your direct involvement in this blatant controversy. I am having a hard time comprehending EXACTLY why you or anyone else would take the time to get so fired up. WAAAH… So elements from one thing was taken and applied to another. Ever think that this is perhaps how the internet, music, and most other literature has been developed? Movies are a great instance. One concept in a movie is released to the public, and six months later, another movie, with the same idea is released, but generally has a completely different story line/plot. Here is where we are now with this. You need to understand that in the cycle of development, everyone takes a concept and turns it to what they conceive to be possibly a better idea. This is how we went from walking in unfinished, folded furs to riding in airplanes wearing Prada and Gucci.
To all of those PRO- Emily:
Take the time to acknowledge the similarities between Rosamond and Emily. They are there. Do not be a blind little sheeple.
To all who are against the Emily concept:
Go back and read the paragraph to Doc Pop.
Understand that Rob Reger was misguided, but still had a chance to make his with something that he so obviously still loves. Who do you think his true date has been with all these years…. Emily doesn’t answer to him… Oh no… It’s the other way around.
Wishing you all the best.
CoCo Decay (aka Courtney Pfannmuller)
Coco, you seem like a smart one.
But you must understand that saying that you “do not understand why do we get fired up by this matter that does not concern us” is like me saying that I don’t give a shit about all those people dying in Los Angeles, cuz I’m from Florida so it doesnt concern me.
Or worse…I shouldnt get fired up “WAAAAH” about people dying in Africa, since it doesnt directly affect me….right?
The things you say about “ideas”, movies with similar ideas being made…you can’t copyright an idea. But you CAN copyright an illustration.
And Emily the Strange is a blatant copy.
i absolutely ADORE emily but the people against this and not seeing the differences have totally got issues cause facethefacts is right..you could meby for sumstupid reason draw something alike but write the exact wordings? i dont think so , in my opinion the original creator deserves the credits for creating her…n doc it was a good post ..as if theres anything to be jealous of …n to all of you who think docs jealous..doc could always draw another emily the strange like character n call her wemily the strange…i mean the names different…n he ‘never heard’ of emily the strange so wemily could be totally his ryt?? :p
If I may, briefly, mention my own take on this? That old bumper sticker is pretty clearly plagiarism, pure and simple — it should be recognized as such. It’s, however, a bit of a stretch to go from there to claiming the entire character has been plagiarized, given that there’s a lot more to the character than one sticker she appeared on back in 1991. Despite this, in the end, to whatever degree, Rosamond obviously was an influence on Emily, and the original creators deserve at least a mention. And yes, I have posted this at other blog entries on the issue under different names and with slightly different wording in one case. I just feel like it bears repeating.
Dipp:
Oh goodness. Obviously you did not take the time to actually read what I had written, and had taken the time to premeditate what you intended to write to me… You don’t see that this is a menial affair. I am not saying what you are thinking. It’s not that at all. I had stated that it was blatant plagiarism. But it was sold to RR on the basis that it was original. If he was able to capitalize on it and make a living, well, I say in this day and age, good for him. The way I see it, is that the artist who sold him the idea should go down in the lawsuit, should the original artist be provoked enough to take a stand over the matter (which undoubtably should happen, but not to bring down RR. Though some form of Royalties would be applicable, I would presume.)
Oh, and Dipp? Thanks, I am smart, and you are too. I like to think that people who can make half a decent comment on these things to something I have written can make conversation with me anytime.
:) ;)
Does this put Rob Reger into the league of Warhol, Richard Prince, and Louise Lawlor has as radical re-appropriation artist? We could put a postmodern spin on it and Rob would become as radical as his predecessors.
Their legal statement makes me laugh:
http://www.emilystrange.com/beware/about/CosmicDebrisStatement.cfm
“Ms. Sharmat’s and Mr.Simont’s allegations of infringement are entirely wrong and Cosmic Debris was left with no other choice but to seek a judicial determination of that fact. Cosmic Debris intends to aggressively defend its rights and to hold Ms. Sharmat and Mr. Simont responsible legally for any harm that they have done to the Emily the Strange brand and Cosmic Debris’ business and licensing relationships.”