Spider-Man and Homage vs. Plagairism

In early June, Clover Press launched a Kickstarter for a new book entitled The Marvel Art of Tyler Kirkham. The 200+ page book features the artwork of renowned comic artist Tyler Kirkham. The book easily met its $10,000 goal and, so far, has raised over $107,000.

On June 4, as part of the promotion for the Kickstarter, Clover Press posted a Spider-Man image created by Kirkham. The image featured Spider-Man perched on a spire in a downpour.

Three weeks later, on June 25, comic colorist José Villarrubia took issue with the cover. In a now-deleted post, he accused Kirkham’s work of plagiarizing a similar cover created by himself, as well as John Romita Jr. and Sr. in 1998. He said that the similarities go beyond homage and amount to direct copying.

Kirkham, however, doesn’t deny the copying. He said that he acknowledged the work of Villarrubia and the Romitas, but that it was Marvel who told him to recreate the original cover. He said that he is an “artist for hire” and that he gets asked “to do homages and recreations sometimes.”

He did ask Clover Press not to use his “homage” images in promotions and, instead, to focus on his wholly original work.

However, the issue is still deeply divisive. Was Kirkham’s work an homage? Plagiarism? Or something else?

We must first examine the allegations themselves to determine what is happening.

Understanding the Allegations

In his original post, Villarrubia published three example images. The first was the original cover by himself and the Romitas. The second was a 2002 cover that Romita Jr. worked on. The final was the Kirkham cover, which was released in May 2023.

According to Villarrubia, the first two covers are an excellent example of homage. Not only did Romita Jr. work on both covers, but they also have notable differences. The 2002 cover features a cityscape, a different ledge, a different pose and more. Though the new 2002 cover draws inspiration from the 1998 one, it’s clearly not a duplicate.

However, when he compares the 1998 cover with Kirkham’s 2023 cover, the similarities are much more pronounced. The spire and the pose are nearly identical, and even some of the water effects are remarkably similar. Kirkham does add a small cityscape, but everything about the pose and the main character is nearly identical.

As a result, Villarrubia claims this pushes past homage and becomes an outright “rip-off.” However, according to Kirkham, he was only doing what was requested by Marvel. He said, “I go through the official Marvel channels. I draw what they ask and get everything approved.” He also says that he gave credit to the original artists in his works.

However, the credit wasn’t enough to calm Villarrubia’s anger. He said, “Just because something credits something, it does not mean it is not plagiarized. It is not enough to call something an ‘homage’ to be one. In any case, rip-off or plagiarized, tomato, tomahtoh.”

But is that the case? I’m skeptical.

The Bigger Problem

One thing is abundantly clear: there are no copyright issues involved.

Marvel owns all the images at issue. Even if Kirkham’s cover is a complete copy, there’s no copyright infringement involved.

But comic artists are somewhat unique. Though their work is owned by companies that employ them, they are celebrities in their own right. Their names are used to sell comic books, and they become well-known for the quality, style and other distinctions.

This means that, even though most comic artists don’t own their work, they are often still very protective of it. This is especially true when they don’t feel that they are getting adequate credit for their work or that others are encroaching too closely on it.

This puts Kirkham in a difficult position. He claims that Marvel instructed him to recreate the cover, and he states that he attributed the original artists. Assuming all that is accurate, there’s not much more he could have done. Marvel has the legal right to ask him to recreate that earlier work.

Why Marvel would do this is a mystery, but it is their right.

This case butts up to the the intersection of comics as a corporate work made-for-hire and the need of those artists to grow their personal brands. For a comic artist to succeed, they need to make a name for themselves. However, they must do so in an environment of corporate ownership.

It’s a tricky balance, and there aren’t easy answers to it.

Bottom Line

Ultimately, I struggle to think of what Kirkham could or should have done differently in this situation. Assuming his version of events is accurate, he was hired by Marvel to recreate a cover that they had the legal right to have someone else recreate. He also attempted to attribute the original artists, although it’s unclear what form that attribution took.

That said, I also understand why Villarrubia was/is upset. The cover is a full-blown copy. While it doesn’t appear to be a complete trace, it’s close enough that one would not be remiss in assuming it is. He is 100% right to note the differences between the second and third images.

In the end, I believe the biggest mistake made by Clover Press and Kirkham was including this image in the book. The book should be a celebration of Kirkham’s work. This piece, while drawn by Kirkham, is not wholly his work. He acknowledges that.

Kirkham has an extensive library of original artwork that he has created for Marvel. If what he says is true and 99% of the work in the book is his, then there’s no need to include the “homage” works at all. It should have been skipped, and it definitely never should have been used in promotional materials.

But that doesn’t mean that Kirkham was wrong to create it. He is right, he is an artist for hire, and Marvel hired him for this task. It’s unclear if they would have accepted a different version. He did his job.

However, maybe this particular cover shouldn’t be one for the book celebrating his career.