Similar Concepts

Tjeerd Royaards in Substack.

Let me start this editorial by stating that I am not accusing any artist referenced here below of plagiarism. 

Editorial cartooning isn’t exactly a get-rich-quick scheme, so in my opinion there aren’t many cartoonists who plagiarize (why would you?). 

There are, however, a lot of instances where cartoonists come up with similar concepts.

With that disclaimer in place, I wanted to talk about the (small) cartoon controversy within the profession this week. 

The cartoon by Darco that won the Grand Prix at the World Press Cartoon was called out for being very similar to a cartoon published by Belgian cartoonist Luc Descheemaeker in 2017 and a cartoon by Hicabi Dermici that won a prize at the World Press Freedom Cartoon award earlier this year.

This issue is far from an isolated incident. 

A lot of international cartoon awards are surrounded by accusations of plagiarism, posted mainly on social media with examples of cartoons that are to a greater or lesser extent similar to the cartoon that has won an award.

In the wake of this latest controversy, I have seen a number of suggestions made by cartoonists that could remedy the situation. 

The first potential solution for an award would be to announce the finalists well in advance of the prize ceremony, allowing for people to write to the organization in case they spot similarities or plagiarism.

Another suggestion (from another cartoonist) would be to diversify the jury, to include more young people that are more savvy about checking (online) for possible similar cartoons and, not unimportant with an eye on the future of the profession, to include people in the jury that are knowledgeable about AI and can recognize AI(-assisted) art.

How serious is the issue of similarities and what should be done about it? 

We’ve written before about the tendency of cartoonists to focus on the same big international news topics and to work with the same visual symbols and metaphors. 

In the case of Trump one of the visual symbols that is very recognizable (apart from Trump’s face) is his signature. 

It’s been used in many, many cartoons, and it’s not that surprising that more than one cartoonist came up with the idea to use the signature as stitching to stitch the mouth of Lady Liberty shut (the Statue of Liberty being another well-used trope).

The first thing we probably need to do, is to accept that these things happen. 

Cartoonists will continue to come up with the same ideas, and chances are above average that similar ideas will win (major) international cartoon competitions. 

Why? Because juries of these international awards tend to favor simple, iconic imagery that uses little or no text. 

This is completely understandable, as these images are some of the most powerful cartoons, precisely because they are iconic. 

But because they are usually clever, but simple visual metaphors, the chance that someone has come up with same idea is a lot bigger than if a cartoon with a lot of text and details were to win.

The idea to announce finalists and build in a period where people can inform organizers of similarities has some merit, but, apart from taking some of the surprise and anticipation out of awards, it also runs the risk of being abused with false accusations. It might just be more trouble than it’s worth.

The idea of diversifying the juries has more appeal in my opinion. 

This would not only bring in more knowledge (for example about AI) and new perspectives, it might also mean a more diverse outcome. 

Put bluntly, juries for many awards consist of acclaimed artists that create beautifully crafted, iconic, wordless cartoons, and, not very surprisingly, these juries tend to favor the same type of cartoons as winners. It would be nice to see some variety.

Although a diverse jury is certainly no guarantee to prevent the issues of similar cartoons. 

Take this cartoon by Dutch cartoonist Peter de Wit that won this year’s award for the best cartoon in the Netherlands about Trump’s plan the create the Gaza riviera. 

It was chosen by a very diverse jury of mostly non-cartoonists:

It’s a great image, but a few clicks around the web reveal Peter de Wit wasn’t the only one with this concept in mind:

Boban

Marco de Angelis

John Deering

Should we expect a jury to do this type of research? 

In this case, probably not, since it’s an award focused on Dutch cartoons, but how about international awards? 

Or should it be a part of a cartoonist’s due diligence to check whether an idea has already been done or not? And how different is different enough?

In short, is a cartoon worthy of an award simply because the idea and execution are great, even though it’s not unique? 

Not a question I have the answer to, but a question that’s worth thinking about.