We've heard of them, we've wondered about them, we've so far been mostly unable to find them.... like Bigfoot it seems they just melt away into nothingness as soon as you seem to be onto their trail. But I have found hard PROOF at last that blatant for-profit plagiarism of Greg Paul's paleo-art does indeed exist - and not just in underfunded and over-ambitious museum exhibits. Read it and weep, doubters!
![]()
I don't know who the "artist" (actually Art-o-raptor; art-thief) is, but it's clear that this image is almost entirely traced off of various parts of Greg Paul's iconic Giraffatitan herd drawing.
![]()
![]()
But not only is the knockoff image pretty much a direct tracing of the original 1977 Greg Paul version, it's being SOLD for profit online as a "royalty-free" stock image! Here is the link to the store selling it: http://es.inmagine.com/drk006/drk006039-photo
Oddly enough, the ripoff drawing is labeled as a herd of Euhelopus. Guess the art-o-raptor (whoever he or she is) wasn't really that well-informed about different sauropods, or just couldn't be bothered to care what genus or species they were copying from GSP.
All the same, the mere fact that there is indeed the occasional outright commercial ripoff of Greg Paul's work, doesn't change the overall facts on the ground or my previous views on this matter. The presence of fraudsters and ripoffs is NOT legal grounds to claim a monopoly on mere nature-based skeletal poses or sue those who respectfully give credit for non-commercial inspired works (and by "inspired" I mean that the artist put SOME original ideas into them, not just copying them 100% from Greg Paul and only changing superficial color patterns or the like). As you can see on the link, the ripoff-artist in this case did not give any credit to Greg Paul, copied his work almost identically, and is selling it for pure profit without permission, thereby violating all the conditions of scientific courtesy and professionalism, as well as intellectual property law.
However if one gives due credit and does not "sample" the work of others for profit without permission, they are not violating any law, and cannot be put in the same category as the scoundrel who produced the aforementioned ripoff. Paul's overzealous comments against such innocent people are unfounded and ultimately harmful to paleo-art and paleontology as a whole.
.
The original version of Greg Paul's Giraffatitan herd, 1977. The image is from Paul's own website, and perhaps the only copy of this version online. Notice how the plagiarizer flipped around some of the Giraffatitans relative to the original Greg Paul image. The only thing that's noticeably different in the ripoff is the neck pose of the "herd leader".
This is the new, more commonly seen version of the Greg Paul drawing. More accurate conifers, different neck posture, and the addition of a pair of Dicraeosaurus not present in the old version.
Oddly enough, the ripoff drawing is labeled as a herd of Euhelopus. Guess the art-o-raptor (whoever he or she is) wasn't really that well-informed about different sauropods, or just couldn't be bothered to care what genus or species they were copying from GSP.
All the same, the mere fact that there is indeed the occasional outright commercial ripoff of Greg Paul's work, doesn't change the overall facts on the ground or my previous views on this matter. The presence of fraudsters and ripoffs is NOT legal grounds to claim a monopoly on mere nature-based skeletal poses or sue those who respectfully give credit for non-commercial inspired works (and by "inspired" I mean that the artist put SOME original ideas into them, not just copying them 100% from Greg Paul and only changing superficial color patterns or the like). As you can see on the link, the ripoff-artist in this case did not give any credit to Greg Paul, copied his work almost identically, and is selling it for pure profit without permission, thereby violating all the conditions of scientific courtesy and professionalism, as well as intellectual property law.
However if one gives due credit and does not "sample" the work of others for profit without permission, they are not violating any law, and cannot be put in the same category as the scoundrel who produced the aforementioned ripoff. Paul's overzealous comments against such innocent people are unfounded and ultimately harmful to paleo-art and paleontology as a whole.
.