The Pedants Are Revolting

[Malc]

I sell cartoons through Cartoonstock, as do some of you here I'm sure. I've actually met Joel and Ed, the guys who run Cartoonstock in person and they're lovely fellas, but either the submitted cartoons are processed by a computer system or they employ pedants, or they secretly hate me.

Today I got this back from them:

"Thank you for sending us  this cartoon, unfortunately it has been rejected from cartoonstock because of a punctuation error. There needs to be a full stop at the end of the caption. Please make the change and resubmit. Thanks."

Indeed there was no full stop at the end. So what? It had no bearing at all on the presentation of the cartoon or the effectiveness of the gag, the way a spelling error would. Plus, I'M the bloody artist, aren't I? If I don't want a full stop at the end of the sentence, just leave it alone.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Absolutely, Malc! How dare they have standards?!!

[Malc]

...and you shut up as well




Note there was no full stop


Nor there neither


You get the point, I'm sure

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Actually, it's only recently come to my notice that no speech bubbles in the Andy Capp strip ever end with a full stop. Exclamation marks, question marks, yes, but full stops, no - not one, possibly ever (I haven't checked them all). If there are two sentences within the one bubble, then yes, a full stop is used, but not at the end of the speech within that bubble. It's as if the end of the bubble itself is enough to signify the end of the speech... which is fair enough, really. Because it does

[The Peepmaster]

I occasionally get such emails and have to rectify submissions. One recent one was of a crowd gathering to welcome someone, and I had Press and TV guys in the scene. It was rejected because I had "BBC" on the side of one small camera. I had to remove it and just put "TV". Another gag, which showed a book with "Dummies' Guide to Ventriloquism", alongside another book entitled, "Ventriloquists' Guide to Dummies", was rejected for a similar reason. I couldn't change that because then the joke would be lost!

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Yes, I had a Batman and Robin gag sent back just the other day because the characters are copyrighted. I was about to send them another couple which featured Superman and Spiderman, but I've done a little redrawing on each to change them to similar, but not obviously the same, super-heroes (Heroic Man & The Human Spider), and am about to send them off today. I'll let you know if I get away with it... 

[Malc]

I wouldn't mind, but the reasons for the rejections have no real validity. You CAN show Batman and Robin and Spiderman, etc, as characters as long as you don't use their trademarks, copy their original drawing or try to pass them off as actually being products (i.e. approved by the original creators).
Therefore I wish the "moderator" had done their homework regarding Fair Use, parody or Passing Off, which are all part of copyright/trademark law.
I used a cartoon recently for the Murdoch Press which had a copy of the US Presidential Seal in it. I've done similar cartoons with CNN logos and Fox News logos in them (in full or in part). Never any legal queries from the suits. As long as it's legit parody or comment, it is kosher.

[Roger Kettle]

Malc, the full stop thing is just ludicrous---particularly as they asked you to re-submit it in the "corrected" form. I'm guessing someone was having a bad day.

[The Peepmaster]

In fact, such grammatical pettiness is so ludicrous, I've a feeling Mince would have loved it.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Malc, the full stop thing is just ludicrous---particularly as they asked you to re-submit it in the "corrected" form. I'm guessing someone was having a bad day.

I guess there are two ways of looking at this. It does seem more than a little pedantic, and officious, but it also shows that our cartoons are being very carefully checked, and that can certainly benefit us as contributers from time to time, especially if there is a glaring error in our work that we fail to notice (it happens).

I agree that this 'error' appears to be insignificant, but I think on balance, I'd rather know that Cartoonstock are paying close attention to such details, than allowing any cartoon to pass through their gates unchecked. I also know there are many pedants among the 'cartoonist community' who would probably be eternally grateful that even an AWOL full stop was spotted and prevented from entering, and who would have been apoplectic with embarrassment had it not been (they know who they are... koff-koff!).

Unfortunately, these things can't be corrected by Cartoonstock themselves, since text is part of the artwork, and only the can or should be allowed to change it, and so it had to be returned for the change to be made. They could have let it go, but on balance, I'm happy to hear they didn't.

Sorry to the majority of you out there who haven't a clue what any of this is about, or care even less.

[Mince]

I agree that they are becoming pedantic. I sent in a cartoon and was told that they are rejecting it because it's "shit".

[Malc]

"that can certainly benefit us as contributers from time to time, especially if there is a glaring error in our work that we fail to notice (it happens)."
 

[Malc]

Anyway, I acceded to their request.

[Bilthehut]

They should also roundup the full stop before they go for the Latte, as it appears to be escaping.


P.s.  Nice cartoon and artwork.

[Diane CBPFC]

I agree that they are becoming pedantic. I sent in a cartoon and was told that they are rejecting it because it's "shit".

How rude - they could have at least said "shite".