Marvel Comicshas unfortunately found itself in the midst of another controversy.As reported by Popverse,artist José Villarrubia sparked conversation amongst fans after noting a classic Spider-Man cover he helped created was “ripp[ed] off"years after its original release.The complaint stems from a nearly-identicalSpider-Mancover produced by another artist, Tyler Kirkham, which was said to be an “homage” to the earlier piece by Villarrubia.
While Kirkham’s art credits theoriginal artists, John Romita Sr. and Jr., it does not cite Villarrubia’s contribution. In a now-deleted post to Facebook, Villarrubia addressed the homage and noted the cover’s lacking credits is a symptom of a bigger problem in comics.
Artist José Villarrubia Says A 2023 “Amazing Spider-Man” Cover Is A “Rip-Off” Of A 1998 Original
Villarrubia Accuses Marvel Of Taking “Homage” Too Far
In 1998, John Romita Sr.and his son worked together to produce a variant cover forPeter Parker: Spider-Man#1, which was colored by artist José Villarrubia. The cover features Spider-Man crouched, gargoyle-esque, atop a building, the Manhattan skyline in the background, as it pours down rain from a dark, stormy sky. The cover quickly became famous within the fandom for its composition, making it well known within the Marvel community.
In 2023, Tyler Kirkham produced a nearly-identical variant cover forAmazing Spider-Man#26. Kirkham’s signature on the cover includes “after the Romitas,” signifying the art is a direct visual callback to their work. According to Villarrubia, however, the dedication does not justify how identical the two images are.
Popverse quoted Villarrubia as saying in a now-unavailable Facebook post:
The Tyler Kirkham variant cover for Amazing Spider-Man #26, colored by Ceci de la Cruz, is not an homage. It is a rip-off. 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.
Naturally, the specific details connectingthese twoSpider-Mancoversremain somewhat nebulous. However, Villarrubia’s comment hasreignited discussion among Marvel artists and fans alike on what constitutes an “homage,” and where the line should be drawn in recreating earlier iconic work.
Villarrubia’s Concerns Raise The Question Of The Limits Of “Homage”
Is It Enough To Credit Visionary Artists The Romitas For A Callback?
To again quote Villarrubia’s deleted post, the artist did offer an elaboration on what he believes constitutes the dividing line between “homage” and “rip-off.” As he wrote: “[A homage] is not a trace, not a copy. It is respectful and creative. You would not mistake both images, in their pencilling, their inking or their coloring.“With this definition in mind, you’re able to understand how the artist might find Tyler Kirkham’sAmazing Spider-Mancover distasteful, given how directly it corresponds to the source material.
This article has been updated with clarifications from José Villarrubia which stress they never accused Marvel of plagiarism in any form. “My comments were about the similarity between specific artworks,” the artist shared, noting his comment was not directed at Marvel as a company.
For what it is worth, Kirkham himself responded to the controversy, noting that he simply drew what Marvel hired him to. “I draw what they ask and get everything approved,” he noted in his own social media post,shifting the conversation to broader horizons as Kirkham noted Marvel gave his cover a stamp of approval.
Whether it is fair for Marvel to “recycle” recognizable art from its own history is debatable. And even if it is fair, or better still legal, should publishers like Marvel be allowed to do this? That question remains open-ended, andthisSpider-Mandispute is just another example of why this debate must be resolved.
