At this time, I am attempting to create a sasquatch sculpture based on painting by another artist. The painting has everything I need sort of thing (proper proportions, good stance, perfect detail and so forth). Why should I reinvent the wheel? That’s the way it goes with artwork. Ask any artist.

As a working artist, I quite agree that every artist’s work is in some sense derivative—we learn from art, just as filmmakers learn from film. It’s also true that many artists keep “scrap” files of reference images that may inspire or assist us in our work, in exactly the same way that writers keep books for reference.

Nonetheless, outright copying without credit (and more important, without permission) as Patterson did for his illustrations is not acceptable for artists any more than it is for writers. An instructive case referred to often in art circles is Rogers v. Koons, in which a well known professional sculptor used another artist’s photograph as the basis for a sculpture. Koons was successfully sued for copyright infringement on the basis that his sculpture was not parody and was “substantially similar” to the original two-dimensional photograph “to the extent that, under the ordinary observer test, we conclude that no reasonable jury could have differed on the issue of substantial similarity. For this reason, the district court properly held that Koons ‘copied’ the original.”

I know it’s an uphill battle to convince the world that Patterson wasn’t a con man, a lying, thieving, horse-dragging, plagiarist, but I wish you luck in fighting the good fight!

However, let’s learn a little something about artwork. Some of the most famous artworks in history are copies. Artists have been doing this since man started scratching images on cave walls. If you want to know more about this, then go to the library and read the first few chapters of HISTORY OF ART, by M.W, Janson.

There is nothing wrong with this, unless one tries to pass off (sell) his copy as an original. We don’t even know if the original artwork copied by Patterson was “original.” Artists have to get ideas from somewhere, so they search around and essentially “copy” (either in whole or in part) what others have done. You will note that Patterson’s drawings are a bit different, so he sort of “did his own thing,” as it were.

As an artist, Patterson was really very good. That he used his talent to illustrate his book was a real “plus.” To say that this was an indication of his dishonesty is quite absurd.

At this time, I am attempting to create a sasquatch sculpture based on painting by another artist. The painting has everything I need sort of thing (proper proportions, good stance, perfect detail and so forth). Why should I reinvent the wheel? That’s the way it goes with artwork. Ask any artist.

Chris Murphy

Bigfoot Bookman
Willow Creek

Sound like a great book to help dad tell his kids about our origins.

While I think the Patty creature is the real deal, the story behind how it all went down is a much bigger fraud than any petty plagiarism by Patterson.