Emily the Strange Totally Looks Like Rosamond from Nate the Great
Emily the Strange Totally Looks Like Rosamond from Nate the Great books
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Mstar
Create Your Look-Alikes: Combine two photos (the well-known and the look-alike) on our Look-Alike Builder. You can compare anything, from celebs to animals and objects.
« Previous Cincinnati’s Union Terminal Totally Looks Like The Hall of Justice | The Pope Totally Looks Like a frilled lizard Next »
» 102 comments
-
Recent Comments
Truemouse on Eugene Levy Totally Looks Like… Panda on Bono Panda on Nicole Ritchie Totally Looks L… Panda on George W. Bush Rue on Lady GaGa Totally Looks L… Panda on Cheeky Baby Totally Looks Like… Panda on A Brussels Griffon Totally Loo… Panda on New Age Man/Girl Totally Looks… Jennifer on Crazy Knit Mask Girl Totally L… yo. on Lady Gaga Totally Looks Like G… 
Cheezburger Network Blog-
first! (does that count?)
wat.
The Superb Fairywren is a common and familiar passerine bird of the Maluridae family. Sedentary and territorial, it is found across south-eastern Australia. The species exhibits a high degree of sexual dimorphism; the male in breeding plumage has a striking bright blue forehead, ear coverts, mantle, and tail, with a black mask and black or dark blue throat. Non-breeding males, females and juveniles are predominantly grey-brown in colour; this gave the early impression that males were polygamous as all dull-coloured birds were taken for females. Two subspecies are recognised: the larger and darker Tasmanian form cyaneus and the smaller and paler mainland form cyanochlamys. Like other fairywrens, the Superb Fairywren is notable for several peculiar behavioural characteristics; the birds are socially monogamous and sexually promiscuous, meaning that although they form pairs between one male and one female, each partner will mate with other individuals and even assist in raising the young from such pairings. Male wrens pluck yellow petals and display them to females as part of a courtship display.
Why dont they have chins?
…I fail. I meant necks.
Er – because they’re not real?
I can draw things that are not real and still have necks.
Just a bit freaky thats all.
By freaky you mean STRANGE right? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ZING!
It’s because of the perspective. You’re look down from a bit high up and at the time of the Nate the Great, the collars were probably pretty high up
Also. It’s the art style. So
I’m gonna have to say this is a plagerism. Not only are they really close artistically- but the text at the bottom is 1 line different. way to steal hot topic…
ha ha.
You cannot spell plagiarism.
*waves @ kafleen* but says be nice.
Ha ha. You cannot spell Kathleen.
buckets of raspberries for you, but no soup.
I nose teh kafleen frum teh cheezpeeps.
Ha ha. you fail to realize that Kafleen can be spelled in several different ways,. EX: Kathleen, Kafleen, Kathlene, and Cathlene.
It’s not necessarily plagiarism. In artistic terms, there is a concept called appropriation, and it is where one artist takes an ‘old’ work and ‘renews’ it, altering it slightly, but so that it is still recognisable in relation to the original work. That said, the artists of Emily Strange probably have gotten permission to publish their ‘version’ (if you will), because I highly doubt that they would risk a lawsuit.
There has actually been talk of this over on youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com
In interviews, the “inventor” of Emily didn’t even credit the other artist, and claimed he never used any inspiration from Nate the Great. The original artists and authors had no contact with the people that started Emily the Strange, and this was done without their knowledge or permission.
So while appropriation does exist, in this case I seriously see it as straight plagiarism.
Emily the Strange still owns! even if everything they do is a copy of something else:P
Play-Jar-Ism! Of course most artists risk lawsuits all the time, considering what a pain there is to get permission. Look at the cat walking straight towards the viewer. Exact same legs, the cat is flopped and left unchanged, essentially.
Emily plays by her own rules.
Marc Simont is actually considering a law suit against the artist as permission was neither asked nor granted. Those in the surrounding art community are in support of him and those around the country who are in full favor of the arts should consider supporting as well. Plagiarism is plagiarism and it is wrong.
no kidding. at least he design is improved though.
hot topic didn’t come up with Emily the Strange
Holy copyright infringement, Batman! Which came first?
Yep. As an artist, I would so be at my attorney’s office wanting a C and D order. Oh, I can’t even agree with unconscious plagiarism, that ever popular escape sometimes bandied about in the music industry.
Sheesh. Woopsie. (or not)
I totally agree! Unconscious plagiarism would be a lousy argument. After this, the writer of Nate the Great is gonna get PAID!
Nate the Great books have been around since 1972 according to wiki.
Rosamund was created in 1978, and Emily (obvious plagiarism) in 1991.
Caption = WIN
Emily = ripp-off
Hot Topic most likely paid for the rights to use the original…I doubt the corporation would be interested in facing a lawsuit over it.
I don’t know… apparently there’s an awful lot of Hot Topic clothing designs blatantly ripped off of the work of other artists, unbeknownst to the original creators.
Corporation? Looks more like a bunch of vampires and zombies…
lol, like the Twilight perfume?
Cosmic Debris “owns” Emily the Strange, not Hot Topic. That’s like saying Walmart owns Hershey’s because it sells its products.
Anyone curious about the status of possible copyright infringement, etc., should go here: http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=1701 The blogger contacted both parties and it shows the responses of them as well.
I found this: ( http://laughingsquid.com/was-emily-the-strange-based-on-rosamond-from-nate-the-great/ ) as well, which clears it up pretty well.
Emily Strange and Hot Topic are different! Just cuz they sell Emily Strange stuff doesnt mean they own her or made her up. She is an independant cartoon but a guy named Buzz.
plus, Emily Strange often satirizes various famous works of writing/art/whatever
Totally looks like Coraline to me:
http://www.earlyword.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/coraline.jpg
rofl
timmis is right. Emily the Strange often makes a play on words or satirizes well-known “goth/punk” culture with their merchandise…my friend has a shirt of this brand that says “Major Threat,” based on a cd cover from the band Minor Threat.
but there are also lesser known examples, such as this:
http://www.emilystrange.com/Shop/Collectables/Home_Decor/_Skull_Reflection_by_RR/
Which is satirizing this:
http://gotoknow.org/file/chiew-buncha/03-All_is_Vanity-G2K.jpeg
Yes, but the example Timmis mentions is a satire of an image that is already in the public domain. Whereas the Nate the Great image isn’t. I went to the blog and note that the manufacturer of the second image has withdrawn it. That seems like an admission that they are well aware of the issue.
In court, a plagiarism suit depends on the degree of overlap–that is, the number of points of similarity. There are too many points of similarity here for the “accidental” defense to work.
This was before Emily the Strange was a major brand though. This was an early image made as a bumper sticker. Unless they’re interested in satirizing a 70s kid’s book, known only to parents who read it to their kids, then this hardly applies.
woah… that iz SOOO creepy. i think someone (aka emily the strange creator) has been reading too many Nate the Great books.
That is uncanny.
In the words of Triumph: “No, no, I’m very sorry. The correct answer is ‘who gives a s***’.”
Seriously, who are these characters? Am I getting old?
Uh.
You do know that one of them is from the 70’s?
huh yeah. And the other one is from your FACE.
OK, so maybe I’m too young. Either way, you have to admit that this is pretty obscure. I mean really, how many people understand both references without using wikipedia?
You know, some people have explored the world away from their computer, so they actually get these references without any help from an online source.
Ouch. I guess I don’t read enough children’s books. BURNED!!!
OK, I’ve looked into the matter. Apparently I need to read children’s books and frequent Hot Topic stores in order to get both of these references.
I’m pretty sure that surfing the internet, even if I did it 16 hours a day, would make me LESS of a tool.
I’ve seen Emilt the Strange in a very visible Books-A-Million display. How about being literate and observant? Perhaps maybe then you may have heard of her.
I’ve seen Emily the Strange in a very visible Books-A-Million display. How about being literate and observant? Perhaps maybe then you may have heard of her.
And some people don’t recognize Emily the Strange because they’ve never entered a Hot Topic, which I’m pretty sure trumps anything you’ve got. But, hey, way to be condescending and oblivious to your own inferior argument at once. Impressive!
I’m relatively young (15 in March), and I get both references. It’s just a matter of whether or not you read as a child and whether or not you were bombarded with the Emily the Strange crap a few years ago.
this is stupid, one is obviously copied directly from the other; it’s not a coincidence and therefore not funny or interesting
That’s the whole point, you daft wanker.
YAY! DAFT! WANKER! โโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโ
lol, its the same story, just rewritten
Here’s one I hand picked, JUST for you. Your face TLL my ass. FACE! YOUR FACE!!! โโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโโโโโขโงโกโยตยบโ
OMG! I totally remember reading Rosamund when I was like 4 years old, which was a looooooooooong time ago, and I haven’t thought about her since. But that Emily the Strange kept tugging at something in my brain, and I couldn’t figure it out. Thanks.
Same here, Steroid. I had completely forgotten about NTG until I saw this. Nostalgic WIN!
damn i loved nate the great as a kid.
The text and the cat illustrations are plagiarism.
Emily is not.
Let me make your job easier. Every day draw 2 stick figures & tell us they totally look alike. I really admire some “professional” commenters who can make a whole lotta’ nuthin’ outa’ nuthin’. Anyway it looks like you’re running out of material. Will this blog close soon?
its the same storryyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
god, stupid!
XD omg…this is hilarious…going to emily the strange’s website.. this is a paragraph under who is emily the strange click on meet emily
“Designers including Jean-Paul Gaultier, Valentino and Marc Jacobs have paid tribute to her, but she doesnโt care! Emily wants you to be yourself, think for yourself, and DO IT YOURSELF. Thereโs nothing more boring to her than copying everyone else. Emily is the link to the Stranger in us all.”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA LIES! ALL LIES!!
Meh; it amuses me to see all these little ‘trendies’ trying to defend an Icon of theirs with it appears that Emily’s original creator took the idea from a children’s picture book (probably when HE WAS A CHILD) then passed it on to one of the ‘Business Tycoons’ who mass-produce image to market to the masses.
In all probability, Random House (and their contributors Marjorie & Mark) will have their lawyers speak with Cosmic Debris’ lawyers for a few months; some deal will come to (likely a one-time pay-off since the character inspired by the original source has since evolved away to its own identity); then Rod will Back&Fillโข and admit inspiration. (FWIW, if I was the originator, I’d be happy with acknowledgement – damages or C&D wouldn’t be necessary), and Cosmic Debris will go back to its business of selling uniformity to identity-less people clamouring for some form of ‘uniqueness’.
And nice point, Teh Misty – here’s a quote from an old movie; one free Intarnets to the person who can cite where it’s from:
Reluctant Pundit: Listen to me! You don’t have to follow me; you don’t have to follow ANYONE! You’re all individuals! You’re all different!
Adoring Horde: YES! WE’RE ALL INDIVIDUALS! WE’RE ALL DIFFERENT!
Single Man In Crowd: I’m not.
Adoring Horde: SHHHHHH!!!
I completely agree with what you are saying. The entire time i have been reading this I kept shaking my head at this so call uniqueness gained by possessing merchandise with this character on it. CAN NO ONE SEE THEY ARE BEING PLAYED. They simply say you are different to GET YOU TO BUY IT. This character is not made so you can be original, she is being sold by the corperate world that you are trying not conform with. Guess what, good job played right into their hand and conformed. Besides individuality is how you act and think not what you wear thats exactly the opposite of individuality because then your only feeding the corperate trend. Heres a little something for you, if you start dressing uniquely and other people like it and do the same thing, th coperate world will catch on and start selling that trend. To be diffrent the simply anwser is not clothes or makeup of any of the bull, just be you.
Besides the char dosen’t even seem to be original herself.
Life of Brian?
…Oh, and one last thought that hit me after I’d hit “Add comment” (sorry for double-posting):
If Emily the Strangeโข is such an amazingly prevalent and powerful Pop Icon….how come *I’ve*never*heard*of*it*UNTIL*THIS*TALK*OF*PLAGARISM*?
^_^
its totally the same picture!!! whoever thinks its not the same picture is a total dousche bag. any retard with eyes can see that it is the same damn picture, not even a little bit close its exaclty the same thing except ms.strange looks like one of those emo homos. they are goddamn clown shoes….. THAT JUST HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, you okay there Matt? Dont pop an artery freakin out over there over a little internet posting… Its just a picture… (breath in… now out….breath in…..)
More about the similarity here:
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=1701
More about the similarity here
Third time’s the charm.
Wow. I smell copyright infringement. Sort of like with that guy who did that “Frank Lloyd Wrong” t-shirt, all that stuff he ripped off other artists.
I ALWAYS knew that Emily was a rip-off, having read the Nate the Great books all the time as a child. He solved neighborhood “mysteries” and ate pancakes when he needed to think. Man, those were some great books.
Do yourselves (and the original author) a favor and go to a bookstore and ask if they still print these books. Then buy them – read them to your kids, your nieces and nephews, your dogs and cats, whoever. Pretty soon it’ll be obvious to the entire world who’s ripped off who – and a new generation of kids will get to know Rosamund…
fine we’ll do this my way: I got another great idea. Ok….Go get a pillowcase and fill it with rolls of quarters, soda cans, or even nails if you can find about 20 lbs. worth. K, now take that to one of those all year haunted houses and stand right outside the exit, waiting…
THEN… Whenever someone shuffles out and tries adjusting their eyes, slam them one in the face and throw them in the pile. When you have about 10 or so, (keep in mind you must chloroform each one as they awaken), sew them all together at the arms and legs.
Finally, time them to all wake up at the same time. When they do, scream FIRE! as you light off your eighth smoke bomb obscuring all vision. Make sure you sew them TIGHTLY, no tearing.
HA! BISHES wouldn’t post the whole thing! You bet your @$$ I spent the time to cut and paste it into miniphrases. Your face TLL my @$$. Not you, Chelsea. Everyone.
Yawn.
Totally copywrite infringement. Maybe this will lead to a law suit??
18 years later? Yeah right…
wtf post!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2008/12/emily-the-stran.html
There you go.
That’s weird. The text is very similar as well….
Hmmn . . . the copyright infringement is much more obvious that “My Sweet Lord” being derived from “He’s so Fine” – what’s that noise . . .Ka-ching Ka-ching
Hmmn . . . the copyright infringement is much more obvious that “My Sweet Lord” being derived from “He’s so Fine” – what’s that noise . . .Ka-ching Ka-ching
Poor Alice. What an insult. Seriously, it’s that’s so wrong.
My bad. I typed wrong. My thoughts were messed up by the awfulness.:[
whoa…. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!!
i eat cats
Wow this is in no way shape or form a coincidence. It’s out and out plagiarism!
Guess Emily the Strange is a RIPOFF character
And to make matters worst Emily the strange creators are trying to sue Rosamond’s creators, some ppl have a nerve
you can read all about it here
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=3145#comments
Uh… The text at the bottom is almost EXACTLY the same
NAte the great is the best!!! Did no one else grow up reading and loving those books? I noticed the similarities right away and was always confused… but too young to know who to write and complain to…thought maybe they were the same. I liked Rosamond though, even if Nate didn’t… The skateboard logo company or whoever stole it didn’t keep in mind kids like me with obscure literary educations haha
Rip off.