Monday, March 28, 2011

Who is Rob Granito?: The Pillorying of an Artist (revised)

Thanks to people who commented, and particularly to those who provided first hand evidence in regards to Rob Granito's claims. I offer an updated, revised version. I have highlighted most of the changes, and the parts of the original article I was most often misquoted on (such as "there really was a witch" which has been quoted as me claiming there was no metaphorical witch somehow?). Check out the page for a large list of evidence, including an amazing number of copied art examples.

The end of March, 2011 saw the comic-book fraternity asking "Who is Rob Granito?". Comic-related forums and websites became obsessed with this man. Queries quickly turned into a witch-hunt, and as is usual with witch-hunts it got a little out of hand with innocent people hurt, rash words said, false claims made, and tempers flaring. Unusually, however, there really was a witch, in the form of an artist passing himself off as much more accomplished in the comic-book field than he actually was.

Another unusual aspect of all this was the ability to watch events unfold from half a world away in almost real time. A ring-side seat via forums and Youtube as a man was outed as a fraud, confronted face-to-face, ridiculed, and pilloried for all of comic fandom to see.

Rob Granito is an artist. He has sold a number of drawings and paintings, and he has worked on a few comic book and illustrative projects. He started appearing on the comic-book convention scene before 2006, and quickly made a name for himself, becoming a named and promoted guest artist at a number of conventions from 2008 on.

As a guest of honor Rob Granito was given space to exhibit and sell his original work at these conventions. This is a privilege that many aspire to, but few receive. Most artists have to pay money to the convention to get space to show and perhaps sell their work, and they are geographically separated from the invited guest artists who get the prime real estate in the convention hall known as Artist's Alley.

But there are some problems with how Granito gained his self-acknowledged international status as an artist. Much of his artwork appears to have been 'heavily influenced' by others, to put it mildly. Many haven't put things so mildly, and have directly called him a fraud and plagiarist.

Take at look at Rob Granito's own website ( and you start to see the problem. The first title listed under his published credits is the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. The much beloved strip finished its run in 1995, and was entirely drawn by Bill Watterson. Listing this strip in a resume if your name isn't Bill Watterson is a very stupid thing to do. It's obviously false. But here's the thing, Rob Granito has drawn Calvin and Hobbes on commission for his local Post Office at Kiamesha Lakes, New York.

Rob Granito's Calvin and Hobbes cancellation stamp.

There's even a photo circulated online of Mr Granito posing with his paintings of Calvin and Hobbes, which are nice reverse copies of Watterson paintings. Very close copies, but still different from the originals. However, painting your own Calvin and Hobbes picture which is then used as a cancellation stamp by a local Post Office is a large step away from claiming to have worked on the strip, which is implied by the website, and explicitly stated by Granito in a number of convention guest bios; "His most current projects have been the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes." (

Some of the publications listed on Granito's website and various convention bios are legitimate, or Legit-o-mite, to use a misspelling coined by Granito when using an online alias to attempt to defend himself. The term has since taken on a life of its own, and you can buy Legit-o-mite t-shirts online. Granito did draw some covers and t-shirt designs for Murphy's Lore, a series of stories by Patrick Thomas from Padwolf Publishing.

Granito was the colorist for I of the Wolf, written by Neil Kaplan. The website shows the process of how the comic is created, including the adding of colours by Mr Granito, which he does with some talent.

Granito is listed as an artist on Dustin Warburton's (Author/Screenwriter/Filmmaker) website. Warburton wrote the story for the film Spiders 3D, and has some acclaimed children's books published. Granito is listed as the artist for one of Warburton's children's books "How to Scare Kids", but while this is given as a published work (2011) on some websites, including Warburton's wikipedia page, there was no listing for the book on Amazon or elsewhere (possibly the book is in the process of being published rather than having been published?).

Granito's listed magazine credits also appear legit-o-mite, and he does seem to have been commissioned by the White House to do a painting of some kind, which may at first glance seem to be an outrageous claim (certainly many online commentators thought so) but is very plausible given the sheer number of portraits the political world generates, and the wide range of artists they use.

However, it's the impressive list of big label comic-book titles, such as Marvel's Iron Man, and DC's Batman title, Shadow of the Bat, that appear to be at odds with Granito's drawing ability and age. Granito has claimed, on multiple occasions, to have drawn the covers of Batman:Shadow of the Bat numbers 12 to 25 in the 1990s, which would have been when Granito was under the age of twenty. Cover drawings are sought after assignments, and for a young man who, by his own admission spent only a year at art college before dropping out, to have been given such a plum job would be unlikely. The listed artist of those covers was Brian Stelfreeze. When confronted with this fact in an interview published online Granito claimed to have been ghosting for Stelfreeze. This is hard to disprove, as Stelfreeze himself has not directly commented on the claim, but many who know Stelfreeze have weighed-in saying Granito's claim is ridiculous.

In the same interview Granito claims to have ghosted for other artists, including Dan Jurgens and George Perez. Those claims have been denied strongly by Jurgens and Perez, with Perez posting a denial on his Facebook page.

Other titles listed under Granito's published works include Garfield, Ironman 2, Spiderman Archives, X-Men, Ironman the Movie, Marvel Masterpieces III. Tomorrow Man, Dr. Tomorrow, Superman: The Woman we Love, Aquaman, and Teen Titan's Go. One online bio even claims Granito is working on The Simpsons (

It is clear that Granito has indeed drawn all of these characters at some point, and sold artwork at conventions of these characters. The question is in what capacity was he drawing them? Was he a paid professional artist working on the franchises, or was he just an amateur who drew some art on his own time? The evidence is piling up that it is the latter. Try finding a credit for his name on any of these titles and you'll draw a blank. That doesn't prove he didn't have some role, but it does suggest it was not a major one.

Granito also claims to have worked on various animated TV shows including the Animated Batman, Superman, and Gargoyles, which given the large number of uncredited people that work on such shows sounds plausible, but this has been directed denied by senior people from Warner Brother online.

One claim easily confirmed as false was that he was nominated for a Bram Stoker Award for the cover of Shadow of the Wolf (which he did draw). The Stoker Award nominees are listed online, and neither Granito nor the title have ever been nominated. Indeed, there is no artwork category in the awards. It should be mentioned, however that Granito is linked with a smaller Bram Stoker Society ( It is possible that this other Bram Stoker Society did indeed nominate him for an award, but as the website lacks content (it's been 'coming soon' since 2006) it impossible to know, but this would still seem to be a blatant misrepresentation.

When it comes to Granito's artwork, however, it is much easier to see that something is fishy. Many of his drawings and paintings are direct copies, even tracings, of other works. Although even then there is a qualification to be made ...

A Rob Granito spiderman sketch card.

Part of the problem here is the somewhat bizarre nature of comic-book convention art. Frequently artists at conventions will draw characters they have never been employed to work on, and then sell these to patrons. This may sound strange, but it's an accepted industry practice, and is often the only way artists of smaller, independent comics can recoup the fee they pay to convention organizers for table space. Fans are far more likely to buy a sketch of Iron Man or Superman than some indie webcomic character they have never seen before, so artists give the fans what they want. It's marketplace capitalism in action. One of the reasons this practice exists is that an artist who is not associated with a title will sell their sketch of Wonder Woman or Spiderman for far less than a similar piece by an artist who has actually worked on those titles. It also gives artists, even well known ones, a chance to do something unusual and fun for fans, such as a Marvel artist drawing a DC character. Artists are also expect to 'put themselves' into their art, not just slavishly copy or trace someone else's work. Much of Granito's art is so exact in its reproduction of the original as to be far beyond homage or inspiration, and become straight plagiarism.

What Rob Granito appears to have done is list titles in his published credits when all he has done is a sketch card or one-off drawing of that character in a fan, as opposed to a professional, capacity. The question is has any of his work on the major characters he lists been bought and printed by a publisher, or is it all just unsolicited sketches and paintings he's done himself that remain unpublished? This is what the comics fraternity strongly suspects, and what has fueled their anger. It was anger that sometimes seemed to get out of control, but justified by the evidence against Granito that has kept rolling in, with more and more first-hand statements from people in the industry disputing and denouncing his claims.

Things came to a head in late March, 2011, when a number of online sites began at first questioning Granito's art, then attacking it directly as fraudulent. His website credits were ridiculed and dismissed as bogus, including many that may not be, and some that definitely are not, fraudulent. When it was noted that Granito was appearing as a guest artist at Megacon in Florida several people went there to confront him. Some of these interactions were captured covertly on video and posted to Youtube soon after they were filmed. In one video you can hear Granito say that his wife (at home) is fielding angry calls from strangers.

Comic-book forums and websites fueled the anger. Granito's artwork was posted next to the original image it was obviously swiped from. It should be noted that homages and swipes are common enough in the comic book world, so common there are websites dedicated to them. Generally the artist is expected to note that their work was inspired by another artist, or drawn 'after' another's style. Generally, but not always. Sometimes it is just assumed the fans will know. Sometimes an artist 'forgets'. To be fair to Granito at least one piece in the art folder he had at Megacon was labelled as inspired by George Perez. His other obvious copies were not in anyway identified as such. It would be wrong to suggest that Granito is alone in this practice, however, but in Granito's case it seems that the vast majority of his for-sale art is a blatant copy of other artist's work.

Some of the attacks got a little too personal, with Granito's mobile phone number (which was available on his website) being circulated online, and a picture of him holding his two infant children taken from his Facebook page and made fun off in less than appropriate ways. A number of fans made pleas to remember that while Granito might be a fraud, he was still a human being, a husband, and a father. But the attacks kept coming. Granito's DeviantArt webpage became littered with aggressive comments such as; "I wanna spit in your face", "I will punch you in the face, hoping to break your jaw" and, "I hope your kids know that their Father is a piece of shit".

Within days Rob Granito went from being a popular artist on the U.S. convention circuit to a pariah, and the attacks look set to continue. The witch hunt mentality of the online horde can be a little terrifying to behold. Granito's credibility was destroyed and his professional artistic career ruined in the space of a weekend.

Yet Granito's work was being criticized and challenged as far back as 2006, when several artists claimed that he was copying their artwork. Jan Duursema, an artist known for her stunning Star Wars artwork, cautioned her fans online that a Rob Granito was pirating her work.
(;read=7360&expand=1) Granito was called a phony by many on the convention scene in the intervening years, both privately and publicly, but appears to have continued to prosper none-the-less. He was a guest of honor at a number of conventions, such as Jacon 2008 and 2009, Animation Supercon 2009, and the upcoming DragonCon, September 2011 in Atlanta (One wonders if he'll make it to Georgia?). Convention organizers across the U.S. appear to have taken his listed credits at face value. Do they know more or less than the online witch-hunters?

Certainly Granito is lacking in online friends. One forum poster seemed to defend him at first, only to resort to name-calling and saying that Granito owed him money. One acquaintance felt the need to post a 'tell-all' story explaining his regretted role in Granito's rise to what he considers unmerited fame and now fully merited infamy. The only web voices to defend Granito have all suffered from the same atrocious spelling and grammar that Granito's personal writing is littered with.

Is Rob Granito a fraud? He certainly has misrepresented his artistic credits by listing titles like Calvin and Hobbes in his resume. But doesn't everyone pad their resume? Certainly not to the level Granito did. Is it just a case of poor understanding of how he should write his credits? No. Doing a sketch of a character is not the same as working as an artist on the comic book title. Doing a painting for a local Post Office does not give you the right to say you worked on a comic strip. Listing titles you did not work on in a professional capacity, copying art line-for-line, and lying about who you have worked with and for are major violations of the general trust that exists in the comic-book community. Granito violated that trust.

At first there were a lack of first-person statements from people in the industry that would have confirmed Granito as the complete fraud he has since been exposed as (a number have since been forthcoming). The witch hunt found a witch, but a few people grabbed their pitchforks and torches before confirming their suspicions. They're suspicions were based on some obviously fishy claims and blatantly copied art, but considering these suspicions had existed since 2006 or earlier, and had been posted online many times before, it was fascinating to see the speed and ferocity with which the events unfolded, and how claims of his deceit became multiplied and expanded to areas that people had no evidence of.

Did Rob Granito deserve to be pilloried? Yes. Confronting him with his obvious copying practices and false resume listings seems like a fair thing to do, and naming him as an artist whose works you should think twice about purchasing doesn't seem to be unwarranted. However, his family didn't deserve to be dragged into the whole mess. Granito may not have deserved all the fame he'd manufactured through falsehoods, but did he deserve all the infamy he's attained in the last few days either? Is he alone in his questionable practices? There will be a few artists on the convention circuit who will now want to trim some of the more inflated parts of their resumes and add a qualifier to their homage art, but it seems unlikely there could be too many more people out there with the sheer scope of Granito's plagiarism and misrepresentation.

The outing of Granito was a witch-hunt, which is a phrase laden with meaning, but to be fair to the online communities involved in the whole mess for the most part the actions taken toward him were restrained, and they did find a witch. Some may regret unwise words and false accusations made in anger, but the majority of commentators were driven by a desire to find out the truth about Rob Granito, and the evidence against him continues to mount.

Who is Rob Granito, the internet asked itself? Rob Granito is a fraud, the internet immediately and angrily answered. Perhaps not as big a monster as a few would have us believe, but certainly one of the most audacious con artists ever to have been exposed in the comic-book community.

Comments and updates/evidence would be welcomed.

A cartoon attacking Rob Granito by Yoni Limor


  1. "But when the witch-hunt began there were a lack of first-person statements from people in the industry"

    The witch hunt *began* with first person statements from people within the industry.

  2. @Anon. Indeed, pointing out specific pieces of copied art. That had been going on since 2006 or earlier. I'm referring to the statements that have since come out from George Perez, WB, and so on that have shown his resume to be false. But I agree I could phrase that better, and so will make a change.

  3. "he does seem to have been commissioned by the White House to do a painting of some kind"

    Finally, some sense. No one else has any information on this one. What did he do exactly? He says it was a portrait for the President, but everyone pads their resume, don't they?

  4. "Perhaps not as big a fraud as a few would have us believe"

    Who are the "few" who have tried to make us think this? Who has denied that he may have some minor credits and some original art? People are calling him a fraud because of the recognition he got for major credits that don't exist and copies of other people's work that he has sold.

    Let's pretend that someone out there is claiming that he is a complete fraud: you've chipped a tiny bit off that. A small bit. An unimportant bit, then said "look, it isn't as big." It's still pretty big. It's still too big.

  5. @ Anon. I agree. Too big. Huge. My only modifying point is that some people did overstep with their claims without evidence. I'm not trying to defend Granito's fraud, but I would suggest that a few (and I only ever say a few, I note the majority behaved very well) went outside what was warranted with threats of bodily harm, attacks on his family, etc.

  6. Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention.

    Just because you haven't seen evidence doesn't mean others haven't. The stuff that you found evidence for him actually having really done art for (like the trace of the Sistine Chapel hand of God you show above) I don't recall seeing anyone ever question. No one called fraud on it because no one cared if it was real or not.

    You've proven that a guy who killed his neighbour's family didn't kill the dog. "See, he's not as bad a killer as a few people say." Great. Just no one cares about the dog.

  7. I'm impressed with the people that are basically criticizing me for saying 'neutral' things about Granito in my article. Every line isn't dripping with venom against the man, therefore I'm defending him?

    @Anon above. I never claimed that people had called the Sistine Chapel pic a fraud, I merely included it as an example of artwork Granito had drawn, as I did with the colouring example. I in no way implied that because he has some 'legitomite' credits they are all legit, nor did I imply that his crimes were somehow lesser because he had actually drawn and coloured some art. I was merely showing examples of his uncontroversial art before moving on to discuss his other work.

  8. My point is, your claims that it's not as big are based on some of the credits seeming real. Credits that haven't been questioned. So you haven't proved it wasn't as big as people suggest. Just that the bits people haven't called a fraud aren't a fraud.

    Why do you think that Rob deserves neutral language, but people who question his credits and originality deserve venom: "witch-hunt", "innocent people hurt", "rash words", false claims made, "tempers flaring", "anger that sometimes seemed to get out of control", " attacking it directly", "ridiculed and dismissed", "fueled the anger", "got a little too personal", "the attacks kept coming", "The witch hunt mentality of the online horde can be a little terrifying to behold", "credibility was destroyed and his professional artistic career ruined", "grabbed their pitchforks and torches before confirming their suspicions", "ferocity", "claims of his deceit became multiplied and expanded to areas that people had no evidence of". None of that is neutral. Much of that is false or tarring a entire group with the same brush. All these people participated in a witch hunt, but only some of them were bad? They made assumptions before you knew the evidence so they couldn't possibly have had it? Neutral for one side and throwing venom at the other is bias.

  9. Where do I claim it wasn't, or isn't big?

    My point was that I do not use neutral language when it comes to Rob Granito.

    Do you deny that some people online went a little too far with threats of bodily harm, attacks on his family, and claims against his credentials (such as the Marine and U.S. Government commissions) for which they had no evidence?

    At no point in the article do I condone what Granito has done. But just because the witch hunt caught a witch doesn't mean there weren't some unpleasant elements in that witch hunt.

    I'm also at pains to make the point that the majority of people involved did act in a reasonable manner, and that these were the actions of a few.

    Rob Granito is a fraud. He did some terrible things. I state that in the article. All I am saying is that his 'outing' was an interesting and unique event that sometimes got out of hand. Why do you have a problem with that?

  10. Hello. I Have Been Reading This Story With Some Interest Because I Am Actually A Attorney/Lawyer. I Dont Know The Kid Personally But I Have Felt Interested In This As A Case So Have Done Some Research. First Off Many Examples Of Swipes And Homage Have Exsisted In Comics For Many Years. How Many Examples Have We Seen Of The Famous Fantastic Four Cover 1 All These Years. This Guy Seems Like A Hard Working Artist Whos Mistake Maybe Was Forgetting To Credit His Homages. People Like Mark Waid Should Realize Their Taking Food Out Of The Mouths Of Those Innocence Children. Again I Dont Know This Guy Personally But It Seems To Me He Suffered Enough And We Are Crossing That Line. In A Court Room Because I Am Actually A Lawyer I Can Tell You That Just Becaused Of Populiar Opinion Doesnt Allways Mean A Closed Case. Let This Go Away So This Guy Can Get Back To Work To Do What He Loves And Support His Family. He Is Not Forcing Any Body To Buy His Artwork. This Has Been Blown Up And It Proves Comic Pros Can Be A Click And Work Against Those Who Arenot Popular. Thank You For Your Time. John Shields

  11. "misrepresent" instead of "lied" is neutral, confusing "inspiration" and "swiping" is neutral.

    "Witch hunt" doesn't imply "a good thing with some bad element" it implies "a bad thing". Saying the online community seethed with anger is not certain elements. You issue venom at the entire community, but only make allegations about an unnamed and unnumbered few.

    You give him the benefit of the doubt over things you have no evidence he didn't do. Fair enough. But you include a claim that his wife was harrassed with no evidence, just a claim he made.

    I've heard people question whether the USMC commission and portrait for the President are real, but I haven't heard anyone say outright it was false. Can you name the people who have? I've certainly heard people wonder what the USMC would do if they found out he was making false claims, but that isn't saying he made them.

    I won't defend those who joked, talked or maybe even actually considered taking things too far, but they were few, too few to mention.

  12. To the Lawyer- Rob give it up. You are done. The gig is up. Produce a single comic with your name printed on it, or get a day job. No one in the comic industry wants to see or hear from you again. I think this is part of the outrage Rob, Your not even ashamed of your self. You keep making these fictional posts (Your grammar is unmistakable) that amount to "aw gee shucks fellas whats the problem" You are a fraud and you have embarrassed your self, and you're only making it worse with these silly posts.

  13. @ the 'lawyer'. Now that's a "capital" offense!

  14. Mark Millar tells lies about himself.
    David Mack passes off other artists' art as his own.
    Both are 'superstars'.
    Why is Granito being treated so differently, and horrendously, from many other comicbook 'creators'?
    Broadly, 2 reasons:

    1:Because he isn't part of the establishment.

    2:Because everybody needs a moral saviour. Someone they can point at and say "that is a bad person! and I am not that person, therefore I am a good person!". Granito is 'dying (read: being crucified online) for our/their sins'.

    The likes of Mark Waid & Ethan Van Sciver need to keep their corporate-fellating tongues in their mouths and get their capitalist-drone selves back to 'work' helping the likes of DC & Marvel make money from characters created by writers & artists who died paupers.

    And where was this story 'broken'? On an establishment publicity site, posing as an online journal & gossip column, run by a self-publicist for the benefit of himself & his industry pals.

    The major error committed by Rob Granito was in behaving like a doofus fantasist instead of a cunning artisan like those he is seeking to emulate.

    They'll probably take him down to the river now and tell him about the rabbits. *BANG!*

  15. Hes not quite the folk hero you've painted him as.
    And hes no comic book creator. All he needs to do to clear some of his reputation is produce the work he claims to have done.
    from his website-

    "His name has been attached to major projects for companies such as Warner Brothers, DC and Marvel Comics, Disney, MTV, and VH1, where he has worked on comics, graphic novels..."

    This is a far cry from being the colorist on some small press self published comic that wouldn't have paid him anything for his work. {Even mid teir publisher can pay as low as a few hundred dollars to draw an entire comic.)

    All he has to do to start making people back down is produce these wonderful comics and graphic novels hes supposed to have done. All professional artists have piles of their work sitting around. With their names printed inside. Either he produces something to corroborate his claim of being an "internationally known artist and illustrator", or hes a fraud and a liar.

    That said I cant help but feel sorry for him. Hes no Dr Doom. Hes a sad little man, and I fear this whole thing has a lot more to do with Mental illness than anything to do with the guy being a dastardly villain.

  16. @Anon, Stupid is as stupid does. Granito is clearly below average intelligence as can be seen is his terrible grammar and spelling. The sad thing is that not many people are much smarter if at all. David Mack, Greg Land, Rob Liefeld, all have been chastised for their work but NONE of them have blatantly stolen work to the level of Granito. There is a big difference between them and this conman. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

  17. Bob Kane actually swiped,and so did Bill Finger for the first Batman story in 'Tec #27!

  18. " An establishment publicity site, posing as an online journal & gossip column, run by a self-publicist for the benefit of himself & his industry pals. "
    And that is Bleeding Cool.

  19. Establishment? Hardly. Posing? I'd never get away with it. Self-publicist? Absolutely. Industry pals? Do I have any?

  20. Forget the comic swiping, which he claims is just the usual sort of thing. Let's have him explain the use of copyrighted photographs. He'd asked no permissions from the model Acid PopTart for use of her self-created character VooDoo Baby, whose outfit design and photo sessions cost thousands. It's now legally established that photos used in reference in art must have permission. I find that bit of artistic theft the hardest to swallow.

  21. Logical fallacy. If someone gets away with a crime, everyone should get away with it? What other swipers got away with is not relevant. If you get pulled over for speeding but the 4 cars next to you who were speeding get away, does that mean you shouldn't get a ticket?

    And what about the fact that this douchebag keeps trying to create false identities to defend his actions. He is STILL trying to perpetrate the fraud, as we speak. Is posing as a lawyer a crime?

  22. Where do I say he should get away with it? I merely say he is not the only person to have committed the crime. Should the other speeders in your example not be mentioned?

  23. If possible the other speeders should be caught. But, no, there is no reason and no good to be made from mentioning the other speeders except to justify the speeding. And it can't be justified that way. So, it shouldn't be mentioned.

  24. Really? So in this context Granito is the ONLY 'speeder' ever in the history of the world? To even suggest that someone else has ever 'sped' is wrong because this justifies it somehow (just how I'm not sure)? I think not.

  25. Obvious Granito is obvious.

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. I have a question concerning the following: "Rob Granito has drawn Calvin and Hobbes on commission for his local Post Office at Kiamesha Lakes, New York." Do you have some sort of evidence to back this up? Bill Watterson has vigorously defended his copyrights. I found it EXTREMELY hard to believe he would have allowed his characters to be drawn by someone else... And if this Granito actually did perform the work, I would suspect that the US Government had committed copyright theft. Can you produce something to back up this statement that the (1) US Post Office in Kiamesha Lakes actually produced this cancellation and (2) Granito produced the artwork.

    As an aside, "Very close copies, but still different from the originals" - this doesn't float with me. Just because a guy reverses an image and slaps some paint over it, doesn't make it original - saying it is "still different" is a semantic argument,he has stolen an image and made minor changes.

  28. @James

    Did you not see the pictures in the article? Granito with his reverse copies, and the Post Office cancellation stamp made from it? There are also online posts and newspaper articles that support this.

    And I agree he copied the image, but I felt the need to point out that his version was different from the original (even if just because it was a reverse copy), not to justify the copy, but merely to present all the facts.

    I have not seen any evidence in regards to Watterson's rights being given or not in this instance, so I made no claims about those. I do not know if the Kiamesha Lakes P.O. sought permission or not for this or any of the other cartoon related cancellation stamps they have used, so again, I made no claims about those. If you have any evidence I would gratefully accept it and add it into the article.

    I also have no idea how Granito could justify using this to say he worked on the Calvin and Hobbes strip, which I note is a gigantic extra, unjustifiable, dishonest step.

  29. I certainly saw the picture of the cancellation stamp - where was this pic obtained? Rob's web page? I did a quick search for information about Kiamesha Lakes, NY and I was unable to find any legitimate source that mentioned this stamp. I did find one online post by 'Batfan' on that claimed that Rob was hired by the local PO to design the cancellation stamp... But that's it! Sorry, Batfan is not exactly a reliable source.

    You mention "online posts and newspaper articles that support this" - can you please cite these?

    My primary issue with your post is that you are stating that Rob was in fact hired by the PO to produce this artwork and that it was produced. I have a hard time believing a government agency would hire a local artist to produce a copyrighted character. I would like to see a verifiable proof of this (a copy of a letter with the cancellation, an article in a legitimate news source, etc) to back this up. Did you actually see some proof or were you basing this on some questiobale posts to another forum?

    You seem to have made a leap of faith, made a claim and now are asking ME to produce the evidence to discount it... I'm just asking you to provide the evidence to back up your original assertion "Rob Granito has drawn Calvin and Hobbes on commission for his local Post Office at Kiamesha Lakes, New York." Is there evidence to back this up?

  30. As an additional note, "Batfan" had posted in the past to the same group and declared that Rob was his "best friend" and even promoted his art work for sale.

  31. I never said that there were no other speeders in the world, just that any other person does it does not justify doing it. The only reason you mention swiping... and things that aren't swiping and are not what Granito did... is to soften what Granito did. Let's find those people doing the same thing and stop them too, let's not let Granito use them as an excuse (which he has).

  32. This article, while well written, is far too excusing of Granito's actions. The swiping isn't the real issue--it's the fraud. Granito claims to have worked on animated series he never worked on. He claims to have worked on comics he never worked on. He claims to have worked for creators he never worked for. And doing this has allowed him to con conventions into giving him space that should have gone to actual working artists (Granito has done NO work in the professional comics field, despite how you're trying to paint him--not one comics studio has backed up his claims, and in fact most are saying they've never heard of the guy, as are the creators he claims to have ghosted or assisted). It has also allowed him to take the money of countless convention guests, who paid him not because they found him talented per se, but because of his claim to be famous. They wanted a piece of comics or animation history, and so they bought his work--never knowing that (a) it wasn't his work and (b) he wasn't connected to either comics or animation history. He's a fraud, a charlatan, a conman and a liar, and it's unfortunate that you're choosing to back him up. And I see NO evidence whatsoever online that he did a Calvin & Hobbes stamp. That, too, is a lie on his part and a misrepresentation on yours.

  33. I think it's patently clear that this blogger is affiliated with Rob Granito, and is thus being an apologist for him.

  34. The personal attacks and lies against me for writing an article that actually accuses Granito of fraud, just not in the unbalanced and aggressive manner a few people want it to, only reinforce the reasons I wrote the article in the first place. Some took things a little too far and are still hell-bent on doing so, striking at anyone they perceive (however falsely) as being supportive of Granito in any way. You may want to examine your own motives for that? Yes, Granito was a con-man and a huge fraud, points my article explicitly makes, but does that excuse some of the things that were said about his family, for example? Or the threats of physical violence against Granito that were prevalent on his DeviantArt page?

    I have taken onboard the comments and criticisms that made sense, and I thank those who provided evidence on various points. I have revised the article in light of those, and will happily continue to do so. However, the current round of attacks on the article, and me personally, are not constructive in any sense, and seem to be motivated from a misplaced sense of outrage and a lack of understanding and comprehension.

    I am more that willing to correct errors. I am unable to stop the misreading and misrepresentation of my words, nor can I stop people from saying lies about me. I can respond to them, however.

    Take one of the more recent comments that says the copying isn't the problem, the fraud is the big issue. Isn't that what my article also says? Did you (Lance) just stop reading a few paragraphs in? The article notes the false claims he made to have worked for the major labels, WB, and to have won an award. So for you to then attack my article for not discussing the fraud is beyond understanding. I explicitly call Granito a fraud in the article for precisely these reasons.

    And yet now, apparently, it is ' patently clear', according to 'Lance' again, that I am affiliated with Granito and that I am an apologist for him. Where is the evidence for that? It is a wonderfully inaccurate and patently absurd claim. I have never met the man, nor had I heard his name until the last weekend of March. My article calls Granito a con-man, a copier, a fraud and liar. That's being an apologist?

    To quote myself, Granito is "one of the most audacious con artists ever to have been exposed". How is that excusing him? I talk about the "sheer scope of Granito's plagiarism and misrepresentation", his violation of the comic book community's trust by "copying art line-for-line, and lying about who '[he] worked for". Some apologist! I really do wonder how much of the article you read, Lance, before you decided to spread a baseless lie about me?

  35. Balanced? Anything Granito says is true unless proven otherwise (being commisioned by the White House to do a portrait for the President) and anything that people agsinst him say cannot be taken on face value (your initial, now deleted claims that Perez and Jurgen's denials were only through 3rd parties).

    It might be worth noting that a couple of Granito's covers for Padwolf are clearly copies of the work of others. So even some of his legitimate credits are suspect. (Real but dealt with those people dishonestly.)

    And, great work finding proof of legitimite credits... which no one was questioning in the first place.

    BTW: Warburton has said that yes, he had a contract with Granito, Granito failed to fulfil it and produced no art (that Warburton has seen) and is looking into his options. Granito's profile has been removed from Warburton's website.

  36. If I ever need an attorney/lawyer, remind me never to hire the illiterate, brain-damaged, inarticulate palooka who posted above. Sheesh.