“By enlarging them so dramatically, Brown merges the conventions of science fiction illustration with the spectacle of large-scale history or landscape painting by artists such as… J.M.W. It also needed extra details not present in Foss’s much smaller original. In his 2009 exhibition, the Tate Liverpool held that this was why Glenn Brown’s work was not merely copying, but transformative in that he had created completely different pieces. Brown’s work is painted on a huge scale, 7ft by 11ft, designed to dominate the viewer’s field of vision. Foss’s work, however, was little more than A3 size, and intended for reproduction at an even smaller size. Above, the works of Foss and Brown are shown to be similar in size. In his article, How Plagiarised Art Sells for millions, Glendon Mellow explains that the art world is one of art movements, each one reacting and responding to the work of the ones that came before, and that appropriation was one Post-Modernist response to the previous artistic ‘purity’ of Modernism. Koons was sued for copyright infringement several times. Appropriation of popular culture by the art world is not a new thing as the work of Roy Lichtenstein’s comic book panels (who has heard of the original artists, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath or Irv Novik?), Richard Prince’s Instagram art, and Jeff Koons’ kitsch “Banality” ceramics will testify. The backlash on the internet was heated and science fiction author Scott Edelman vehemently fought Foss’ corner against the perceived plagiarism. Adding insult to injury was the fact that, while Foss was paid hundreds of pounds for his original work, in 2014 Brown’s 1994 'Ornamental despair (painting for Ian Curtis)' another copy of Foss’s work, sold at auction for £3.5 million.

The gallery director only calmed him down by agreeing that Brown would cite Foss as a source in future. Foss actually turned up to Brown’s 2004 Serpentine exhibition to confront the artist in person.

Glenn brown paintings