PCA Illustrated Standard Debacle ~ Part 6

In this post, I would like to cover some of the things that have been said by the Board, specifically the President, Kevin Ray and also several parts of the contract with Fredrick Carlson.

According to the contract with Mr. Carlson his assignment was:

Create a new set of Papillon standards art pieces per booklet used since 1991

Artwork will be black and white pencil drawings similar to Welsh Corgi and Yorkshire Terrier and Border Collie pieces shown by PCA.  Some color pieces to be determined by committee.

References from old booklet plus UK standards book ordered should be sufficient for most of the drawings.


The contact goes on to say (emphasis mine):

Including the cover, as this existing booklet is laid out there are spaces for 31 full-body views.  With the possibility of rescanning a correct full side view and re-using it 6 times that leaves the task of 26 new artworks I call ‘full-body’ views.

In yet another section it continues (emphasis mine):

In the existing booklet there are spaces for 48 small drawings (heads, head/eyes, muzzles, teeth, rear, feet, tail, face faults, etc.).  It looks like 4 drawings can be re-used by scanning and re-editing into new positions in the booklet, so this leaves the task of 44 new artworks I call ‘small’ views.


Here is a  quote from PCA President, Kevin Ray (emphasis in the original):

The current Papillon Illustrated Standard was produced from the original artwork of Fred Carlson and the language used in the last illustrated standard that was written for PCA.

First, from the sound of the of the Assignment section it sounds like someone (PCA? Stan Sohn?  Fredrick Carlson?) specifically ordered a copy of the commonly called CISPAP written by Mike Foster and Deirdre Ashdown.




Since there are plenty of photos of Papillons out there, why would they need to use yet another standards book for reference so badly that they specifically ordered it for references?   An artist should definitely look at many resource photos and maybe even initially try to copy them, but in the end they put their own style in their drawings.   This was obviously not done here, because Mr. Carlson’s drawings are instantly recognizable as Nancy Pinke’s artwork.   Having been an artist since 1980 according to his signature file on the IS contract, he certainly should have developed his own style by 2006-07.

Second, if you notice the portions of the contract that I have bolded, they talk about re-using Nancy’s original work in the new standard.   Under what definition does re-using another artists work does this equal original?    Even if Mr. Carlson’s work for the IS had been completely original, PCA would still have been guilty of copyright infringement on at least 2 pieces of Nancy’s work.

The Board has no regard for copyright as shown in the Board Meeting Minutes from April 13, 2007:

The Pembroke Welsh Corgi Club of America gave their permission, after the fact, to PCA to use their glossary format, which had been taken directly from their standard without prior permission requested.


The Board has also been playing the “only so many ways you can draw a Papillon card since the beginning and Kevin has specifically stated:

There is only one way to draw the ear set, tail set, topline, etc of a papillon as outlined in the breed standard & therefore artists renderings will be similar.

Deirdre was kind enough to send us some example of her work from CISPAP to show how ridiculous this claim is.

As a reminder here are Nancy Pinke’s illustration from the original IS and Fredrick Carlson’s “original” from the new IS:


Illustrated Standard Comparioson

Illustrated Standard Comparison 2009


Here is a body illustration and a tail set illustration done by Deirdre:

Deirdre Ashdown Body 1

Deirdre Ashdown Body 1


Deirdre Ashdown Tail Set

Deirdre Ashdown Tail Set


Due to the difference in the poses I can’t really compare those to Nancy’s originals, but this one is a better pose for comparison:


Deirdre Ashdown Body 2

Deirdre Ashdown Body 2


One other thing, this illustration also shows that Papillons don’t have the same markings, which I think anyone that owns or has ever seen more than one Papillon already knows, yet oddly Carlson’s Papillons all have the exact same markings as Nancy’s.  You can find a comparison in part 4.


So here it is:

DA-NP comparison



As you can see it’s not really close at all, yet you can see from the one up above it’s definitely a Papillon and it certainly looks like it fits the standard.   There were 2 areas that I could get to align, the chest and the topline.  I chose the chest because it was a larger area.    You can see that both drawings have the same general outline/shape yet they are not anywhere close to identical.

Unlike these illustrations:

full skeleton comparison

Full Skeleton Comparison


new image resized

“New” Image Resized


Here are several head illustrations.  They were not the right pose for comparisons either, so I will just show you a refresher illustration from Nancy and Carlson and then the 2 from Deirdre.

Pinke Correct Papillon Head

Pinke Correct Papillon Head


Carlson Correct Papillon Head

Carlson Correct Papillon Head


Deirdre Ashdown Head 2

Deirdre Ashdown Head 2


Deirdre Ashdown Head 1

Deirdre Ashdown Head 1


That’s it for now.  Please remember to let other PCA members know about this issue as this is a voting year!

This entry was posted on Monday, November 17th, 2014 at 6:06 am and is filed under Papillons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “PCA Illustrated Standard Debacle ~ Part 6”

  1. FC ordered and paid for a CISPAP direct from me, in his email he said he was working on some kind of project, (I think I am right in saying that, but it was a long time ago), and he wanted a CISPAP “for reference”. I am definitely correct in recalling the “for reference” phrase. Deirdre

Leave a Reply