|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:10:03 GMT -5
I would think, though, that a clause like that in a legal contract would have sent red flags up all over. But I quite possibly don't know much. It was 1987, trade paperbacks were a rarity (Dark Knight Returns was one of the first first to get a trade collection for big 2 companies and it was done by Warner Books not DC at first) and the idea of a comic book or trade staying in print (in the US, Asterix and Tintin and such in Europe notwithstanding) was absolutely unprecedented and unthinkable. The idea of comic getting collected in book form was barely thinkable at that point. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 21:13:38 GMT -5
I would think, though, that a clause like that in a legal contract would have sent red flags up all over. But I quite possibly don't know much. It was 1987, trade paperbacks were a rarity (Dark Knight returns was one of the first first to get a trade collection for big 2 companies and it was done by Warner Books not DC at first) and the idea of a comic book or trade staying in print (in the US, Asterizx and Tintin and such in Europe notwithstanding) was absolutely unprecedented and unthinkable. The idea of comic getting collected in book form was barely thinkable at that point. -M And even looking at the regular publishing industry it was pretty much unthinkable that a book would stay in print...forever. For a genre book it was completely unheard of.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:16:57 GMT -5
However, in terms of using characters created by others, the characters Moore used in Lot Girls were protected by copyright for the duration of its term, and the authors had control during that period. When the copyright expired and they entered public domain it became fair game to use them. So...what I'm trying to say is...when Moore came up with the League of Extraordinary Gentleman...he didn't create his own characters. He used other people's creations. When he came up with Lost Girls, he didn't create his own characters, he used other people's creations. Fair game to use them as you say....but they weren't his creations. Yet he's quite possessive of his own creations....right? That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 21:18:48 GMT -5
However, in terms of using characters created by others, the characters Moore used in Lot Girls were protected by copyright for the duration of its term, and the authors had control during that period. When the copyright expired and they entered public domain it became fair game to use them. So...what I'm trying to say is...when Moore came up with the League of Extraordinary Gentleman...he didn't create his own characters. He used other people's creations. When he came up with Lost Girls, he didn't create his own characters, he used other people's creations. Fair game to use them as you say....but they weren't his creations. Yet he's quite possessive of his own creations....right? That's all. Dead people. Public domain characters. There really is a pretty huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:21:37 GMT -5
However, in terms of using characters created by others, the characters Moore used in Lot Girls were protected by copyright for the duration of its term, and the authors had control during that period. When the copyright expired and they entered public domain it became fair game to use them. So...what I'm trying to say is...when Moore came up with the League of Extraordinary Gentleman...he didn't create his own characters. He used other people's creations. When he came up with Lost Girls, he didn't create his own characters, he used other people's creations. Fair game to use them as you say....but they weren't his creations. Yet he's quite possessive of his own creations....right? That's all. Except when he's not, like letting people use Hellblazer because it was work for hire and it was understood others would use it. With Watchmen, the understanding was different. He wasn't upset DC was using his characters, he was upset they were using them against the spirtit of the agreement that they made with him. He was protective of the deal he had made, and that deal was ignored. If you had a business partner screw you out of a deal (even if they used a legal loophole to do so), you wouldn't be upset and call them out on it? -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:22:59 GMT -5
I totally get what you two are saying, and I certainly do NOT know how his legal contract was worded, but I just mean that if the clause was that, basically, the rights would revert back to him as long as the book didn't stay in print/go into reprint, then regardless of whether it was something done back then or not, I would think that it would have sent red flags up. But I'm not sure how long it has been *common* for folks to have attorneys read over and translate legalese to clients before they sign documents.
It may have been unheard of, and it sucks all Hell now for him, but he did sign the document. And I bet he has learned from that experience.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 6, 2015 21:30:07 GMT -5
The best defence of Lost Girls I've come across is a statement from Canada Customs in response to a query from the publisher:
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 6, 2015 21:34:42 GMT -5
I totally get what you two are saying, and I certainly do NOT know how his legal contract was worded, but I just mean that if the clause was that, basically, the rights would revert back to him as long as the book didn't stay in print/go into reprint, then regardless of whether it was something done back then or not, I would think that it would have sent red flags up. But I'm not sure how long it has been *common* for folks to have attorneys read over and translate legalese to clients before they sign documents. It may have been unheard of, and it sucks all Hell now for him, but he did sign the document. And I bet he has learned from that experience. I wouldn't think there would be any red flags, as others have said that a comic could stay in print indefinitely was simply inconceivable so the reading of the contract would have been something along the lines of, "DC gets a few good years to make some money on the Watchmen and after that it belongs to Moore" which was a reasonable understanding of the term and a standard business agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:36:38 GMT -5
I totally get what you two are saying, and I certainly do NOT know how his legal contract was worded, but I just mean that if the clause was that, basically, the rights would revert back to him as long as the book didn't stay in print/go into reprint, then regardless of whether it was something done back then or not, I would think that it would have sent red flags up. But I'm not sure how long it has been *common* for folks to have attorneys read over and translate legalese to clients before they sign documents. It may have been unheard of, and it sucks all Hell now for him, but he did sign the document. And I bet he has learned from that experience. I wouldn't think there would be any red flags, as others have said that a comic could stay in print indefinitely was simply inconceivable so the reading of the contract would have been something along the lines of, "DC gets a few good years to make some money on the Watchmen and after that it belongs to Moore" which was a reasonable understanding of the term and a standard business agreement. That depends on how the legal contract was worded. If it was worded how I stated in my previous post, it would send red flags for the fact that they even have to word it that way/put it into a contract.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 6, 2015 21:44:54 GMT -5
I wouldn't think there would be any red flags, as others have said that a comic could stay in print indefinitely was simply inconceivable so the reading of the contract would have been something along the lines of, "DC gets a few good years to make some money on the Watchmen and after that it belongs to Moore" which was a reasonable understanding of the term and a standard business agreement. That depends on how the legal contract was worded. If it was worded how I stated in my previous post, it would send red flags for the fact that they even have to word it that way/put it into a contract. Not if there had never been a book that did that. In hindsight it seems as clear as day to us, but if you blind yourself to that, like a person from the 80's would be, there'd be no reason to suspect foul play.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 6, 2015 21:45:22 GMT -5
Raise your hands if you think Alan Moore deserved to be ripped off when he entered into an agreement assuming all parties were acting in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:47:54 GMT -5
No one, who has a soul, would think that anyone deserves to be ripped off. Ever.
I'm bowing out of this because I don't really care, and I've never actually read anything by Alan Moore, so that is another reason I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 21:50:33 GMT -5
I wouldn't think there would be any red flags, as others have said that a comic could stay in print indefinitely was simply inconceivable so the reading of the contract would have been something along the lines of, "DC gets a few good years to make some money on the Watchmen and after that it belongs to Moore" which was a reasonable understanding of the term and a standard business agreement. That depends on how the legal contract was worded. If it was worded how I stated in my previous post, it would send red flags for the fact that they even have to word it that way/put it into a contract. I can tell you as an attorney that anticipating someone doing something that has never happened before is not an easy thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Dec 6, 2015 21:51:30 GMT -5
No one, who has a soul, would think that anyone deserves to be ripped off. Ever. I'm bowing out of this because I don't really care, and I've never actually read anything by Alan Moore, so that is another reason I don't care. Get the first trade of his run on Swamp Thing and I guarantee you'll be hooked.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:53:09 GMT -5
No one, who has a soul, would think that anyone deserves to be ripped off. Ever. I'm bowing out of this because I don't really care, and I've never actually read anything by Alan Moore, so that is another reason I don't care. Get the first trade of his run on Swamp Thing and I guarantee you'll be hooked. I have his Captain Britain, I just haven't read it yet.
|
|