|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:54:03 GMT -5
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. That is not what I meant. Oh, Slam, I am so glad you are not only reliable, but predictable with your replies. Thanks for that. <3 |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 6, 2015 21:54:31 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. Not really. When his fall into the public domain, like the ones he used, yes. But not when DC did him dirty after strongly implying they wouldn't. As Slam said, Moore's lawyers shoulda been more vigilant. But it would've been a tall order in this case. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 6, 2015 21:55:15 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. That's really the rub of it, if you go in with out knowing that a comic book could stay in print forever and thinking that both parties are going to act in good faith then I just can't see how you could possibly be wary of the wording. If he were especially cautious, should he have perhaps asked for an exact date? Sure, but with comics only staying in print for only a slight period of time after the original printing it would have been reasonable to think that it would be such a short time that you wouldn't need a date. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Dec 6, 2015 21:55:21 GMT -5
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.  Captain Britain is really good as well Basically everything Moore did in the 80's is top shelf. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 6, 2015 21:57:16 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. That's really the rub of it, if you go in with out knowing that a comic book could stay in print forever and thinking that both parties are going to act in good faith then I just can't see how you could possibly be wary of the wording. If he were especially cautious, should he have perhaps asked for an exact date? Sure, but with comics only staying in print for only a slight period of time after the original printing it would have been reasonable to think that it would be such a short time that you wouldn't need a date. This was DC, though, and we remember how they dealt with Siegel, Shuster, Fox, Drake, et al. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 6, 2015 22:01:44 GMT -5
That's really the rub of it, if you go in with out knowing that a comic book could stay in print forever and thinking that both parties are going to act in good faith then I just can't see how you could possibly be wary of the wording. If he were especially cautious, should he have perhaps asked for an exact date? Sure, but with comics only staying in print for only a slight period of time after the original printing it would have been reasonable to think that it would be such a short time that you wouldn't need a date. This was DC, though, and we remember how they dealt with Siegel, Shuster, Fox, Drake, et al. True, but there is always the idea that "That couldn't happen to me" along with believing( albeit erroneously) that in the then current new wave of independent publishing power that a company wouldn't act in the same way towards creators as they had in the past. You'd think that in the face of creators striking out on their own and finding success that you'd want to respect your creators so they stick around...DC thought otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 6, 2015 22:09:13 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with mrp when it comes to the difference between the use of public domain characters and characters whose creator is still alive and wants to control them. There's also another issue and that is that DC used a legal loophole to retain control over Watchmen and the characters associated with it. The rights to Watchmen were to revert to Moore after a set period of time as long as the book was not in print. Prior to Watchmen no comic had ever stayed in print in perpetuity. So it was perfectly reasonable that the book would revert to Moore. Except DC has never allowed Watchmen to be out of print. Perfectly legal. And perfectly shitty. I'm not sure I agree. From DC's point of view, they're basically saying in the contract we keep the rights as long as we're making money on it... because if a book is continuing to sell, why would that not continue to print it? Or do you think there are massive warehouses of Watchmen trades somewhere that were printed and not sold so that they can nefariously keep the rights? It's not DCs fault that Moore happened to write the best selling trade in history. I'm not saying there wasn't a reason for Moore to be upset, I'm sure he assumed the trade would have a print run, go away, and that would be that... perhaps he was even told that was so. But if that's not in the contract, it's on him for not getting a better deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 22:11:34 GMT -5
That's really the rub of it, if you go in with out knowing that a comic book could stay in print forever and thinking that both parties are going to act in good faith then I just can't see how you could possibly be wary of the wording. If he were especially cautious, should he have perhaps asked for an exact date? Sure, but with comics only staying in print for only a slight period of time after the original printing it would have been reasonable to think that it would be such a short time that you wouldn't need a date. This was DC, though, and we remember how they dealt with Siegel, Shuster, Fox, Drake, et al. This was DC, though, and we remember how they dealt with Siegel, Shuster, Fox, Drake, et al. True, but there is always the idea that "That couldn't happen to me" along with believing( albeit erroneously) that in the then current new wave of independent publishing power that a company wouldn't act in the same way towards creators as they had in the past. You'd think that in the face of creators striking out on their own and finding success that you'd want to respect your creators so they stick around...DC thought otherwise. The ironic thing of it all is that in the mid-80s DC under Jeanette Khan had worked hard to rehabilitate DC's image in the mind of creators and become a champion of creator's rights. They were the big publisher who instituted royalties and better reprint rights and putting creator names on the covers, offered creator-participation deals on some special projects, etc. so the expectation was they were not the same sleazy deal bending company that had screwed over Siegel and Shuster et. al. That they were trying hard not to screw creators like that. So there was very much an expectation that the regime at DC at the time would act in good faith. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 6, 2015 22:55:41 GMT -5
It's been said already but It's Moore's misfortune that the landscape of Trade paperback publishing became a very profitable enterprise.If he had written Watchmen in the 70's, he probably would own it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 7, 2015 0:31:51 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.  ... I'm kind of jealous : you still got to experience some of what comics have the best to offer for the first time, as an adult! Jeez! His superman stories, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, DR & Quinch, Swamp Thing, Miracle Man, his DC shorts (Green Lantern, DC Presents, Omega Men, etc...), Big Numbers, Top Ten, From Hell, League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen & Nemo, Lost Girls, Promethea, Supreme and all his Awesome work for Rob Liefeld (yes, you heard right!), Tom Strong, and many others... Imagine if you could read all that again for the first time! Every decade has seen some extraordinary work from him, it's almost unbelivable one could remain consistant and relevant that long. Sadly, storytelling techniques can't be copyrighted, otherwise, half the mainstream comic book planet could be sued by Alan Moore. One last thing, if you examine closely, all of the critique Moore has expressed on recent comics and adaptations of his, he's always been consistant, articulate, calm and genuine. He probably is the only artist alive who's turned down sooooo many millions of dollars on ground of artistic and moral integrity. He turned down "free" money, millions! He only had to say yes and agree to put his name in the credits of a few movies, not doing any work for it. DC has now offered him his rights for Watchmen back, but he's moved on, not interested in mending fences with at least two time back stabbers. Most of the time you see his detratcors caling him grumpy (the debate we just had here), then they call him naive (that legal rights matter), and finally, when nothing else sticks, he gets called stupid for turning down all that money... I really wonder what people really have against him, the rational reason... |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 7, 2015 0:42:28 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. ... I'm kind of jealous : you still got to experience some of what comics have the best to offer for the first time, as an adult! Jeez! His superman stories, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, DR & Quinch, Swamp Thing, Miracle Man, his DC shorts (Green Lantern, DC Presents, Omega Men, etc...), Big Numbers, Top Ten, From Hell, League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen & Nemo, Lost Girls, Promethea, Supreme and all his Awesome work for Rob Liefeld (yes, you heard right!), Tom Strong, and many others... Imagine if you could read all that again for the first time! Every decade has seen some extraordinary work from him, it's almost unbelivable one could remain consistant and relevant that long. Sadly, storytelling techniques can't be copyrighted, otherwise, half the mainstream comic book planet could be sued by Alan Moore. One last thing, if you examine closely, all of the critique Moore has expressed on recent comics and adaptations of his, he's always been consistant, articulate, calm and genuine. He probably is the only artist alive who's turned down sooooo many millions of dollars on ground of artistic and moral integrity. He turned down "free" money, millions! He only had to say yes and agree to put his name in the credits of a few movies, not doing any work for it. DC has now offered him his rights for Watchmen back, but he's moved on, not interested in mending fences with at least two time back stabbers. Most of the time you see his detratcors caling him grumpy (the debate we just had here), then they call him naive (that legal rights matter), and finally, when nothing else sticks, he gets called stupid for turning down all that money... I really wonder what people really have against him, the rational reason... The resentment of comics fans towards him is so bitter that it really is puzzling and IMO can only be traced not to any rational reason but to an irrational feeling of anger against someone who in their eyes has disparaged something very close to their hearts: the superheroes comics they love. And it seems to me that many - not all, but many - of those fans have come to identify so completely with these characters and the companies that produce them that they experience an attack against them as an attack against themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 0:58:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 7, 2015 0:59:45 GMT -5
I also is what I think more or less, I just hope it's not that crude  It's a bit like 80ies heavy metal fans with Kurt Cobain : he rendered them obsolete with one mere song, so people started to attack him on his technical skills... I also suspect that with Moore, it is partly some kind of misplaced jealousy : fans always have ideas on what direction their favorite title should go, and with most comic book writer, it's not that difficult to fall in line with ideas. With Moore, it is so obvious he's so many steps above, that maybe they feel a need to defend their fave writers, purely for emmotional reasons, or something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 7, 2015 1:02:22 GMT -5
Aaron later appologied for this, when he got the context of Moore's answer to a trick question. On a funny side note, Aaron's (whom I sometimes greatly enjoy) biggest achievement (Scalped) is 100% based on actual facts, so he didn't either create the story or the characters, he just elaborated on it. It's still a great book, and I still wonder what you thought of Lost Girls. Did you read my message? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 1:16:45 GMT -5
Here's Grant Morrison too, chiming in on Alan Moore comicsalliance.com/grant-morrison-responds-to-alan-moore-criticism-parting-shot/Now by all means, if many of you feel Alan Moore is deserving of the pedestal his works have placed him on, you're free to idolise him. But I enjoy reading comics that are produced by the very industry, and creators, that he obviously has no respect for. We just won't see eye to eyebag on this.... Now if you excuse me...I have a cake to bake. |
|
