As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Bitching Thread VI] A Brand New Day (for bitching)

18081838586100

Posts

  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    DMAC wrote: »
    Are you planning on never reading anything that is either written or drawn by anyone involved in Before Watchmen ever again?

    Well, it'd be pretty easy, mostly. Wein and JMS have lost whatever knack they once had for writing, so no big loss there. Jae Lee's been doing nothing but crap like Dark Tower adaptations and covers for the past few years. I don't care for Azzarello, Jones, or the Kuberts, really.

    So, the only creators I'd really miss, are Conner, Hughes, and Cooke, all of whom work infrequently enough in comics, that it's not hard to avoid them.

    So, yes, probably? I guess I'll give a pass to the inkers and colorists, because really, I'm just too lazy to keep track of that information, and their footprints on the project are pretty small, comparatively.

    I don't know, the whole thing's irked me in a way that things like the Kirby and Siegel/Shuster things, never did. Maybe because DC was at least shamed into eventually giving the Superman creators and their heirs some royalties, and Kirby eventually got a cut of Captain America. Maybe because this is the only time I've really seen a creator of the original work saying, "What I want is for this not to happen," while the attached creators not only ignore him, but some actually act like pernicious dicks. Maybe because the whole thing's just more recent.

  • DMACDMAC Come at me, bro! Moderator mod
    Munch wrote: »
    DMAC wrote: »
    Are you planning on never reading anything that is either written or drawn by anyone involved in Before Watchmen ever again?

    Well, it'd be pretty easy, mostly. Wein and JMS have lost whatever knack they once had for writing, so no big loss there. Jae Lee's been doing nothing but crap like Dark Tower adaptations and covers for the past few years. I don't care for Azzarello, Jones, or the Kuberts, really.

    So, the only creators I'd really miss, are Conner, Hughes, and Cooke, all of whom work infrequently enough in comics, that it's not hard to avoid them.

    So, yes, probably? I guess I'll give a pass to the inkers and colorists, because really, I'm just too lazy to keep track of that information, and their footprints on the project are pretty small, comparatively.

    I don't know, the whole thing's irked me in a way that things like the Kirby and Siegel/Shuster things, never did. Maybe because DC was at least shamed into eventually giving the Superman creators and their heirs some royalties, and Kirby eventually got a cut of Captain America. Maybe because this is the only time I've really seen a creator of the original work saying, "What I want is for this not to happen," while the attached creators not only ignore him, but some actually act like pernicious dicks. Maybe because the whole thing's just more recent.

    Yeah, I guess it just doesn't bother me that much. Moore has basically washed his hands of DC. I'm sure he wishes that the people who screwed him over would stop profiting from his work but to me this kind of like the movie: Moore doesn't want anything to do with it, wishes it didn't exist but it doesn't really harm the original material.

    If DC decided to go back and tinker with the original material and do an extended version or something I might feel differently but to me these are just derivative works "inspired by" the original. I haven't really been keeping up with them but I feel like they deserve to be judged on their own merits and I don't begrudge the creators involved.

  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    I've never understood the idea of someone working for a company, and then complaining when the company used it's property how it saw fit. Moore was working for DC and created the Watchmen for DC, just like Kirby and Seigel and Schuster all those years ago. Now maybe Kirby and Seigel and Schuster deserve something, out of a sense of justice, because they did create characters that were loved by millins and helped make the companies they were working for, but they did it for those companies. They agreed to the contracts in place at that time. Whether they were fair or not is another matter, but they were the same kind of contracts others at the time had. We don't see a large public outcry over the creator of Mad Dog making something for DC and not making millions out of it, because noboyd cares about that character. There's a big double standard here. Everybody wants the Big Two to pay lots and lots of money to the creator, or at this point, to their heirs, who never would have seen any money from this had the Big Two done it at the time, but only for creators they really like.

    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    I also don't like the fact that the families of Seigel and Schuster caused some kind of convoluted mess that means DC had to change the costume of Superman, and change some things about his character. What, I'm not sure of yet, but this is the way it was explained to me. If that is incorrect, I apologize for operating on false info, and please correct me.

    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • UltimateInfernoUltimateInferno Registered User regular
    I also don't like the fact that the families of Seigel and Schuster caused some kind of convoluted mess that means DC had to change the costume of Superman, and change some things about his character. What, I'm not sure of yet, but this is the way it was explained to me. If that is incorrect, I apologize for operating on false info, and please correct me.

    This is incorrect

    "Ride or Die?" asked Goku

    "Ride or Die" confirmed Dominic Toretto, as they took off to find the Dragon Balls in hopes of reviving their friend Sonic
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    I've never understood the idea of someone working for a company, and then complaining when the company used it's property how it saw fit. Moore was working for DC and created the Watchmen for DC, just like Kirby and Seigel and Schuster all those years ago. Now maybe Kirby and Seigel and Schuster deserve something, out of a sense of justice, because they did create characters that were loved by millins and helped make the companies they were working for, but they did it for those companies. They agreed to the contracts in place at that time. Whether they were fair or not is another matter, but they were the same kind of contracts others at the time had. We don't see a large public outcry over the creator of Mad Dog making something for DC and not making millions out of it, because noboyd cares about that character. There's a big double standard here. Everybody wants the Big Two to pay lots and lots of money to the creator, or at this point, to their heirs, who never would have seen any money from this had the Big Two done it at the time, but only for creators they really like.

    1. Watchmen was created with the idea that it would be returned to Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore, after it had been out of print for a certain amount of time. At the time, it was held up as an example of how DC was different from Marvel, which was feuding with Kirby, at that time. Its massive success, and the subsequent TPB market borne from it (along with Maus and DKR), meant it never went out of print, and Moore and Gibbons never reclaimed the rights to it.

    DC is legally in the right, but morally in the wrong. They violated the spirit of their agreement with Moore and GIbbons, and went so far as to cut them out of profits for merchandise sales, by calling said merchandise "promotional items."

    2. The fact that you do not see outcries over the creation and ownership of second-tier characters, does not mean one does not exist. Tony Isabella, who has a significant stake in Black Lightning, has been hard-done by DC and Warner Brothers for years. Why is Black Vulcan in the Superfriends, Juice is in Justice League Unlimited, and Soul Power is in Static Shock? Because Warner Bros. and DC do not want to pay out the extra royalties to Isabella.

    There have been several other DC properties that were created with some form of limited participation/ownership involved; John Arcudi and Doug Mahnke's Major Bummer was recently freed from publishing limbo, when the rights were returned to the creators. Ditto for Justin Gray and Jimmy Palmiotti's Monolith, which will soon see print from Image. Dan Raspler and Dev Madan's Young Heroes in Love are partially owned by the creators, but have apparently not yet been returned in full to the creators.

    I don't know the terms and conditions that allowed these characters to be returned to their creators, but had DC stubbornly refused to do so, reneging on promises, and cutting the creators out of money owed to them through shady means, I'd be just as angry about it.

    Additionally, don't confuse characters that were clearly created as work-for-hire (Mad Dog) for those that weren't (Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and everyone else in Watchmen.)

    3. Prioritizing the needs of fictional characters, over doing right by actual people, is absolutely heinous, as far as I'm concerned. It's also a massive middle finger to everything characters like Superman mean to me, and should mean to everyone else who reads comics.

    It's fine if you equate being in the legal right is the same as being in the moral right.

    I don't, and there's plenty of other great things out there to read, that don't prop up a giant corporation that made its money on the backs of real, actual people.

  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Munch wrote: »

    It's fine if you equate being in the legal right is the same as being in the moral right.

    I don't, and there's plenty of other great things out there to read, that don't prop up a giant corporation that made its money on the backs of real, actual people.

    It's true, the "people" who own and are employed by corporations are a greedy cabal of vampires, zombies, and other fictional creatures, not real, actual people.. This group of monsters has controlled the world's wealth since the 14th century, and it's now impossible for anyone be successful or make any money unless they are born into it. The world needs a revolution where everything is free, and we all share our stuff. Right on, brother.

    Hensler on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    edit: Ugh, nevermind. I have better things to do with my day.

    Munch on
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    Don't get me wrong, I don't usually side with companies over people and I do think it is terrible that these people are getting the shaft, but... why do they get sooooo many people fighting for them when so many others, who aren't famous, have to sign contracts that help corporations more than the common man, and nobody says dick about them except, oh, well, you signed a contract, sucks to be you. It jsut seems like these guys created something people like, so people are willing to go to bat for them, but nobody cares about all the other injustice going on. I'm probably wrong. And confusing the issue.

    I was not aware of the other stuff posted. that's why I asked to be corrected. I knew someone would. However, I'm not "heinous." And conflating the meanings of words can be heinous too. I don't think confusing character vlaue and the value of real people is "heinous. Pretty stupid maybe, if I were actually doing that. but not "heinous." Plenty of "heinous" crimes in the news everyday without making stuff up.

    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    Don't get me wrong, I don't usually side with companies over people and I do think it is terrible that these people are getting the shaft, but... why do they get sooooo many people fighting for them when so many others, who aren't famous, have to sign contracts that help corporations more than the common man, and nobody says dick about them except, oh, well, you signed a contract, sucks to be you. It jsut seems like these guys created something people like, so people are willing to go to bat for them, but nobody cares about all the other injustice going on. I'm probably wrong. And confusing the issue.

    I was not aware of the other stuff posted. that's why I asked to be corrected. I knew someone would. However, I'm not "heinous." And conflating the meanings of words can be heinous too. I don't think confusing character vlaue and the value of real people is "heinous. Pretty stupid maybe, if I were actually doing that. but not "heinous." Plenty of "heinous" crimes in the news everyday without making stuff up.

    Because plenty of people grew up reading Jack Kirby so they're aware of how much they might admire him or appreciate the impact he had on their lives. If you're visibly impactly on people in a good way and you get screwed, people are more likely to have your back. Very simple.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • VermisVermis Registered User regular
    http://www.parkerspace.com/2012/07/09/the-disappearing-hulk/
    I really shouldn’t make one-off jokes because apparently many people thought the book didn’t have a solicitation because I forgot to write it. Do you think the editors do nothing? They would at least write “Red Hulk does stuff!” in there if I didn’t.

    Well crap.

    rulksig.jpg
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    That seems to reinforce the Agents of SMASH theory.

    I wonder if they might have Parker write that book.

    Centipede Damascus on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    Felipe Smith's 'Freelancers' to be published by Boom Studios.

    Except it's not written by Smith.

    Or drawn by him.

    And he actually has another co-creator listed, who's also not writing or drawing the book.

    That's kind of weird, right?

    It looks sort of fun, and I'm a huge fan of Smith's work on MBQ, and to a lesser extent Peepo Choo, but this is weird. I'd almost understand if it was a Paul Pope-created concept, or someone else with that level of clout or name recognition. But Smith is relatively unknown in the American comics marketplace.

  • Lord BuzzkillingtonLord Buzzkillington Registered User regular
    @Nobody in particular:
    I don't understand the rights thing. The work-for-hire contract is about as straight forward as things get: what you produce and sell to Marvel or DC, is the property of Marvel or DC. Kirby et al. signed some terrible contracts but there just isn't any wiggle room here. It's not like they were somehow unaware that what they made did not belong to them. It is unjust, but entirely legal. There just isn't any reason to keep making a fuss about it... Marvel and DC stole nothing. The best we can hope for is that they pay pensions to creators, and they don't. They won't. Just stop buying their product if it is that much of a problem, and support creator-owned comics. (Reiterating that I'm actually not having a go at Munch here... dude knows his independent stuff. I'm taking to the hypothetical fan who obsesses over the hand Kirby was dealt.)

    Moore had the same deal. I'm pretty sure Alan Moore can manage to read a contract. Dave Gibbons is satisfied with his deal. Moore is not. Whatever his problems with DC, however dumb the idea of Before Watchmen is, DC is not in the wrong. Also, boycotting the creators of Before Watchmen is a bit much. They, like most of us on this forum, need money in order to live and continue being artists and doing what they love. They are destroying nothing here, merely providing an unnecessary addition to a complete story. Don't buy the work if you do not like it. But why hold it against them? Before Watchmen could be the project which allows Cooke to produce new creator-owned work on his own dime (an expensive undertaking.)

    There just isn't any point in raging against the WB and Disney machines. They do not care. Do a full-on boycott if you want to send a message, because they aren't tuned to hearing anything else.

    As for legal right vs moral right, well, if you made a legal promise to act one way, I don't see how it can be morally wrong to stand by your legal promise. The Mad Dog argument is a pretty good one, because the work-for-hire Mad Dog contract was not exploitative. It was not exploitative because the character isn't worth anything. It doesn't become exploitative once the character is worth something, it is functionally the same contract. If Marvel had used deception or duress or anything to screw characters and concepts out of Jack Kirby, that would be morally wrong. Acting exactly as promised, with the understanding that this is how thing are... that is not morally wrong. Just very unfortunate for the talented creators who made the MU.

    ...end rant.

  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Poor @Nobody, The guy just keeps to himself in WoW chat, and he gets dragged in to everything!

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • Lord BuzzkillingtonLord Buzzkillington Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Poor @Nobody, The guy just keeps to himself in WoW chat, and he gets dragged in to everything!

    We should boost the self-esteem of @Nobody until he becomes @Somebody and we don't have this problem any more!

    Lord Buzzkillington on
  • NobodyNobody Registered User regular
    /cry

    and I do branch out on occasion, I just spend most of my time in there :P

  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Lord Buzzkillington said it better than I could ever hope to.

    Keep in mind, I really feel for all the creators who came up with this stuff and never see a dime out of it. I felt really bad for Seigel and Schuster who were basically indigent at some point, I believe. That should not happen. But it shouldn't happen to anyone. It's just part of the American system, and expecting DC and Marvel to be somehow better than any other company in America is not going to work. I do beleive in trying to change that system though.

    And I really do feel like the heirs of a creator have nothing to stand on. They're basically vampires trying to support themselves on someone else's efforts, just like you're accusing DC and Marvel of doing. So who's in the right here? If Kirby, Seigel and Schuster and the guy who created Ghost Rider were here right now suing Marvel and DC, I'd be on their side.

    valhalla130 on
    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    @Nobody in particular:

    I'm tired of arguing with people who haven't bothered to educate themselves, so here's some easy bullet points.

    -Kirby never signed a contract. The closest he came, was signing his checks. When Marvel finally realized they were in a dangerous position with their copyrights, they mailed all their freelancers contracts, promising to release their original art to them, if they signed said contracts. Kirby was the only one to receive a non-standard contract, which said he'd have to sign away his rights to his creations, in order to receive the artwork he'd turned into Marvel, over his many years spent there. Which, by the way, was a mere fraction (88 out of 8,000+ pages) of the work he'd actually given to Marvel, because most of it had been stolen, given away to Marvel business associates, or lost in the miasma of a poor cataloging system.

    Oh, and he wouldn't actually be allowed to sell or display the art, because Marvel would only give him custodial rights to it. Which is a shitty way of saying they still wanted to own it, and use it as leverage to cement their holdings, without actually giving anything up.

    Does that count as duress? "Sure, we'll give you the art we know we have no legal right to, if you sign over all rights to everything you created."

    -Watchmen was never intended as work-for-hire. I can't repeat that enough, and anyone who ignores that, is being willfully obtuse. If it was, if DC really wanted to make sure they owned the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel, they'd have just used the Charlton characters, which they owned outright at the time.

    Moore has intimated in the past that, if he had the time, money, and inclination to take on DC/Time Warner, he could prove he still owns the Watchmen characters. This is given credence by the fact that DC offered to return to the rights to Moore, if he'd sign off on various prequel mini-series. He refused, and DC went ahead with it anyway.

    Does that count as duress? "We'll give you this thing, because we're such nice guys, but first we want you to okay all these other things."

    Marvel and DC exist to make money, and exploit commercial properties. That is what they do. I have no idea why it should surprise anyone, that they'd do so through shady exploitation of legal loopholes.

    -None of the creators attached to Before Watchmen, are starving artists, who had to take the job. They're all A-list guys and girls, who have worked on ad campaigns, animation, hit TV shows, and can generally take their pick of projects.
    And I really do feel like the heirs of a creator have nothing to stand on. They're basically vampires trying to support themselves on someone else's efforts, just like you're accusing DC and Marvel of doing. So who's in the right here? If Kirby, Seigel and Schuster and the guy who created Ghost Rider were here right now suing Marvel and DC, I'd be on their side.

    Quick question. Kirby becomes a millionaire in 1960, and that wealth grows exponentially over the years, as wealth tends to. Who does that money go to? Marvel, or his kids?

    People work hard, so they have something to pass onto their kids, so maybe they won't have to work as hard. The heirs of any creative professional have just as much right to pursue the money from their parents' creations, as their parents did. Ever hear of an estate?

    Fuck it, just read some of the other exhaustively long stuff I've posted about this.

    The Kirby, Miller, Evanier roundtable discussion.

    My argument with TLB about Before Watchmen, which spans a couple of pages.

    Really, despite Hensler's attempt to paint me as an extremist hippie, I'm not. I'm not some wide-eyed idealist who believes corporations are ever going to bend over backwards for their employees. For the vast majority of DC and Marvel-created properties, I don't think there's any kind of problem. Most of the concepts created since the early days of comics, were created under a better understanding of work-for-hire, and better contracts, specifically because everyone had watched the last generation get screwed.

    But, I believe that in the cases of Kirby and Moore/Gibbons, they were legitimately wronged, through the use of shitty contracts, and the vast amount of power that comes with corporate wealth. That can be legally right all day, or, "--how things are," and still be morally wrong.

    It can be hard to do the right thing, because sometimes it's hard to know what that even is. But, I think that, when someone is clearly stating they don't want you to do something, and you decide you're going to do it anyway (while also flapping your lips in acknowledgement that the work is being precipitated on a bad contract), that's just a shitty thing to do.

    Contrast that with the situation where Steve Gerber became upset by Jonathan Lathem and Farel Dalrymple's use of Omega the Unknown. Did Lathem and Dalrymple mince about and equivocate about how, sure it sucked, but golly they really like money?

    No, Lathem personally spoke to Gerber, and the two made peace. Would Lathem have gone ahead with it, even over Gerber's protests? I don't know, but I'd like to think not.

    Munch on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    A person can be legally right and morally wrong, or morally right and legally wrong. The law is shitty in lots of cases and sides with business rather than the individual more often than not.

  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    Munch wrote: »
    Quick question. Kirby becomes a millionaire in 1960, and that wealth grows exponentially over the years, as wealth tends to. Who does that money go to? Marvel, or his kids?

    People work hard, so they have something to pass onto their kids, so maybe they won't have to work as hard. The heirs of any creative professional have just as much right to pursue the money from their parents' creations, as their parents did. Ever hear of an estate?

    But people like Martin Goodman, Isaac Perlmutter, or Malcom Wheeler don't deserve to pass something they built onto their kids as well? Without the corporation and publishing infrastructure that was already in place, there's a good chance that Kirby would have probably doodled for newspapers in obscurity forever. It takes a lot more than talent to be successful, and the publisher's provided that system for him. They took all the risk in creating their companies and building them up, and deserve to get all the rewards they can.

    And the idea that Kirby was some poor beggar who was forced to sign an unfair contract to survive is way off base. He was one of the best paid comic creators of his time, and was making more at DC for doing two books a month than every other artist on the payroll combined, and made a similar salary when he returned to Marvel. That money provided a good lifestyle for his heirs, and could have been the foundation of the estate you're talking about. As it is, Kirby left behind a sizable estate, a ton of valuable art, and a catalog of less-successful characters that he did own. His kids DIDN'T have to work as hard as he did, but that's not enough for them. They're greedy leaches who are never going to be satisfied.

    Anyways, this is one of those arguments that's never going to go anywhere. Munch, you draw cool pictures of goat suckers and have good taste in art, but I'll always disagree with you on this.

  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    Now I want to know what characters Kirby did own and have they been used in anything since?

    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • ArrynArryn Ask not the Innkeeper For destiny is thy name!Registered User regular
    He created a bunch of characters for TOPPS (the sports card company) when they decided to dabble in the comics market way back in the late 80's/early 90's. Not sure if he owned those or not.

    They definitely did not take off the way TOPPS hoped they would.

  • Werewolf2000adWerewolf2000ad Suckers, I know exactly what went wrong. Registered User regular
    Arryn wrote: »
    He created a bunch of characters for TOPPS (the sports card company) when they decided to dabble in the comics market way back in the late 80's/early 90's. Not sure if he owned those or not.

    Yeah, the Kirbyverse stuff he owned. It included the two creator-owned characters he'd made for Pacific - Captain Victory and Silver Star - and all the characters have been reappearing in that Kirby: Genesis thing from Dynamite. Pretty sure they were all pre-existing concepts he had laying around.
    They definitely did not take off the way TOPPS hoped they would.

    No kidding. There were at least two minis that got cancelled after one issue. Part of the problem was that Kirby himself didn't actually write or draw any of them aside from a few covers[*] and other writers and artist are always death to any post Marvel/DC Kirby concepts - Which sadly tended to be warmed over rehashes of past glories even when he did them (see the original Captain Victory comics). I can't blame the man for a desire to recreate his previous successes in a form where he would reap the profits, but the magic just wasn't there. (Honourable exception: the original Silver Star miniseries for Pacific, which is so over-the-top, unedited, straight from the brain to the page, pure balls-out KIRBY that it loops round through 'self-parody' and back into 'insane genius'.)

    *: Apart from the 'Satan's Six' thing, where the first issue had a bunch of incomplete Kirby story pages that a different writer and artist had to desperately try and construct a comic around. It's just as terrible as it sounds.

    steam_sig.png
    EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    I wanna bitch about AVX Vs. #4, it does exactly what the book shouldn't do, as even the recap page makes it very clear it's the book where two people slug it out until there's a victor:
    Daredevil vs. Psylocke ends in a draw. It literally says the verdict: draw, even though it had Betsy beating Matt until he pulls some BS guilt trip about the X-Men putting the Avengers on their own island and runs away.

    This same thing happened in #2 with one of the fights, where it didn't even feel like a fight, just a placeholder where you didn't have a clear winner because someone runs away.

    The whole series was announced in a way that it felt like it would be some good fights by top talent that you want to see, because how hard is it to screw up fights in a comic? But it's just been a mediocre Power Rangers type battle between characters, but it's that middle battle that takes place before the team gets into their dinozords and save the day. I mean, it really feels like the writers are doing this for a paycheck, not because it's a story that needs to be told. If the series was promoted as the place to let artists try their hand at writing, and wasn't made out to be the most important tie-in to the event, it would be another thing. These fights simply don't matter so far, when you have a perfect excuse in the main series for them to actually matter, because one side is actively putting the others in jail, show that.

    edit: for instance, we just had two fights in the main series where the X-Men capture some Avengers, show how those avengers got captured. The fights just feel really distant, like they are basically picking a level (city rooftop, desert), picking some characters from the select screen (some aren't unlocked yet), and that's that.

    TexiKen on
  • HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    That Alan Davis FF annual was pretty bad.

    I really love his art, too. But man... that was just sad.

    And the Daredevil one will be in my pull, too. Hrmm...

  • Lord BuzzkillingtonLord Buzzkillington Registered User regular
    Munch wrote: »
    -Kirby never signed a contract. The closest he came, was signing his checks. When Marvel finally realized they were in a dangerous position with their copyrights, they mailed all their freelancers contracts, promising to release their original art to them, if they signed said contracts. Kirby was the only one to receive a non-standard contract, which said he'd have to sign away his rights to his creations, in order to receive the artwork he'd turned into Marvel, over his many years spent there. Which, by the way, was a mere fraction (88 out of 8,000+ pages) of the work he'd actually given to Marvel, because most of it had been stolen, given away to Marvel business associates, or lost in the miasma of a poor cataloging system.

    Oh, and he wouldn't actually be allowed to sell or display the art, because Marvel would only give him custodial rights to it. Which is a shitty way of saying they still wanted to own it, and use it as leverage to cement their holdings, without actually giving anything up.

    Does that count as duress? "Sure, we'll give you the art we know we have no legal right to, if you sign over all rights to everything you created."

    -Watchmen was never intended as work-for-hire. I can't repeat that enough, and anyone who ignores that, is being willfully obtuse. If it was, if DC really wanted to make sure they owned the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel, they'd have just used the Charlton characters, which they owned outright at the time.

    Moore has intimated in the past that, if he had the time, money, and inclination to take on DC/Time Warner, he could prove he still owns the Watchmen characters. This is given credence by the fact that DC offered to return to the rights to Moore, if he'd sign off on various prequel mini-series. He refused, and DC went ahead with it anyway.

    Does that count as duress? "We'll give you this thing, because we're such nice guys, but first we want you to okay all these other things."

    Marvel and DC exist to make money, and exploit commercial properties. That is what they do. I have no idea why it should surprise anyone, that they'd do so through shady exploitation of legal loopholes.

    -None of the creators attached to Before Watchmen, are starving artists, who had to take the job. They're all A-list guys and girls, who have worked on ad campaigns, animation, hit TV shows, and can generally take their pick of projects.

    Kirby signing the paystubs and receiving payment was him surrendering the rights. It was also a contractual agreement, being money for ideas and artwork. I'm not a scholar of this stuff, but this website says that the later contract which Marvel had Kirby sign was because virtually all the earlier agreements were trashed and Marvel could not produce them in court. The artwork return contract was garbage, I agree, and Kirby should not have signed it. But the rights were gone already--he'd traded them for a paycheck. The artwork return sounds like a textbook case of duress, so there's that. Like, literally I have a textbook which discusses duress of the goods and it sounds the same. The original contracts, I argue, were sound however.

    I didn't say Watchmen was work-for-hire, I know it wasn't. It had a standard publishing contract whereby the creators receive the rights after it goes out of print. DC is doing no wrong by not permitting it to go out of print. Was it intended by the parties as creator owned? Who cares, the contract is what matters. I highly doubt that Moore can force the release of the rights for his characters because there's really nothing unique about the rights release clause. Publishers use it all the time. Usually the creators get the rights because the work isn't worth publishing in perpetuity. In this case, it totally is!

    DC offering to return the rights for more work does not prove that they can't keep the rights. It just proves that they'd prefer Moore write some more work than to keep reprinting Watchmen. Also, that's not duress, that's an actual contract. Contract = I give you this (rights) you give me this (additional work/endorsement). Quid pro quo. No duress at all in that example.

    As for how financially well-off the creators are, I don't know. I can't comment. Len Wein certainly isn't in the big bucks considering he and his wife were living off Swamp Thing royalties a few years back, but that's the only thing that comes to mind.

  • Lord BuzzkillingtonLord Buzzkillington Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Doubbbble post.

    Lord Buzzkillington on
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I gotta bitch

    I want to buy and support the new captain marvel series

    but the art is fucking awful

  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    I gotta bitch

    I want to buy and support the new captain marvel series

    but the art is fucking awful

    yep

    it's funny, i was singlehandedly sold on the new captain marvel by the promo images of her new costume

    and then i saw what was going on inside the comics and i was completely unsold again

    where are the bright colours? it looked good with the bright colours

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Yeah it is really dark and lumpy to look at

    too much ink, too many shadows, not enough definition or light

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    It's like they're daring you not to buy it.

    "Go ahead, prove that Marvel can't float a female solo title again."

  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    i would fucking love to buy a female solo title

    i don't even care who at this point

    it could be power girl or ms marvel or zatanna or she-hulk or the question or the scarlet fucking witch for all i care

    as long as she's not a demonhunting stripper i'm fucking sold

  • HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    Wonder Woman is great, Birds of Prey is good, Supergirl is good, and World's Finest is pretty solid as well.

    So at least DC has a few. There's probably even another one I'm forgetting.

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    Catwoman and Batgirl.

  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    World's Finest is so solid that it does absolutely nothing interesting

  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    World's Finest turned out to be boring as hell.

    It's like Levitz figured out a way to repurpose the exact same script three issues in a row.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    I'm trying to not spend money on anything but my visa

    Enjoyable comics coming out every fucking week is not helping

    I am bitching about joy and an affordable (though irritating) drain on my wallet during a time of acute economic hardship for people all over the Earth

    *huff*

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Catwoman isn't that good

    Batgirl is pretty crap

    Wonder Woman is good right now though

  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    i would fucking love to buy a female solo title

    i don't even care who at this point

    it could be power girl or ms marvel or zatanna or she-hulk or the question or the scarlet fucking witch for all i care

    as long as she's not a demonhunting stripper i'm fucking sold

    Witchblade. Seriously.

    Yeah, it was basically a demonhunting stripper cop cheesecake book for years. But then Ron Marz took over and made it fantastic, along with the rest of the Top Cow universe. It's went down a little bit in quality since he left the book last year, but it's still the best female solo title around (2nd best is the Witchblade/Darknesss spin-off book Magdalena). I'm always trying to get people to give Top Cow another chance. Artifacts was THE best event comic written in a long time, and Marvel and DC should be taking notes from it.

This discussion has been closed.