Post by defiant1 on Jan 2, 2011 20:54:11 GMT -5
Not my thread, but I thought this was nice collection of Twitter posts that i found on another board....
df1
So... it was a fun afternoon, watching Erik Larsen spout off on Twitter about Neil Gaiman's win over Todd McFarlane in the derivative characters case (http://comicrelated.com/blog.php#pay-up-spawn-boy):
All quotes are from Larsen's Twitter account:
QUOTE
the Neil Gaiman thing perplexes me because it seems so unfair. The characters he created were clearly derivative of the ones Todd created.
How anybody can look at Medieval Spawn and side with Neil just shows their bias against Todd. It's Spawn on a horse, for cryin' out loud!
Everything Neil created was derived from Todd's creations and all of it was designed by Todd. Claiming ownership just seems really unfair.
Now Todd is forced to have people sign work-for-hire contracts. It's sad--but that's the price we all have to pay.
There's obviously much more to it than any of us can sum up in 140 characters.
Honestly, it shouldn't be THAT much, @jacobpigott --because Neil's half was based on Todd's creations--1/4 is too much.
Arthur Adams did a pinup for Savage Dragon 100 with a million Dragon variations on it and he said I could have them all. Art is a class act
What was foolish, @jacobpigott was Todd expecting Gaiman to agree with him on what was fair. He should have had Neil sign a contract.
Angela is essentially an evil twin though, @pepperchopjohn he's a devil--she's an angel, etc. It's doing the obvious.
If Gaiman wrote Savage Dragon he'd create a villain called the White Knight. I don't need HIM to do the bloody obvious. I can do that alone.
Okay... that's went I went "Meow!" - seemed catty... But Larsen wasn't finished:
QUOTE
...But then I know Todd--so mine is actually an informed opinion.
Ultimately, it's not my fight--but when it comes to working with others--I DO lay down the ground rules to avoid any potential conflict.
--and that includes saying upfront that any derivative characters belong to me. It's not okay for somebody else to own Dragon's dog.
And--ultimately--there's a reason Todd got sued and I didn't. It has something to do with WHO I do business with--and HOW I do business.
Well, yeah--the advantage of work-for-hire is that characters are locked in and the rug can't be pulled out
How very noble of Neil to first rip off Todd's characters and then donate the proceeds to charity, @whozeduke --he's a real class act
The end result, sadly, is that these two guys are ending up cock-blocking each other and the readers lose.
Here's where I draw the line, @pepperchopjohn Angela could not be created independently of Spawn.
Take a character like the Joker--and yes, he COULD exist without there having been a Batman. Dr. Doom could exist without the FF.
But if a character could not exist without another character existing first--it's clearly derivative. Angela absolutely is derivative.
Then Larsen and Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston got into a Twitter exchange... check out their respective accounts for more. it's not entirely related - has more to do about when the Image guys left Marvel. But Larsen kept going aside from that:
QUOTE
No kidding--Todd absolutely fucked up, @the_frontera if I was in his place and Neil pitched Angela to me--there's no way I'd say "do it."
Obviously it is, @theuranian it's a minefield. And you can argue that nothing is created in a vacuum. Spawn couldn't exist without hell.
In a different world--Jerry Robinson has a falling out with DC and takes the Joker elsewhere--and he could totally work on his own--
Angela can't work without Spawn. She is a Spawn hunter with Spawn earrings whose whole motivation is hunting Spawns.
I just think that an original creation should stand on its own
If Supergirl was created at Marvel, for example, DC would sue them. If the Joker had been created at Marvel--DC would have no grounds to sue
Neil Gaiman could not have created Angela elsewhere. Her existence is dependent on Spawn and Todd McFarlane.
And seriously--I wish the law made sense and juries were impartial. I've seen enough "justice" to know it's largely a myth.
Ultimately, what Todd did was very foolish.
I doubt that it occurred to Todd at the time that anybody could consider a derivative character creator-owned
That assumption, ultimately, bit him in the ass.
I think it will cause people to be more cautious and have more contracts in place
The lesson learned is not to assume anything.
Larsen and Kurt Busiek went back and forth. Here's Larsen's side:
QUOTE
Good and bad. It's a shame that it's necessary. @kurtbusiek but I'm sure both Neil and Todd thought their position was fair.
I still prefer a world that operated as it did when I was 10-years old, @kurtbusiek contracts are a pain in the ass.
True, @kurtbusiek even still--most of my deals are done with an email trail and a virtual handshake
Ultimately, Neil Himself piped up. From his Twitter account (http://twitter.com/neilhimself):
QUOTE
Of course @erikjlarsen is grumpy over me winning again. He ran Image when the 1st round of the case gave me a $40,000 judgment against them.
Last time @erikjlarsen blamed the loss not on Todd breaking the law, but on a female jury (& now on a female judge?) bit.ly/cbrs8i
Other creators joined in:
"Edgar Allen Poo" Creator Dwight MacPherson (http://twitter.com/D_MacPherson):
QUOTE
@neilhimself Yeah, but when is he NOT grouchy? Congrats on the court win, by the way. Always good to see a creator win out over The Man.
And I can't be sure, but I think writer Brian Reed (http://twitter.com/BrianReed) was referencing Larsen when he wrote:
QUOTE
Watching most retarded comics industry thing I've ever seen on Twitter. Fascinating. No, I won't say who. You already know if you need to.
What you can learn on Twitter...
All quotes are from Larsen's Twitter account:
QUOTE
the Neil Gaiman thing perplexes me because it seems so unfair. The characters he created were clearly derivative of the ones Todd created.
How anybody can look at Medieval Spawn and side with Neil just shows their bias against Todd. It's Spawn on a horse, for cryin' out loud!
Everything Neil created was derived from Todd's creations and all of it was designed by Todd. Claiming ownership just seems really unfair.
Now Todd is forced to have people sign work-for-hire contracts. It's sad--but that's the price we all have to pay.
There's obviously much more to it than any of us can sum up in 140 characters.
Honestly, it shouldn't be THAT much, @jacobpigott --because Neil's half was based on Todd's creations--1/4 is too much.
Arthur Adams did a pinup for Savage Dragon 100 with a million Dragon variations on it and he said I could have them all. Art is a class act
What was foolish, @jacobpigott was Todd expecting Gaiman to agree with him on what was fair. He should have had Neil sign a contract.
Angela is essentially an evil twin though, @pepperchopjohn he's a devil--she's an angel, etc. It's doing the obvious.
If Gaiman wrote Savage Dragon he'd create a villain called the White Knight. I don't need HIM to do the bloody obvious. I can do that alone.
Okay... that's went I went "Meow!" - seemed catty... But Larsen wasn't finished:
QUOTE
...But then I know Todd--so mine is actually an informed opinion.
Ultimately, it's not my fight--but when it comes to working with others--I DO lay down the ground rules to avoid any potential conflict.
--and that includes saying upfront that any derivative characters belong to me. It's not okay for somebody else to own Dragon's dog.
And--ultimately--there's a reason Todd got sued and I didn't. It has something to do with WHO I do business with--and HOW I do business.
Well, yeah--the advantage of work-for-hire is that characters are locked in and the rug can't be pulled out
How very noble of Neil to first rip off Todd's characters and then donate the proceeds to charity, @whozeduke --he's a real class act
The end result, sadly, is that these two guys are ending up cock-blocking each other and the readers lose.
Here's where I draw the line, @pepperchopjohn Angela could not be created independently of Spawn.
Take a character like the Joker--and yes, he COULD exist without there having been a Batman. Dr. Doom could exist without the FF.
But if a character could not exist without another character existing first--it's clearly derivative. Angela absolutely is derivative.
Then Larsen and Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston got into a Twitter exchange... check out their respective accounts for more. it's not entirely related - has more to do about when the Image guys left Marvel. But Larsen kept going aside from that:
QUOTE
No kidding--Todd absolutely fucked up, @the_frontera if I was in his place and Neil pitched Angela to me--there's no way I'd say "do it."
Obviously it is, @theuranian it's a minefield. And you can argue that nothing is created in a vacuum. Spawn couldn't exist without hell.
In a different world--Jerry Robinson has a falling out with DC and takes the Joker elsewhere--and he could totally work on his own--
Angela can't work without Spawn. She is a Spawn hunter with Spawn earrings whose whole motivation is hunting Spawns.
I just think that an original creation should stand on its own
If Supergirl was created at Marvel, for example, DC would sue them. If the Joker had been created at Marvel--DC would have no grounds to sue
Neil Gaiman could not have created Angela elsewhere. Her existence is dependent on Spawn and Todd McFarlane.
And seriously--I wish the law made sense and juries were impartial. I've seen enough "justice" to know it's largely a myth.
Ultimately, what Todd did was very foolish.
I doubt that it occurred to Todd at the time that anybody could consider a derivative character creator-owned
That assumption, ultimately, bit him in the ass.
I think it will cause people to be more cautious and have more contracts in place
The lesson learned is not to assume anything.
Larsen and Kurt Busiek went back and forth. Here's Larsen's side:
QUOTE
Good and bad. It's a shame that it's necessary. @kurtbusiek but I'm sure both Neil and Todd thought their position was fair.
I still prefer a world that operated as it did when I was 10-years old, @kurtbusiek contracts are a pain in the ass.
True, @kurtbusiek even still--most of my deals are done with an email trail and a virtual handshake
Ultimately, Neil Himself piped up. From his Twitter account (http://twitter.com/neilhimself):
QUOTE
Of course @erikjlarsen is grumpy over me winning again. He ran Image when the 1st round of the case gave me a $40,000 judgment against them.
Last time @erikjlarsen blamed the loss not on Todd breaking the law, but on a female jury (& now on a female judge?) bit.ly/cbrs8i
Other creators joined in:
"Edgar Allen Poo" Creator Dwight MacPherson (http://twitter.com/D_MacPherson):
QUOTE
@neilhimself Yeah, but when is he NOT grouchy? Congrats on the court win, by the way. Always good to see a creator win out over The Man.
And I can't be sure, but I think writer Brian Reed (http://twitter.com/BrianReed) was referencing Larsen when he wrote:
QUOTE
Watching most retarded comics industry thing I've ever seen on Twitter. Fascinating. No, I won't say who. You already know if you need to.
What you can learn on Twitter...
df1
