| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike Daniels
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 206
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RichJohnston wrote: |
Erik,
What evidence do you have that Todd McFarlane owns Marvelman/Miracleman? |
I don't think Erik has ever said that Rich, I think there's a fervour in his posts regarding Gaiman as didn't Gaiman try to sue Image as well?
Gaiman clearly had the chance to take whatever McFarlane owned pertaining to Miracleman even if it was just the film he had sitting in his basement (Gaiman's) as he repeatedly stated the suit was about until he decided not to do what he repeatedly said he was setting out to do.
I don't believe Erik thinks McFarlane owns Marvelman/Miracleman outright, I never seen him post that, just that Gaiman set Marvels & Miracles to purchase everything to do with MM so that it could be printed and new stories published and when offered the oppertunity to take all of McFarlane's properties and claims out of the equation, whatever they may be, he left them with McFarlane instead.
Rich instead of acting as PR for Marvel why don't you investigate what Gaiman's Marvels and Miracles has been up to the last 8 years or so, I've often wondered why Gaiman sat on the MM film for years never attempting to sort out the rights or publish it until he learnt McFarlane planned on doing something with it and launched a suit instead of publishing the stuff as he always claimed he wanted to do?
How much money has Marvels & Miracles accrued over the last 8 years, what have they done to financially sort out Mick Anglo and all the other MM creators.
Why has Gaiman done nothing regarding publishing the 25th issue for 8 years or so despite both he and Levin claiming they were looking into publishing as soon as posible, sooner than we might think especially given that they claimed in 2001 (?) McFarlane had no MM rights.
Who paid Anglo? Marvel or Marvels and Miracles?
The intention of Marvels and Miracles was to purchase all MM rights and control them according to Gaiman yes? and that Marvel would then publish it? What has Marvels and Miracles done in the last 8 years that Marvel not Gaiman et al now owns MM "outright"?
Moore has already said he doesn't want to be paid again for his MM work and wants it to go to MM creator Mick Anglo, what's Gaiman stance given his public statements concerning the suit about 'Creator's rights' and 'respecting creators'? Can you ask him if he's going to continue profitting from the issues he wrote that Anglo didn't see a penny from?
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thomas
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 514
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RichJohnston wrote: | | Erik Larsen wrote: | They could certainly collect all of the Mick Anglo's Marvelman stuff from the '50s--not that most readers will care a whole lot about a Captain Marvel knockoff but it's going to get pretty messy if they try and reprint the Moore or Gaiman Miracleman stuff--and that's the only stuff people really care about.
If they skip that and update Marvelman and avoid the other stuff--will fans really care? |
There are issues and I've mentioned a few on Bleeding Cool. But if Alan Moore has washed his hands, Neil Gaiman, Mark Buckingham and Alan Davis are on board, and they are talking to Garry Leach, it's getting a lot closer.
I also understand though that a rival bid that Marvel beat may have seen that series published through Image Comics. |
If Alan and these others came together and helped Mick get that property up and running years ago, that would have been a real cool thing and mick and his family would have been reaping the benefits for years. But they didn't |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Mallette
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Larsen
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 5955
Location: Oakland
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great.
What would really be ideal--would be for Neil to do the right thing and swap his share of Angel for whatever stake Todd has in Miracleman. At this point these two guys are standing in the way of each other and whatever stories they might have to tell.
A Spawn evil-twin for a Captain Marvel knockoff-- that seems fair enough.
I don't know all of the details. I've talked to Todd far too much about this and it's taken up far too many hours of his life--I can't imagine what Neil thinks he can do with Angela the Spawn hunter-- her whole gig is hunting Spawn, after all. That would be like getting the rights to Lex Luthor but not Superman--I mean seriously--what good owning a piece of the bad guy without owning the good guy?
In any case--I don't know Neil--maybe he's a great guy--I dunno. I really should be calling him names--but backing out on that swap just seemed like bad news for everybody.
_________________
-Erik Larsen
Savage Dragon perpetrator
www.savagedragon.com
www.imagecomics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Daylight
Joined: 03 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Erik Larsen wrote: | | What would really be ideal--would be for Neil to do the right thing and swap his share of Angel for whatever stake Todd has in Miracleman. At this point these two guys are standing in the way of each other and whatever stories they might have to tell. |
Ideal from your biased point of view. What stake does Todd McFarlane actually have in Miracleman? I don't think the impression Gaiman was given when he entered into that agreement matches up with the reality of what he was being offered. And there is the crux of why the court case went as it did.
| Quote: | | A Spawn evil-twin for a Captain Marvel knockoff-- that seems fair enough. |
It might seem fair enough if he were trading with Mick Anglo rather than Todd McFarlane.
| Quote: | | I don't know all of the details. I've talked to Todd far too much about this and it's taken up far too many hours of his life--I can't imagine what Neil thinks he can do with Angela the Spawn hunter-- her whole gig is hunting Spawn, after all. That would be like getting the rights to Lex Luthor but not Superman--I mean seriously--what good owning a piece of the bad guy without owning the good guy? |
It's not a matter of what Neil Gaiman plans on doing with Angela the Spawn Hunter. It's a matter of creative rights - about ensuring that the guy who delivered him dodgy goods doesn't get the payment of his creative services. Creative rights, of course, being the very principle Image Comics was supposedly founded on - what a shame you seem to have lost sight of those lofty goals... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichJohnston
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Erik Larsen wrote: | Great.
What would really be ideal--would be for Neil to do the right thing and swap his share of Angel for whatever stake Todd has in Miracleman.
|
Erik,
Why shouldn't Neil swap his share of Angela for whatever stake you have in Miracleman? Or whatever stake John Byrne has? Or Obama? Or the estate of Charlie Chaplin?
Because right now it looks like the same thing.
I mean, would you be willing swap your share of, I dunno, She Dragon for whatever stake I have in Savage Dragon?
At this point, Marvel are asserting their claim to Marvelman. Todd McFarlane Productions wouldn't give me comment, but looking at whatever paperwork I can, I can't see how they'd have a case, save for a frivolous one. While Neil hopes that Todd won't sue, I think he also hopes that anyone with enough money to run up a case doesn't sue.
Say I had a few spare million to spend on lawyers. What would you give me not to sue over the ownership of Savage Dragon? Even if, through some legal dalliance, I managed to put the book on hold for a couple of months?
Neil co-created the character of Angela as part of a handshake creator-owned deal with Todd. Which means that when Todd uses Angels he should pay Neil something. Except he didn't.
I don't think Neil wants to publish Angela comics. He just wanted Todd to live up to the deal they made. At once point the rights to Marvelman/Miracleman were going to be part of that - until they discovered that the rights were never owned.
It's like backing out on swapping two classic cars when you suddenly realise that the car that's been presented as a Ferrarri is actually two Skodas stuck together with masking tape, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichJohnston
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas wrote: |
If Alan and these others came together and helped Mick get that property up and running years ago, that would have been a real cool thing and mick and his family would have been reaping the benefits for years. But they didn't |
I understand that the current deal has been in the works for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Daniels
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 206
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | Ideal from your biased point of view. What stake does Todd McFarlane actually have in Miracleman? I don't think the impression Gaiman was given when he entered into that agreement matches up with the reality of what he was being offered. And there is the crux of why the court case went as it did. |
Ideal from Gaiman's point of view originally as well; as that was the deal he took the suit to get enforced. Gaiman had the MM film sitting in his basement and as far as he knew the MM rights for 4 years and did nothing with them till he learnt McFarlane was planning on bringing MM back
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | It might seem fair enough if he were trading with Mick Anglo rather than Todd McFarlane. |
Well don't forget it seems Gaiman didn't give 2 fucks about elderly Mick Anglo and his sick wife, he repeatedly referred to himself as a creator wronged but never Mick Anglo and has for the last 8 years pocketed money for MM whilst it appears it fell to Marvel within the last few days to compensate Anglo.
Gaiman set up Marvels and Miracles LLC in 2001 specifically to look after the creators and MM rights and seemingly did nothing for 8 years to look after Anglo or anyone else involved except count the money coming in.
Then hey presto it isn't Gaiman's M&M LLC war chest buying the MM rights and looking after Anglo; it's Marvel!
What happens to all the money M&M Accrued, how much money did Gaiman collect to secure and manage and compensate the MM rights that Marvel just bought?
It's great 94 year old Anglo and his sick wife is being looked after financially by Marvel, what was Gaiman doing for the last 8 years?
It appears he didn't even talk to the other creator's who 'lent' him their MM rights in that Marvel is still has to talk to some of them and Buckingham was taken by surprise by the announcement.
Marvel funded Gaiman's M&M LLC suit so that he could get WHATEVER rights McFarlane had, Gaiman chose monies for himself instead.
As is evident by his apparent (I've never read anything to the contray) lack of any action and compensation for Anglo or any of the other MM creators over the years despite accruing funds for just that the only creator's rights Gaiman clearly cares about are his own.
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | It's not a matter of what Neil Gaiman plans on doing with Angela the Spawn Hunter. It's a matter of creative rights - about ensuring that the guy who delivered him dodgy goods doesn't get the payment of his creative services. Creative rights, of course, being the very principle Image Comics was supposedly founded on - what a shame you seem to have lost sight of those lofty goals... |
And you seem to be very short sighted.
McFarlane's no saint, but in terms of creator's rights he's at the vanguard; he established Image, he's employed hundreds of people, he's supported all the organisations Gaiman shouts about supporting and he hasn't taken the money of a company with an appalling track record on creators rights to fund his own battle for creators rights (even though Gaiman had several bestselling novels and screenplays in the bank).
What has Gaiman done to compare? He writes for Marvel, writes for DC, takes Marvel money to fund his lawsuit, collects money to purchase MM rights, does nothing with it for 8 years or compensates or discusses it with the other 'MM shareholders', and is pleased that Marvel (whom Moore hates) buys MM outright (and I doubt given his friendship with Queseada and Marvel's funding of his M&M LLC that Gaiman was in the dark about this).
When it comes to creators rights over MM, Gaiman is a class A Dick.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Daniels
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 206
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RichJohnston wrote: | | I understand that the current deal has been in the works for years. |
So what has Gaiman been doing with M&M LLC for the last 8 years Rich?
Where's all the money gone?
If McFarlane has nothing why didn't Gaiman publish MM #25?
Why does it seem that Marvel and not Gaiman or M&M LLC were doing all the legwork and deals regarding purchasing the MM rights?
Were all the shareholders aware that Marvel was in negotiations to purchase MM, was Gaiman given that it was contrary to what he set up the Marvel funded M&M LLC to do?
Why hasn't Gaiman followed Moore in stating that he wants any money he'll make from his future MM go to Anglo?
What prevented you from breaking the story a day early?
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Mallette
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This THREAD-PAUSE, meant to give all parties a cheap laugh, is brought to you by CLOBBER™ soon to be teaming up with Medieval Sandman:
| Clobber wrote: | | IT'S TIME TO SETTLE THIS THING |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miyamotofreak
Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What happened to Smash!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Mallette
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miyamotofreak wrote: | | What happened to Smash!? |
Ah see what I just did? Anyway, I've been too busy talking about this on Jinxworld already (that and the lack of headlines for a 150th milestone issue) so carry on guys, sorry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Larsen
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 5955
Location: Oakland
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | Erik Larsen wrote: | | What would really be ideal--would be for Neil to do the right thing and swap his share of Angel for whatever stake Todd has in Miracleman. At this point these two guys are standing in the way of each other and whatever stories they might have to tell. |
Ideal from your biased point of view. What stake does Todd McFarlane actually have in Miracleman? I don't think the impression Gaiman was given when he entered into that agreement matches up with the reality of what he was being offered. And there is the crux of why the court case went as it did. |
If Todd owns nothing--why worry about him suing? Why the big delay? Why didn't he publish Miracleman years ago? Why the song and dance? I really don't have a horse in the race. I have no stake in it.
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | Quote: | | A Spawn evil-twin for a Captain Marvel knockoff-- that seems fair enough. |
It might seem fair enough if he were trading with Mick Anglo rather than Todd McFarlane. |
Except that Todd bought something--it may have just been a pice of a bastardized version of Mick Anglo's copy version of Captain Marvel but it was something and what Neil co-"created" was--let's face it--an evil twin. Angela is hardly an original creation to begin with and she was designed by Todd and features Todd's trademark Spawn emblem all over her costume.
And if these guys really gave a crap about Mick Anglo--they should have done something about it years ago. Dredging it up now seems to be too little, too late.
If Marvel didn't see this as a way of thumbing their nose at Todd and stealing the character out out from under him--do you really think they would give two shits about Mick Anglo? They were willing to piss on the guys who created their biggest franchises but they would have gone the extra mile for some guy in another country who created a Captain Marvel knockoff in the '50? Somehow I doubt it.
| Tom Daylight wrote: | | Quote: | | I don't know all of the details. I've talked to Todd far too much about this and it's taken up far too many hours of his life--I can't imagine what Neil thinks he can do with Angela the Spawn hunter-- her whole gig is hunting Spawn, after all. That would be like getting the rights to Lex Luthor but not Superman--I mean seriously--what good owning a piece of the bad guy without owning the good guy? |
It's not a matter of what Neil Gaiman plans on doing with Angela the Spawn Hunter. It's a matter of creative rights - about ensuring that the guy who delivered him dodgy goods doesn't get the payment of his creative services. Creative rights, of course, being the very principle Image Comics was supposedly founded on - what a shame you seem to have lost sight of those lofty goals... |
So--when Marvel buys a character--that's fine and dandy--that's doing the right thing--but when Todd does it--he's an evil bastard. What a crock of shit!
A couple guys steal a character from Mick Anglo--twist him and remake him and turn him from being a straight up Captain Marvel clone into something else--and that's great--no shame on them--that's fine and dandy. It's fine for them to steal that character if it results in a comic book you want to read.
Now that Todd bought that bastardization-- suddenly he's the bad guy.
Your creator's rights argument is bullshit. The creators gave rights to Eclipse. Eclipse sold the rights--Todd bought them. Where was the crime in that? Whose rights were trampled on? Now that Marvel is in the game--they're the good guys--those bastions of creators' rights--who did, essentially, the same thing Todd did and bought the rights to a bastardized version of somebody else's character--they're good and Todd's bad.
Fascinating.
_________________
-Erik Larsen
Savage Dragon perpetrator
www.savagedragon.com
www.imagecomics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 514
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like Neil Gaiman, but when he was hired by Todd to write a one off spawn story what was his motive for co-creating characters tied to a hugely profitable property (at the time) owned by someone else (Todd MCfarlane) with the intention of owning them, yet not informing the person who hired them that was his intention? Shouldn't he have written a story without any new characters since it was for a book someone else owned?
Does anyone think Todd would have designed those characters and drew that story if he thought he'd be signing over part of the spawn universe to someone else? And how is that about creators rights Tom?
Todd could have designed those characters himself, his character was from hell, does anyone not think an angel would have eventually showed up, and looked like angela.
Neil also co- owns a version of Spawn right? Even though it's just a Spawn in armour. Why doesn't that seem shady to anybody? I'd be very curious to know what Neil's reasoning on that was Rich.
Last edited by Thomas on Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:22 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 514
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neil gaiman got 40k from Erik larsen because Erik talked about him? Not a fan of the 1st amendment I guess.
Last edited by Thomas on Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:24 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
