Creator's Rights

Creator's Rights => Creator's Rights Discussions => Topic started by: Al Nickerson on March 01, 2006, 07:37:31 PM

Title: Sim on Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on March 01, 2006, 07:37:31 PM
In a letter to Dave Sim, I started a conversation concerning Todd McFarlane's "Man Of Miracles" statue. Here's what I wrote to Dave about the subject...

At Rich Johnston’s LYING IN THE GUTTERS ( VOL 2 COLUMN 38 ) website, Rich posts a picture of Todd McFarlane's "Man Of Miracles" statue (I am also including the "Man Of Miracles" picture for you to check out.)…

"Todd McFarlane's "Man Of Miracles" toy. That's right, ignore the logo, that's "Man of Miracles". A leather jacket can hide many a sin. You don't think that needle's in an unfortunate position to be crouching?"

Concerning the topic of Todd McFarlane's "Man Of Miracles" statue; at his blog, Steve Bissette writes, "Todd McFarlane once again defies all rational behavior, continuing to traffic in characters and properties that are not his, never were his, and which he never, ever had a hand in."

It seems to me that Todd just wants to aggravate people by his continued use of the Miracle Man property. As I’ve said before, this whole mess could start clearing up if Todd and Neil Gaiman just worked out an agreement where Neil exchanged his ownership of his Spawn characters with any ownership that Todd has over Miracle Man. It’s sad seeing all the spitefulness…. But, we are talking comics, aren’t we?


(http://albert.nickerson.tripod.com/creatorsrightsmiracles.jpg)

Dave responded with this letter (which I'm posting in it's entirety)...

(http://albert.nickerson.tripod.com/creatorsrightssim021706.jpg)
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on March 02, 2006, 02:14:56 PM
Although I tend to almost always agree with Dave Sim on issues of creator’s rights, I have to disagree with him on this one. I think Todd McFarlane’s "Man of Miracles" statue shows Todd’s unyielding behavior in trying to claim the rights to Miracle Man.  I think that Todd calling this property "Man of Miracles" and not "Miracle Man" suggests that Todd really isn’t trying to make Miracle Man a public domain property. I don’t think I would be wrong in thinking that Todd McFarlane would not be all too happy if anyone takes the idea that Miracle Man is within the public domain and creates their own version of Miracle Man.

For more info on the Neil Gaiman vs. Todd McFarlane feud with commments by Erik Larsen, Dave Sim, and Steve Bissette, go here (http://www.creators.qcomics.net/viewtopic.php?t=26).
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on March 03, 2006, 10:38:34 AM
From Steve Bissette's blog (http://www.srbissette.com/theblog.html), Steve shares his thoughts on this issue...

"I think Dave's full of shit on the whole Marvelman/Miracleman issue, though I understand he's talking about the rights to the character and concept, not the body of work which is still the property of Alan Moore, Gary Leach, Alan Davis, John Totleben, Rick Veitch, Neil Gaiman, etc. -- or at least, I hope he's not talking about the entire Miracleman canon. To my mind, Todd McFarlane has been 100% in the wrong since day one on this issue, and has only continued to act like a bully and lout. But, hey, that's (just) me."
Title: re: Man of Miracles
Post by: Rich_Henn on March 05, 2006, 07:23:40 PM
How quickly Todd forgets the whole TONY TWIST debacle.

I'm more insulted that McFarlane can't create something new, he has to swipe from other, BETTER characters/ideas.

Sad.
Title: Frauds
Post by: The Truth on April 13, 2006, 05:33:44 AM
Gaiman and McFarlane are both thiefs, they dont own Miracleman, Mick Anglo does, you people are hypocrites.

What about Anglo's creators rights? They are both guilty.


The Truth
Title: Re: Frauds
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 13, 2006, 09:56:29 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"
Gaiman and McFarlane are both thiefs, they dont own Miracleman, Mick Anglo does, you people are hypocrites.

What about Anglo's creators rights? They are both guilty.


The Truth


Hi Truth.  You seem very passionate about Mick Anglo (http://www.creators.qcomics.net/viewtopic.php?t=35). Many of us are passionate about the subject of Creator’s Rights, as well.

You do bring up a good point, though. For example, I think we can all agree that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko (and maybe Jack Kirby, but that’s another totally hot topic) should, ethically, own the rights to Spider-Man. However, legally they do not.

So, in the case of Mick Anglo (as far as my understanding goes), Mike created Miracleman, so he should (at least partly) own the rights to the character. However, I’m not quite sure what sort of contract he signed with his publisher. So, I don’t know, as in the case of Spider-Man, if he had signed away his rights to Miracleman.

It does look like the ownership of Miracleman has turned into a very complicated matter. Up until now, we’ve focused our attention to the claims of Gaiman and McFarlane over Miracleman. I’m sure there are even more creators who have a stake in ownership of the character.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen R Bissette on April 13, 2006, 10:36:30 AM
I'm hoping 'The Truth' is willing to follow up, as this is all important stuff, given (1) the ongoing debacle involving the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN rights situation and (2) the by-and-large undiscussed issue of UK creator proprietary laws vs. US copyright and TM laws.

I hasten to add, I am posting here as an interested creator with 30 years experience as a freelance creator, not an attorney -- I'd looooooooove to read someone genuinely verse in law (US and UK/Europe) weigh in on this in detail.

First off, let's be clear: We're discussing three 'entities', if you will, now four:

(1) The Mick Anglo MARVELMAN body of work created and published in the UK prior to 1980.

(2) The character of Mick Anglo's MARVELMAN relevent to that body of work, and all relevent trademarks.

(3) The Alan Moore & various artists/Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham (is that right? I'm writing off the top of my head here) body of MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN work created after 1980.

(4) The character of MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN, based upon Mick Anglo's original creation, as revised and revamped by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, et al after 1980, and all relevent trademarks.

As far as my reading and experience (I'm friends with, or was friends with, a number of those involved in #3 and #4) goes, it's clear to me that somewhere between the end of the runs of Mick Anglo's MARVELMAN -- created, by all accounts, to 'fill the gap' suddenly created by the demise of CAPTAIN MARVEL UK reprints following Fawcett's closing up shop (prompted by National Periodical/DC's lawsuit against Fawcett contending CAPTAIN MARVEL was a SUPERMAN ripoff) -- and the historic resurrection of MARVELMAN in WARRIOR #1, either a legal transaction over, or an assumption of rights to, MARVELMAN took place involving UK WARRIOR publisher Dez Skinn. This event, and Dez Skinn's involvement, is absolutely critical to the entire Mick Anglo MARVELMAN ownership issue.

To date, I've read or heard no coherent account of "whatever happened." I welcome anyone who can definitively clear up that matter, as THAT is the key issue as far as 'The Truth''s strident claims on this board.

Thereafter, we've got the further complications caused not only by Dez Skinn's involvement (as publisher of WARRIOR, and whatever promises he made to the WARRIOR MARVELMAN creative teams: Alan Moore, Alan Davis, etc.), but by the partnership later in the 1980s between (ahem) Dez Skinn in the UK, the creative MARVELMAN (hereafter MIRACLEMAN) teams in the UK, and the US comics publisher Eclipse Comics.

Sadly, the various tales of Dez Skinn's myriad adventures and misadventures in comics publishing do not create a clear legal trail here -- nor, by my own first-hand experience with Eclipse as a publisher, can I put a great deal of confidence in the various accounts of Eclipse's legal dealings regarding this character, these copyrights, and the tangled international trademark and rights issues.

(Again, though I have no first-hand experience regarding MIRACLEMAN, I vividly recall the phone call from one of the MIRACLEMAN creators after their visit to France, where they found a French edition of MIRACLEMAN licensed via Eclipse without the knowledge or participation of the creators. In my own dealings with Eclipse, I found lapses in respecting contracts and/or legal agreements and less than happy dealings with materials related to those works, right up to the final auction sale of the Eclipse negatives, including some of my own work -- which leads directly to the following:)

Further complicating matters, we also know, via various public documents (interviews with the involved creators, etc.), that:

(a) Alan Moore 'deeded' his 'share' of whatever rights he owned or believed he owned to his respective MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN works to Neil Gaiman. This is characteristic of Alan's dealings with other (uncontested) creations and creators, and as such is nothing but honorable and worthy of our collective appreciation -- whatever the complications, Alan's intentions were clearly honorable and of good intention.

(b) In the auction of Eclipse properties, Todd McFarlane purchased (1) the negatives to some portion (if not all) of the Eclipse-published MIRACLEMAN comics and graphic novel collections;

(c) In the auction of Eclipse properties, Todd McFarlane claims to have also purchased Eclipse's 'share' of the Eclipse-published comics and graphic novel collections -- and claims that 'share' or those 'shares' included proprietary rights to the TRADEMARK and the relevent copyrights.

The latter two points are not at all clear; Todd's claims seem contradictory over the years, and his outright contempt via his actions to the rights of all others involved (and the subsequent court verdict, re: the Gaiman vs. McFarlane trial) via his attempts (two, at least, that I know of, via Diamond Catalogue solicitations) to relaunch the MIRACLEMAN character(s) and trademark as his own property only muddies the waters further.

HOWEVER, there is still the matter of:

(d) The nature of UK copyright and creative ownership laws, relevent to both the Mick Anglo era of MARVELMAN and the WARRIOR revival of MARVELMAN;

(e) The nature of UK copyright and creative ownership laws relevent to the Eclipse-published MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN material, both phases of which were written by British writers (Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman) but in part illustrated by American (John Totleben, Rick Veitch) as well as British artists;

(f) The nature of US copyright and trademark law, relevent to the Eclipse-published era of MIRACLEMAN, and the contracts signed between Eclipse and the various creative parties involved with that body of work.

As should be obvious, (d) through (f) is of enormous consequence, and in and of itself presents an enormous legal tangle, which to my knowledge hasn't been addressed adequately in any public venue.

Further complicating this rat's nest are whatever legal exchanges may have occurred since the demise of MIRACLEMAN and the collapse of Eclipse -- I mean, though I'm still friends with many of those involved (Neil, John T., Rick V.), I've no idea what if any agreements may have or may not have passed between those parties.

Regardless of whom owns the trademarks, the ownership of the individual phases of the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN property, from Mick Anglo and his collaborative partners to Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and their various artistic collaborators requires an enormous (not insurmountable) amount of legal work to sort out. Eclipse was sometimes quite cavalier about contracts and such, and I do recall that the French MIRACLEMAN collection was something that fell outside the contracts or arrangements, per the conversations I had with Alan, John, etc. at that time.

Thus, I've little confidence in the merits of the Eclipse/McFarlane chain of ownership (if that's what it is), founded as it is upon the reportedly dubious Dez Skinn chain of ownership.

Thus, championing Mick Anglo while slandering Alan or Neil or anyone else is of little value.

However, illuminating this lengthy and increasingly historic proprietary legacy is of great value.

I, for one, would love to see Mick, Alan, Neil, Alan, Steve, John, Rick, 'Bucky', etc. and/or their heirs able to profit from the re-release of their remarkable respective contributions to the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN saga. It's a crime that they aren't -- and Todd, rather than working on behalf of these creators and making something extraordinary possible, continues to carry on in an appalling manner.

One can always hope he'll see the error of his ways and turn the tide...
Title: Wrong
Post by: The Truth on April 13, 2006, 01:52:31 PM
Well lets just wait and see what happens when the shit hits the fan.
3 months and we'll see who's slandering who.

Lets put it this way Stephen, British copyright laws were very differant and now the U.S. have to tow the line with every country who is a member of the the Berne convention, you CANT cut the creator out of the process.
McFarlane knows it
Moore knows it
Gaimen  knows it
Skinn always knew it.
and soon (If Neil Gaiman doesent do the hounerable thing) everyone will know it.

Its not slander when it the truth.
Another thing, the trademarks that Eclipse/McFarlane had registered were aplied in "bad faith" as there was a predated copyright on the trademarked image of Marvelman.
 
IP is what I do and I cant believe that all you people in comics are so naive to copyright laws, its not rocket science.

Tell Gaimen if he wants to speak to me on here he can, but if he contacts Ken Levin and decides to hide behind his coat tails, we will go public and expose all of the above named infringers in a heartbeat. (he knows exactly what I'm talking about)
Just think, the biggest names in comics, all copyright infringers, I guess its going to be the comic equivalent of Watergate.

The Truth.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 13, 2006, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: "Stephen R Bissette"
I, for one, would love to see Mick, Alan, Neil, Alan, Steve, John, Rick, 'Bucky', etc. and/or their heirs able to profit from the re-release of their remarkable respective contributions to the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN saga. It's a crime that they aren't -- and Todd, rather than working on behalf of these creators and making something extraordinary possible, continues to carry on in an appalling manner.

One can always hope he'll see the error of his ways and turn the tide...


What you are refering to is "chain of title" and as all of the above have stolen someone else's work (by law) they own nothing In terms of copyright ownership and it is very doubtfull If they have any rights to the work that they wrote or drew.

You cant hide behind trademarks when you have stolen someone else's copyright, actually as I wright this the thought has just occured to me that McFarlane is in deeper shit than Gaimen as in 2003 McFarlane registered the copyright for Miracleman with the U.S. copyright office and as a result of this he is up shit creek big time.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 13, 2006, 08:37:43 PM
Quote from: "Anonymous"
Quote from: "Stephen R Bissette"
I, for one, would love to see Mick, Alan, Neil, Alan, Steve, John, Rick, 'Bucky', etc. and/or their heirs able to profit from the re-release of their remarkable respective contributions to the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN saga. It's a crime that they aren't -- and Todd, rather than working on behalf of these creators and making something extraordinary possible, continues to carry on in an appalling manner.

One can always hope he'll see the error of his ways and turn the tide...


What you are refering to is "chain of title" and as all of the above have stolen someone else's work (by law) they own nothing In terms of copyright ownership and it is very doubtfull If they have any rights to the work that they wrote or drew.

You cant hide behind trademarks when you have stolen someone else's copyright, actually as I wright this the thought has just occured to me that McFarlane is in deeper shit than Gaimen as in 2003 McFarlane registered the copyright for Miracleman with the U.S. copyright office and as a result of this he is up shit creek big time.


one last thing Gaimen  doesent know about McFarlane doing this.
Title: ?
Post by: The Truth on April 14, 2006, 01:18:18 AM
Quote
one last thing Gaimen  doesent know about McFarlane doing this.


Its GaiMAN, but you are right.


The Truth.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen R Bissette on April 14, 2006, 04:46:41 AM
Absolutely no disrespect intended, but:

(a) I wonder who you are, writing as you are with such ire behind a pseudoname, and

(b) your sloppy writing habits demonstrated herein diminishes some of your thunder, though I hasten to add all your points are well-taken.

I sincerely doubt you'll be seeing any of the directly-involved parties posting here, if only for your tenor, tone and outrage. Again, your writing skills don't help in this regard, either -- no insult intended, just an observation, 'The Truth' (seemingly interchangable with 'Guest').

Don't direct your anger my way, though, as I've no stake in any of this, and have a pretty good record of asking the very questions you are (in less bullish terms) since the 1990s.

As I implied in my single post, the gap between US copyright and trademark law and European (specifically, in this case, UK) copyright and proprietary rights laws is wide, and little has been done to address this situation over the decades.

Sadly, there's precious little written, outside of legal journals (which are by and large inaccessible to laypersons of any trade), on the striking differences between European copyright laws and US copyright and their relevance to any particular industry, much less comics.

Again, I welcome anyone who can either discuss these issues rationally or direct us all to any texts that do so.

I again stress, the following is just a practicing freelancers questions and speculation -- I have no legal expertise whatsoever.

For instance, Alan Moore's recent discussions of his upset over feature film adaptations of his work (the most recent being V FOR VENDETTA, natch) beg coherent analysis of whether, under UK law (in which authors and creators indeed have moral rights, which it is my understanding CANNOT be signed away), any of the contracts between the many UK creators who've worked with Marvel (the 'British Wave' of the '80s began with John Bolton's work at Marvel), DC and Vertigo are indeed legal to both countries' laws. Alan raised the issue of 'moral rights' (a term of vague meaning to US creators, though most US contracts I've seen since 1990 try to cover that, too, though it's my understanding moral rights are inherently the property of the author and cannot be signed away under European copyright law).

To broaden the scope of this discussion -- and hopefully discuss the issues at hand without the pointed personalization and anger reflected in the above posts from 'The Truth' and 'Guest' -- I recall my friend Jean-Marc Lofficier years ago discussing at length with me the moral rights explicit in European copyright law. He mused over the impossibility of European comics creators signing away all rights, and the decades of published Disney comics and books scripted and illustrated by countless European creators.

CAN Disney legally own all that work?

Can the European creators legally sign away all rights, as Disney habitually requires?

With popular Disney publications originated throughout Europe dominating so many markets, it seems to me the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN controversy is pretty small potatoes alongside that massive body of published works, which now covers generations of creators, almost every country in the world, and a US-based corporation claiming all proprietary rights as their own with a mighty paper trail to defend those claims.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen Bissette on April 14, 2006, 04:58:15 AM
Oops, I see if I don't place my 'username,' the board doesn't 'recognize' the poster as me. Apologies to 'Guest' -- for the record, I see 'The Truth' and 'Guest' posting above are indeed two different folks (sorry for suggesting otherwise), and note that I, Stephen Bissette, wrote the post above credited to 'Guest' (ending with the big Disney question).

'Truth,' don't come down too hard on comics creators regarding these laws. It's often an uphill battle discussing US rights issues (hence, Al's founding of this site), much less international legal rights issues. Most US comics creators assume US law is still applicable elsewhere, which isn't unreasonable given the multitude of US copyright law revisions since '76 -- when my generation entered the field -- and the long legal ties between US-owned comics properties and a multitude of multi-generational European writers and artists (I cited Disney, but note that venerable comic strip creators like Lee Falk's THE PHANTOM, which has almost nil visibility in the US, remain tremendously popular around the world, fueled entirely by new work done by regional creators, all under the ownership and contracts of the Falk estate and syndicate).

Most Americans are completely oblivious to all this, and comics creators are usually as ignorant as anyone else, though it's not a willful ignorance. For instance, the changes in public domain laws -- which have dramatically shifted the landscape profoundly, thrusting previously public-domain works like the film IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE back into corporate ownership chains of title -- impact us on many levels every day, though most of us never notice this fact.

'Truth,' I'd welcome your expertise in IPO being applied to more fully discussing the issues specific to MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN for all, if you're up for that.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen Bissette on April 14, 2006, 05:02:17 AM
Man, I wish there was an edit function on this board!

Corrections to the above:

"creations," not "creators."

"dramatically" OR "profoundly," but not both (sloppy writing)!

"IP," not "IPO."
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen R Bissette on April 14, 2006, 05:51:37 AM
PS: One the other other thread, which I posted on to refer 'The Truth' to this one to continue the conversation in one venue, 'The Truth' last posted:
______________

The Truth
Guest
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:04 pm    Post subject: Stolen   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Bissette wrote:
Howdy, 'The Truth' -- I'll post my comments on the other thread, http://www.creators.qcomics.net/viewtopic.php?t=27 -- hope to see you there.

OK, but they are both guilty.
___________

Judge and jury!

There's a world of difference between Todd and Neil -- and the fact that Neil has had this thankless position thrust onto him purely by circumstance and being the last prominent creator in the WARRIOR-spawned lineage is a compelling factor here, 'Truth.'

As I stated (and you agreed), it seems to me that Dez Skinn is the key to the WARRIOR lineage; in all versions of this I've heard and read, it was Dez's claims that initiated the entire MARVELMAN resurrection, prompting the original 'revival' creators to work on the character believing they did so legally. To date, the book KIMOTA! offers the only comprehensive overview available in the US of this case history, and I came away from that wondering why Mick Anglo and/or his heirs didn't challenge the revival 20+ years ago, and how exactly Skinn (and, later, Eclipse) maintained their own tentative 'claim' to the property unchallenged for so long.

Which brings us, inevitably, to Todd and Neil, and your statement, above.

Assigning 'guilt' to Neil alone for being the lone man standing at the end of the WARRIOR-spawned lineage, per your view, isn't consistent with the historic reality behind this bizarre case history.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen Bissette on April 14, 2006, 05:54:11 AM
Ah, again -- I'm the 'Guest' posting above (keep forgetting to type in username) and that's "On," not "one." That's it from me for now!
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 14, 2006, 07:08:17 AM
Quote from: "Stephen Bissette"
Man, I wish there was an edit function on this board!


Steve- Only registered members can edit their posts. So, get registered! :D
Title: Facts
Post by: The Truth on April 14, 2006, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: "Stephen R Bissette"
PS: One the other other thread, which I posted on to refer 'The Truth' to this one to continue the conversation in one venue, 'The Truth' last posted:
______________

The Truth
Guest
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:04 pm    Post subject: Stolen   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Bissette wrote:
Howdy, 'The Truth' -- I'll post my comments on the other thread, http://www.creators.qcomics.net/viewtopic.php?t=27 -- hope to see you there.

OK, but they are both guilty.
___________

Judge and jury!

There's a world of difference between Todd and Neil -- and the fact that Neil has had this thankless position thrust onto him purely by circumstance and being the last prominent creator in the WARRIOR-spawned lineage is a compelling factor here, 'Truth.'

As I stated (and you agreed), it seems to me that Dez Skinn is the key to the WARRIOR lineage; in all versions of this I've heard and read, it was Dez's claims that initiated the entire MARVELMAN resurrection, prompting the original 'revival' creators to work on the character believing they did so legally. To date, the book KIMOTA! offers the only comprehensive overview available in the US of this case history, and I came away from that wondering why Mick Anglo and/or his heirs didn't challenge the revival 20+ years ago, and how exactly Skinn (and, later, Eclipse) maintained their own tentative 'claim' to the property unchallenged for so long.

Which brings us, inevitably, to Todd and Neil, and your statement, above.

Assigning 'guilt' to Neil alone for being the lone man standing at the end of the WARRIOR-spawned lineage, per your view, isn't consistent with the historic reality behind this bizarre case history.


Stephen,

You are a bright guy, go join the dots and you will find that your good buddy is a copyright thief. He may be naive, but his lawyer aint.

Regards

The Truth
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Bob on April 15, 2006, 03:28:53 PM
Regarding Mick Anglo, from the only interview with him I ever read (in KIMOTA):

Quote
[George Khoury:] Regarding the ownership, how was that set up with Marvelman?
[Anglo:] I don't know; that was [Len] Miller's sort of thing.  I know nothing about those sort of things... There was talk of a lawsuit but it flopped.

...

[Khoury:] Were you contacted by Dez Skinn when Marvelman was revived?
[Anglo:] He contacted me and he wanted to revive it and I said go ahead and do what you like, as far as I was concerned.


So arguably Gaiman was acting in a good faith opinion that he had the rights when he made arrangements for that statue, having apparently prior to this gotten an understanding by every major creator to work on the Quality/Eclipse Marvelman/Miracleman that he would attempt to clear up the rights to the character, reprint their prior work and continue the story he was scripting.

If Anglo is making some sort of claim now (and we only have vague comments by "The Truth" suggesting that), I'd love to see a reference.  More power to him if so.  In fact, that's probably the most elegant solution to the Marvelman/Miracleman knot.  Give the character rights to Anglo, re-affirm that all the creators of the Quality/Eclipse series own the copyrights to their own contributions and then let Anglo decide who, if anyone, can do new stories, and under what conditions.  Gaiman can pitch a continuation of his Silver Age / Dark Age cycle with Buckingham.  McFarlane can pitch whatever nonsense he wants, DC can pitch a Marvelman / Captain Marvel crossover, Bissette can pitch that Miracleman/Tyrant story we all know he wants to do, I can pitch that funny animal MiracleBunny story I always dreamed of.  Anglo's choice.  All I really care is that we get a nice handsome edition of Totleben's OLYMPUS at some point.
Title: Facts 4
Post by: The Truth on April 15, 2006, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: "Bob"
Regarding Mick Anglo, from the only interview with him I ever read (in KIMOTA):

Quote
[George Khoury:] Regarding the ownership, how was that set up with Marvelman?
[Anglo:] I don't know; that was [Len] Miller's sort of thing.  I know nothing about those sort of things... There was talk of a lawsuit but it flopped.

...

[Khoury:] Were you contacted by Dez Skinn when Marvelman was revived?
[Anglo:] He contacted me and he wanted to revive it and I said go ahead and do what you like, as far as I was concerned.


So arguably Gaiman was acting in a good faith opinion that he had the rights when he made arrangements for that statue, having apparently prior to this gotten an understanding by every major creator to work on the Quality/Eclipse Marvelman/Miracleman that he would attempt to clear up the rights to the character, reprint their prior work and continue the story he was scripting.

If Anglo is making some sort of claim now (and we only have vague comments by "The Truth" suggesting that), I'd love to see a reference.  More power to him if so.  In fact, that's probably the most elegant solution to the Marvelman/Miracleman knot.  Give the character rights to Anglo, re-affirm that all the creators of the Quality/Eclipse series own the copyrights to their own contributions and then let Anglo decide who, if anyone, can do new stories, and under what conditions.  Gaiman can pitch a continuation of his Silver Age / Dark Age cycle with Buckingham.  McFarlane can pitch whatever nonsense he wants, DC can pitch a Marvelman / Captain Marvel crossover, Bissette can pitch that Miracleman/Tyrant story we all know he wants to do, I can pitch that funny animal MiracleBunny story I always dreamed of.  Anglo's choice.  All I really care is that we get a nice handsome edition of Totleben's OLYMPUS at some point.


No you are wrong, It isnt Anglo who is making the claim, Its the one man from whom it was stolen, an ex movie producer no less.
Who also just happens to be my employer.

The Truth.
Title: Facts 5
Post by: The Truth on April 15, 2006, 04:07:06 PM
Quote
So arguably Gaiman was acting in a good faith



Now be 100% honest, do you really believe what you have written?

The Truth
Title: Re: Facts 4
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2006, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: "The Truth"


No you are wrong, It isnt Anglo who is making the claim, Its the one man from whom it was stolen, an ex movie producer no less.
Who also just happens to be my employer.


"an ex movie producr no less"?  Is that supposed to make him above reproach?  Because I've heard stories about movie producers...

So let me get this straight, your boss, who you won't name, is claiming that Anglo owns Miracleman?  But Anglo himself makes no such claim?  What is your boss claiming was stolen from him?

Quote
Now be 100% honest, do you really believe what you have written?


Do I believe, based on the evidence available, including quotes from Anglo (as opposed to the vague assertions of an anonymous poster) that one can argue Gaiman acted in good faith?  Yes.  If you want to convince me otherwise name your movie producer.  If he's taking legal action it should be a matter of public record.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Bob on April 15, 2006, 05:10:55 PM
Sorry, "guest" in previous post is me.  Thought I was logged on.
Title: A question
Post by: Question on April 15, 2006, 05:37:43 PM
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?
Title: Re: Facts 4
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 15, 2006, 07:30:00 PM
Quote from: "Bob"
"an ex movie producr no less"?  Is that supposed to make him above reproach?  Because I've heard stories about movie producers...

So let me get this straight, your boss, who you won't name, is claiming that Anglo owns Miracleman?  But Anglo himself makes no such claim?  What is your boss claiming was stolen from him?


Yeah, I agree. No offense to "The Truth", but it’s a bit difficult in giving a lot of credence to much of what he has to say when we don’t know who he is or who this mysterious "ex movie producer" would be.

We could speculate until the end of time to who should, ethically, own the Marvelman/Miracleman property. I think what’s really important is try to focus on the claims of those that appear to have any legal right to the character… in this case, it’s Gaiman and McFarlane. I know. That stinks. But, let’s be realistic here, regardless of how we feel about the morality of the situation in regards to why either of these two guys should own Miracleman, Gaiman and McFarlane appear to be the frontrunners.
Title: Re: A question
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 15, 2006, 07:31:06 PM
Quote from: "Question"
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?


Now, that would be a real nightmare to muddle through, huh?
Title: Re: A question
Post by: Neil Gaiman on April 15, 2006, 11:15:32 PM
Quote from: "Question"
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?


He looks noting like the good captain, thats how, and he is mine.

Duh!
Title: Re: Facts 4
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 04:05:56 AM
[quote="Al Nickerson[/quote]

I think what’s really important is try to focus on the claims of those that appear to have any legal right to the character… in this case, it’s Gaiman and McFarlane.[/quote]

Dear Al,

They don't own squat, In fact why do you think Steve Bissette has went quiet all of a sudden? on the plus side however, I would like to thank you, Al, for creating this forum, as In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.
Of course he could just Ignore it and choose to receive messages through Stephen, but his silence would be the worst thing that he could do for his rep.

The Truth
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Bob on April 16, 2006, 04:43:51 AM
Quote
In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.


Yeah, Gaiman will be forced to come clean by an anonymous poster on a message board where Gaiman never posted making vague accusations about legal matters without even being willing to give a name that should be on the public record if he (an ex movie producer, no less, so you know he's credible) does have a claim on the character.
Title: Facts 6
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 05:21:24 AM
Quote from: "Bob"
Quote
In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.


Yeah, Gaiman will be forced to come clean by an anonymous poster on a message board where Gaiman never posted making vague accusations about legal matters without even being willing to give a name that should be on the public record if he (an ex movie producer, no less, so you know he's credible) does have a claim on the character.


Jeez are you stupid? what part don't you get?
He doesn't own it, what is "vague" about that? Its copyright law and Its fact, go look it up dummy.
And as for my clients privacy, well frankly that's none of your business.

But regarding Neil

He will post, just you watch Bob, just watch...


The Truth
Title: Re: Facts 4
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 16, 2006, 06:34:02 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"

Dear Al,

They don't own squat, In fact why do you think Steve Bissette has went quiet all of a sudden? on the plus side however, I would like to thank you, Al, for creating this forum, as In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.
Of course he could just Ignore it and choose to receive messages through Stephen, but his silence would be the worst thing that he could do for his rep.

The Truth


You're welcome. :D

We'll see what happens. The whole legal issue of Miracleman looks like a complete mess. Maybe Dave Sim was right. Maybe Miracleman should be a Public Domain character, or maybe Bob's idea of those that worked on Miracleman should do their own version of the character. Otherwise, I don't see a time very soon when this whole mess will be settled.

Nice to see "Neil" stop by.  :)
Title: Re: A question
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 06:41:59 AM
Quote from: "Question"
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?


No you are Incorrect,

It is a myth that Marvelman is a take off of Captain Marvel, it was Captain Universe that was supposed to be the replacement for Captain Marvel but Anglo shopped it to another company at the last minute.
He had a whole Captain Universe Family ready to go, but It never got as far as 2 Issues because of a threat of legal action from DC.
If you manage to get a copy of the original Captain then you will see what I mean.
However our friend is right, in that the Marvelman design is nothing like Captain Marvel. The big red cheese however is just Superman in a red suit.
There is no copyright that I know of on the whole superhero genre.
Miracleman is just one of thousands who are superheroes who look nothing like Superman.

One last thing..
Its not a law suit that is coming, its something that is going to take the whole comics world by surprise.


The Truth
Title: Re: Facts 4
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 16, 2006, 07:48:14 AM
Quote from: "Al Nickerson"
Quote from: "The Truth"

Dear Al,

They don't own squat, In fact why do you think Steve Bissette has went quiet all of a sudden? on the plus side however, I would like to thank you, Al, for creating this forum, as In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.
Of course he could just Ignore it and choose to receive messages through Stephen, but his silence would be the worst thing that he could do for his rep.

The Truth


You're welcome. :D



I would also like to point out (fellow-moderator) Chuck Morrison's hard work with putting this forum together. Without Chuck's help, this forum wouldn't be here.

Thanks, Chuck. :D
Title: Re: Facts 6
Post by: Bob on April 16, 2006, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"

Jeez are you stupid? what part don't you get?
He doesn't own it, what is "vague" about that? Its copyright law and Its fact, go look it up dummy.


I probably am stupid, trying to engage "The Truth" in an actual discussion.  Dumbest thing I've done this month.

By "vague" I meant that you give no concrete references to names and sources, just throw around words like "thief".

I have to say, I hope for his sake that whatever the the Mysterious Mr. EMP (Ex Movie Producer) hires you for it's not as his legal counsel.
Title: Re: Facts 6
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 10:16:20 AM
Quote from: "Bob"
Quote from: "The Truth"

Jeez are you stupid? what part don't you get?
He doesn't own it, what is "vague" about that? Its copyright law and Its fact, go look it up dummy.


I probably am stupid, trying to engage "The Truth" in an actual discussion.  Dumbest thing I've done this month.

By "vague" I meant that you give no concrete references to names and sources, just throw around words like "thief".

I have to say, I hope for his sake that whatever the the Mysterious Mr. EMP (Ex Movie Producer) hires you for it's not as his legal counsel.


I knew exactly what part you thought was "vague"
I however prefer the factual statements that include words like "theif"

Have a good think about the facts Bob and then go and look them up, then we can talk on an even level.

Regards

The Truth.
Title: Re: A question
Post by: Michael Hanretty on April 16, 2006, 10:20:35 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"
Quote from: "Question"
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?


No you are Incorrect,

It is a myth that Marvelman is a take off of Captain Marvel, it was Captain Universe that was supposed to be the replacement for Captain Marvel but Anglo shopped it to another company at the last minute.
He had a whole Captain Universe Family ready to go, but It never got as far as 2 Issues because of a threat of legal action from DC.
If you manage to get a copy of the original Captain then you will see what I mean.
However our friend is right, in that the Marvelman design is nothing like Captain Marvel. The big red cheese however is just Superman in a red suit.
There is no copyright that I know of on the whole superhero genre.
Miracleman is just one of thousands who are superheroes who look nothing like Superman.

One last thing..
Its not a law suit that is coming, its something that is going to take the whole comics world by surprise.


The Truth


But... but surely if the original Captain Marvel was declared in a court of law to infringe on DC's copyright of Superman, Mike Anglo's Marvelman - with its very clear and obvious 'parallels' (I'm being charitable here) to CM - would mean the very foundation of this debacle is on shaky legal footing.

Any and all derivations of the original incarnation would therefore be dogged by the precedent set by DC's court case decades ago, right?
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 16, 2006, 10:22:24 AM
Let's try and play nice, fellas.  :)

I appreciate everyone coming to this forum and sharing their thoughts. We're not all going to agree. So, please avoid any insults or name-calling if you can. Thanks.
Title: Re: A question
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: "Michael Hanretty"
Quote from: "The Truth"
Quote from: "Question"
There is one thing that has seemed to be a mystery to me throughout this whole case - how could Marvelman be "owned" by anybody since it was a slavish copy of Captain Marvel, created only to fill the void when the American Captain Marvel ceased publication? Wouldn't DC win any court case where the copyright owners of Captain Marvel sued over infringement (in the same way that National sued and won agains Fox's Wonderman as a copyright infringement of Superman)?


No you are Incorrect,

It is a myth that Marvelman is a take off of Captain Marvel, it was Captain Universe that was supposed to be the replacement for Captain Marvel but Anglo shopped it to another company at the last minute.
He had a whole Captain Universe Family ready to go, but It never got as far as 2 Issues because of a threat of legal action from DC.
If you manage to get a copy of the original Captain then you will see what I mean.
However our friend is right, in that the Marvelman design is nothing like Captain Marvel. The big red cheese however is just Superman in a red suit.
There is no copyright that I know of on the whole superhero genre.
Miracleman is just one of thousands who are superheroes who look nothing like Superman.

One last thing..
Its not a law suit that is coming, its something that is going to take the whole comics world by surprise.
The Truth

But... but surely if the original Captain Marvel was declared in a court of law to infringe on DC's copyright of Superman, Mike Anglo's Marvelman - with its very clear and obvious 'parallels' (I'm being charitable here) to CM - would mean the very foundation of this debacle is on shaky legal footing.
Any and all derivations of the original incarnation would therefore be dogged by the precedent set by DC's court case decades ago, right?


Wrong,

As I stated to your friend, Marvelman is no more a derivative of Captain Marvel than any other superhero is and it was never decided in court that Fawcet were Infringers, Fawcet threw in the towel, there was no verdict, do your research my friend.
The design was made to look as differant as possible and it was.
There are many parallels to many superheroes, however Marvelman is a better visual design than either Superman or Captain Marvel of that their is no doubt.
Thanks for the offer Michael but you can keep your "charity"

Gaimen and McFarlane the thief's its plain and simple.

The Truth
Title: DC
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 11:03:29 AM
Yeah and I think DC's lawsuit would be 50 years to late.

Think before you post.


The Truth
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2006, 11:18:08 AM
The visual design is different, the thematic similarities are anything but. Pre-pubescent boy, magic word, adult alter-ego, similarly powered "family"... there's a hell of a lot in common between CM and MM. And the publishing history more than suggests that this was intentional.

And I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I'm just trying to see where this talk of "plain and simple" thievery fits into a legal situation that has been considered by almost all observers thus far to be most convoluted.

When are you and your employer taking action?
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Michael Hanretty on April 16, 2006, 11:24:03 AM
Sorry, the above is me again.

And - while my knowledge of legal matters is nebulous at best - with words like 'thief' being thrown around, ther's a clear ethical side to all this you're wanting to point out.

I have no idea of how this would play out in, well, any court, but from a creative standpoint it wasn't Mick Anglo's creation that has proved to endure in readers' minds but Alan Moore's - whose version has since been continued by Neil Gaiman. Now, all legal issues aside, I think (morally) it should be acknowledged that there wouldn't even be any interest in Marvelman were it not for the efforts - and vastly more original ideas - behind the works of Messers Moore and Gaiman.
Title: Re: A question
Post by: Question on April 16, 2006, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: "The Truth"
Wrong,

As I stated to your friend, Marvelman is no more a derivative of Captain Marvel than any other superhero is and it was never decided in court that Fawcet were Infringers, Fawcet threw in the towel, there was no verdict, do your research my friend.
The design was made to look as differant as possible and it was.
There are many parallels to many superheroes, however Marvelman is a better visual design than either Superman or Captain Marvel of that their is no doubt.
Thanks for the offer Michael but you can keep your "charity"

Gaimen and McFarlane the thief's its plain and simple.

The Truth


From Don Markstein's Toonpedia concerning the Captain Marvel lawsuit (which certainly sees the similarity between Capt. Marvel & Marvelman. Think of it - KIMOTA for SHAZAM, the Marvel Familys enjoyed by both teams - there is a more pronounced similarity of these comics than most):

Quote
By 1953, however, all comic book sales, particularly those of the superheroes, had sunk to the point where Fawcett was ready to throw in the towel. They settled the still-running lawsuit with DC, agreeing never to publish the character again. Only a faint echo remained — L. Miller, a British publisher, replaced him with the very similar Marvelman.


From Don's Marvelman essay:
http://toonopedia.com/marvlman.htm
Quote
This presented a problem for Miller, where Cap etc. were still big sellers — in fact, the biggest the company had. The solution was obvious: clone them. Miller hired cartoonist Mick Anglo for the task. At the end of 1953, as the Fawcett titles were dropping off, their Miller counterparts ran announcements that Cap, Junior and Mary had decided to go back to living as normal kids, and would be giving their powers back to old Shazam, the wizard. As of the January 27, 1954 issues, Marvelman and Young Marvelman replaced Cap and Junior, respectively, even to the point of continuing the numbering of the old series and transferring subscriptions to the new ones. Kid Marvelman, tho not exactly analogous to Mary, was added in 1956.


And the Wonderman lawsuit was won without any visual similarity to Superman. Let us read about it from the Markstein site:
http://http://toonopedia.com/wondrmn1.htm
Quote
... Wonder Man, which is notable for being both the very first imitation of Superman, and the first to be legally driven out of existence by Superman's owner, DC Comics. In fact, Wonder Man (no relation) was a special kind of wonder, a one-issue one. He was effectively dealt with before the second went to press.

Eisner (with his partner, Jerry Iger) was running a studio that supplied ready-to-print comic book feaures to publishers such as Quality Comics and Fiction House Magazines. He was given a single specification for this job: make it as much like Superman as possible. Eisner complied, not very pleased with the creative aspects but not yet fully aware of the legal ones. Tho his origin was different, Wonder Man was exactly like Superman in every way that really mattered.

He started out as Fred Carson, an ordinary guy if a little on the meek'n'mild side, who worked as a radio engineer for a company called International Broadcasting, and did some inventing on the side. While vacationing in Tibet, that universal source for all things mystic, he fell in with an ancient yogi, who gave him a magic ring to bash evil with. Wearing the ring, Fred was faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound … Also, reasonably invulnerable. The Lois Lane analog was Brenda Hastings, who had only scorn for wimpy ol' Fred, but was fascinated by Wonder Man.

Just as Fox had wasted no time before launching his Superman rip-off, DC wasted no time before suing him. The action started the moment Wonder Comics reached the stands. Fox was hit with an injunction against the use of Wonder Man until the matter could be settled in court, so instead, Wonder Comics #2 introduced Yarko the Great, one of those magical superheroes wearing a stage magician's outfit with a turban, like Ibis the Invincible or Sargon the Sorceror.

When the case did get to court, Fox carefully instructed Eisner on how to testify. Instead, Eisner told the truth, and that put an end to Wonder Man for good. It also put an end to the Eisner-Iger Studio's prospect of getting paid for the work it had already done, making it the first of many comics industry creditors stiffed by Fox.

DC went on to sue Master Man, Steel Sterling, and eventually Captain Marvel off the face of the earth, but before too long the crowd of Superman imitators became too thick to deal with, and the world became safe for super-fast, super-strong, invulnerable, flying, spandex-wearing champions of truth, justice and the American way.


So, I'd say there is a fair case to be made for Marvelman being a Captain Marvel clone.
Title: Re: A question
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: "Question"
Quote from: "The Truth"
Wrong,

As I stated to your friend, Marvelman is no more a derivative of Captain Marvel than any other superhero is and it was never decided in court that Fawcet were Infringers, Fawcet threw in the towel, there was no verdict, do your research my friend.
The design was made to look as differant as possible and it was.
There are many parallels to many superheroes, however Marvelman is a better visual design than either Superman or Captain Marvel of that their is no doubt.
Thanks for the offer Michael but you can keep your "charity"

Gaimen and McFarlane the thief's its plain and simple.

The Truth


From Don Markstein's Toonpedia concerning the Captain Marvel lawsuit (which certainly sees the similarity between Capt. Marvel & Marvelman. Think of it - KIMOTA for SHAZAM, the Marvel Familys enjoyed by both teams - there is a more pronounced similarity of these comics than most):

Quote
By 1953, however, all comic book sales, particularly those of the superheroes, had sunk to the point where Fawcett was ready to throw in the towel. They settled the still-running lawsuit with DC, agreeing never to publish the character again. Only a faint echo remained — L. Miller, a British publisher, replaced him with the very similar Marvelman.


From Don's Marvelman essay:
http://toonopedia.com/marvlman.htm
Quote
This presented a problem for Miller, where Cap etc. were still big sellers — in fact, the biggest the company had. The solution was obvious: clone them. Miller hired cartoonist Mick Anglo for the task. At the end of 1953, as the Fawcett titles were dropping off, their Miller counterparts ran announcements that Cap, Junior and Mary had decided to go back to living as normal kids, and would be giving their powers back to old Shazam, the wizard. As of the January 27, 1954 issues, Marvelman and Young Marvelman replaced Cap and Junior, respectively, even to the point of continuing the numbering of the old series and transferring subscriptions to the new ones. Kid Marvelman, tho not exactly analogous to Mary, was added in 1956.


http://toonopedia.com/wondrmn1.htm[/url]
[quote


So, I'd say there is a fair case to be made for Marvelman being a Captain Marvel clone.[/quote]

Nonsense, absolute balderdash.

All of the above is pure hearsay and I would like to point out that tons of super heroes can fly and use magic words etc..
none of the above have a clue, how could they? they weren't there were they?
So Mickey Moran worked at the Daily Bugle as a copy boy, do you think he should sue Marvel comics for using his newspaper for Peter Parker to work at? dont be silly.

All hearsay and way off mark.

They are both thief's and you know It.

The Truth
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Question on April 16, 2006, 02:42:59 PM
Balderdash, nonsense, heresay... or historical fact?
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Joseph on April 16, 2006, 02:52:28 PM
For someone who calls himself "The Truth" you sure do bend it a lot, and now I'm being polite.

Marvelman/Miracleman is clearly an utter and complete copy of Captain Marvel.

Yes, there are many heroes that get granted powers by wise old men or whatnot, and there are many heroes who fly and are superstrong and whatnot, and yes, there are many heroes who use a magic word to activate their powers.

HOWEVER

there are very few heroes who have all of these things. Captain Marvel has these things, and so does Marvelman/Miracleman. Add to this the obvious parralels between their respective "families" and you've got pretty much undeniable proof that Marvelman/Miracleman is a blatant take off Captain Marvel and his pals.

And although you deny it, Marvelman/Miracleman WAS meant to replace Captain Marvel.

Sure, he may not look anything like him, but the thematic parallels are so blatant it would take a major quantum thing for them to be accidental.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: HeathLail on April 16, 2006, 08:29:48 PM
Capt. Marvel's Family and the Miracle Family are so close that if they were true humans, there would be inbred kids between Mary Marvel and Young Miracleman, and both families would be living in a rural area down here in the south, fighting like the Hatfields and McCoys. Simply because Mary was replaced by Young Miracleman does not make a great stride of difference in the two, no matter what Truth or anyone may argue. Also, Miraclewoman eventually entered the picture, replacing the defunct Young Miracleman, thus evenly replicating the original Marvel Family line-up of two guys and a gal.

To prove their similarities, I have been reviewing the ongoing MM issues I have (only lack #s 9 and 23 from having a complete run) with my Shazam Archives Vol.1 that has sat on shelf for the last few years. That is where I reaffirmed my ideas about the above-stated similarities between the two families. Other than not receiving his powers from an ANCIENT wizard (replaced by Emil Gargunza, who could in turn be replaced by Dr. Sivana without a great stretch of the imagination), Batson being a small boy and Moran a man their stories are eerily similar in form and execution, too much so to be considered a mere coincidence.  

That's all I have for now...I'm turning in.

-HPL
Title: Facts 8
Post by: The Truth on April 16, 2006, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: "Joseph"
For someone who calls himself "The Truth" you sure do bend it a lot, and now I'm being polite.

Marvelman/Miracleman is clearly an utter and complete copy of Captain Marvel.
Looks nothing like him.
Yes, there are many heroes that get granted powers by wise old men or whatnot, and there are many heroes who fly and are superstrong and whatnot, and yes, there are many heroes who use a magic word to activate their powers.

There are tons, do your homework

HOWEVER

there are very few heroes who have all of these things. Captain Marvel has these things, and so does Marvelman/Miracleman. Add to this the obvious parralels between their respective "families" and you've got pretty much undeniable proof that Marvelman/Miracleman is a blatant take off Captain Marvel and his pals.

And although you deny it, Marvelman/Miracleman WAS meant to replace Captain Marvel.

I have proof to the contrary
Sure, he may not look anything like him,

And thats the whole crux of the matter..duh!

 but the thematic parallels are so blatant it would take a major quantum thing for them to be accidental.


I dont disagree with that part, however McFarlane and Gaiman arent selling that part are they? Its a figurine that they are selling and they are blatent copyright infringers of the artistic design, remember you cant copyright a name but you can trademark it and both of them think they own a bad faith trade mark (ie, one applied to an existing copyright)

CASE CLOSED

The Truth.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Joseph on April 17, 2006, 01:00:40 AM
The differences, visually, between Marvelman/Miracleman and Captain Marvel are about as great as those between Captain Marvel and Superman.

Just because he doesn't look like him doesn't mean that he's not a complete rip-off concept-wise. It's not about the package, it's about the contents.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 17, 2006, 01:14:38 AM
I see where you're coming from. Yes, Todd McFarlane is violating copyrights. Whose copyrights is debatable, however, as is the legal status of Marvelman/Miracleman as a whole, being an obvious take off Captain Marvel.
Title: NO!
Post by: The Truth on April 17, 2006, 01:26:33 AM
Quote from: "Anonymous"
I see where you're coming from. Yes, Todd McFarlane is violating copyrights. Whose copyrights is debatable, however, as is the legal status of Marvelman/Miracleman as a whole, being an obvious take off Captain Marvel.


And you aren't Neil?

As 53 years have passed since Marvelman's (known in France in the 50's as Miracleman I may add)creation, there isn't a court in the world who would take a half century copyright issue on, Its just wouldnt wash in a court of law, as Marvelman has been around for way to long and no one has ever tried to take action for copyright Infringement, so would at worst case the character would be allowed reliance party status.

I'm sure Ken will tell you this Neil.

The Truth
Title: DUH! 2
Post by: The Truth on April 17, 2006, 01:47:15 AM
Quote from: Joseph
The differences, visually, between Marvelman/Miracleman and Captain Marvel are about as great as those between Captain Marvel and Superman.
quote]

Are you even serious? No cape, blond Skinhead = totally different look.

You are funny Joseph.

"The Truth"


I guess the author of novel The Gladiator should sue DC then, as that book pre dates Superman, or what about Marvel's comics mowhawked Gladiator or even Hyperion, aren't they blatant Superman rip-off''s? we could go on all day but I'm not going to


Could be wrong though... but on second thoughts, I dont think I am.

Thief's, that's right Todd and Neil are thief's.


Creators rights? you people are a joke, or even simply arrogant Americans.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Question on April 17, 2006, 05:18:01 AM
Where's Gary Groth when you need him?
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Joseph on April 17, 2006, 05:20:01 AM
Sorry, that anonymous you quoted was me.

Marvelman/Miracleman is blond and he doesn't have a cape.

Captain Marvel has a completely red suit with golden bits and a small white cape with gold trim. Superman doesn't look anything like that either.

I'm not arguing about any visual similarities that give away copyright infringement. I'm talking about the content of the character. Contents-wise Marvelman/Miracleman is basically a carbon copy of Captain Marvel.

And the author of The Gladiator could have sued and won a case when Supes first appeared, as Supes really was pretty much a rip-off at that time, but now Superman with his x-ray vision, flight, solar battery stuff going on isn't very much like that book's main character any more.

Marvelman/Miracleman didn't stray far from the original material, however. The original material being Captain Marvel.

Also, Marvel's Hyperion and Gladiator aren't rip-offs. No, they are what is known as an homage. Nobody ever denied that they were based on Superman. Still, unlike Marvelman/Miracleman and Captain Marvel, they're not so much like Superman that they infringe on the copyright. Saying that they were inspired by Supes would be a good way of putting it.

Seriously, though, Truth, you're just talking out of your ass. You really need to come up with better arguments than the ones you're using now. You're pretty much going "It's true because I say so and the evidence you're giving is unreliable because I think you're dumb."

You should learn to spell before you try to lecture someone on copyright law. It's "thieves," not "thief's". The latter implies that Todd and Neil belong to someone called Thief. Studying copyright law first might be helpful, too. Hell, I know next to nothing about copyright law and I can tell you that what you're trying to say here is absolute rubbish.

Lay off the big, bolded letters, too. It's annoying. Just because your font is bigger doesn't make you right.

And I'm Dutch, by the way. Not American.
Title: Fair Play?
Post by: The Truth on April 17, 2006, 06:20:06 AM
Quote from: "Joseph"
Sorry, that anonymous you quoted was me.

Marvelman/Miracleman is blond and he doesn't have a cape.
Captain Marvel has a completely red suit with golden bits and a small white cape with gold trim. Superman doesn't look anything like that either.

Nonsense

I'm not arguing about any visual similarities that give away copyright infringement. you should be, as thats what I'm taking aboutI'm talking about the content of the character. Contents-wise Marvelman/Miracleman is basically a carbon copy of Captain Marvel.
thats niether here nor there
And the author of The Gladiator could have sued and won a case when Supes first appeared, as Supes really was pretty much a rip-off at that time, The same law applies to Marvelman, do you get it now? but now Superman with his x-ray vision, flight, solar battery stuff going on isn't very much like that book's main character any more.
Marvelman/Miracleman didn't stray far from the original material, however. The original material being Captain Marvel.
??? You aint making sense buddy

Also, Marvel's Hyperion and Gladiator aren't rip-offs. No, they are what is known as an homage.
Homage my ass! Nobody ever denied that they were based on Superman. Still, unlike Marvelman/Miracleman and Captain Marvel, they're not so much like Superman that they infringe on the copyright. Saying that they were inspired by Supes would be a good way of putting it.
Seriously, though, Truth, you're just talking out of your ass. You really need to come up with better arguments than the ones you're using now. You're pretty much going "It's true because I say so and the evidence you're giving is unreliable because I think you're dumb."
cant you read???
You should learn to spell before you try to lecture someone on copyright law. It's "thieves," not "thief's". Hey I type fast and wasnt paying attention, dont confuse bad typing for a lack of intellect and judging by what you have written its you who doesent get it, I have a secretary who usually does my typing so i do admit its not my strong point.The latter implies that Todd and Neil belong to someone called Thief. Studying copyright law first might be helpful, too. I did for 5 years and there is NOTHING that I dont know about it  Hell, I know next to nothing about copyright law and I can tell you that what you're trying to say here is absolute rubbish.

Really? IP is the name of the game, and I know that i'm on top of mine, so lets see if you are still saying that in a few months.
Lay off the big, bolded letters, too. It's annoying. Just because your font is bigger doesn't make you right.
I am right and thats not all thats bigger (relax its a joke)

And I'm Dutch, by the way. Not American.

Puits je suis français et votre point est-il ?

Well my Dutch friend, lets just see what you will be saying when it all comes out in the wash.
Make sure you dont go anywhere as I want to here to see your honest reaction.
You people really have to learn that you cant cover everything up.

Regards

The Truth


PS, Make sure you keep your finger out of those dykes, those women can be tough :wink:
Title: Re: DUH! 2
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 17, 2006, 06:31:15 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"

Creators rights? you people are a joke, or even simply arrogant Americans.


Listen. I asked everyone to be polite. No insults or name-calling are allowed on this Forum. We aren't all going to agree, but insults won't be tolerated. Final warning, Truth.
Title: Re: DUH! 2
Post by: The Truth on April 17, 2006, 06:52:09 AM
Quote from: "Al Nickerson"
Quote from: "The Truth"

Creators rights? you people are a joke, or even simply arrogant Americans.


Listen. I asked everyone to be polite. No insults or name-calling are allowed on this Forum. We aren't all going to agree, but insults won't be tolerated. Final warning, Truth.


Hey Al

Couldnt be done I'm afraid as I have a floating IP address.

However be nice to me Al as I have made some VERY valid points and the less informed are just protecting Gaiman and McFarlane, without thinking about the facts.

And when Steve Bissette asked you about correcting mistakes on spelling etc.. you were far nicer to him  :)
Maybe If you knew who I really was you would be nicer to me.

And while I'm at it, having just finished "Stupid White Men" for the 3rd time, can you honestly say that any country that votes in Bush TWICE isnt full of semi litterate's?

Relax kido, I'm just having fun.
But Its not going to be fun in the end.

PS
Where's Stephen gone :wink:  
Neil I know you are reading this, explain yourself.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 17, 2006, 07:01:34 AM
The little statue thing is a blatant violation of copyrights, yes. I agree with that. However, then you went off on a tangent and said that Alan Moore, Todd McFarlane and all those others were thieves for using Marvelman/Miracleman because it belonged to Anglo or whatever.

But Marvelman/Miracleman is a blatant copyrights violation himself, so your point about thievery is moot. the whole concept itself was already stolen.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Anonymous on April 17, 2006, 07:05:20 AM
Wow, fireworks on Easter weekend!

Re: 'The Truth': You wrote, in your endearing Bill O'Reilly style:

"...They don't own squat, In fact why do you think Steve Bissette has went quiet all of a sudden? on the plus side however, I would like to thank you, Al, for creating this forum, as In the future Its going to be known as the place where Neil Gaiman had to finally come clean.
Of course he could just Ignore it and choose to receive messages through Stephen, but his silence would be the worst thing that he could do for his rep...."

'Truth' -- whoever you are -- your broad and insulting assumptions speak volumes.

I have been away all weekend, and don't pop in here daily in any case. "Why do you think Steve Bissette has went quiet all of a sudden"?? Your usual sloppy writing skills aside, "Steve Bissette has went quiet" because Steve Bissette was away on a family outing for the holidays. This board is hardly the be-all and end-all of my life, and your absurd bluster and bombast is hardly lending any substance to any of your arguments -- your "assumptions" about moi revealing a great deal.

As for the other assumption you've made on my behalf -- presuming I'm in touch with Neil (a friend, yes, but one I've had no contact with for over a year), much less testing that friendship by acting as a go-between betwixt Neil and the countless folks who've posted on this issue over the years -- further demonstrates your sharp legal acumen at work.

I've contacted Neil not at all about any of this -- not the issue, nor the current state of affairs, nor this abusive thread. Nor will I. Why would I? I've no stake in any of this, as I've said from the outset. You, however, read motives where there are none, complicity where there is none, and scheming where there is none.

Furthermore, your bellowing about Neil not being here is as risible as anything you've accused others on this thread of.

Why, pray tell, would a man involved in litigation involving this issue post anything anywhere on the internet, much less here in response or exchange with a discussion board exchange that has come dangerously close to 'flame war' status with someone unnamed claiming to have a legal function for another unnamed party (a movie producer)? Neil is no idiot, nor would I presume he'd have the least interest in whatever is being bandied about here by anyone, much less you or I.

You know, movie producers can indeed own lots of things.

A German film producer who locked down the rights to the Maria Von Trapp autobiography for a few hundred dollars (circa the late 1950s) indeed was the man who owned the material that became THE SOUND OF MUSIC on Broadway and in film, profiting for decades where Maria and the Von Trapps did not.

A French film producer who'd secured rights to LT. BLUEBERRY indeed had enough of a legal claim to deep-six a proposed Walter Hill film adaptation back in the 1990s. So, I'm hardly going to contest your claims.

More to the point at hand, an American movie producer of the 1950s and '60s entered the movie industry as such only after profiting from legally representing the creators of SUPERMAN.

So, there may be something to what you're representing here -- time will tell, as you say.

But you're carrying on here like a bully, 'The Truth,' and resorting to the basest name-calling tactics of the schoolyard. I imagine carrying on in such a manner in the courtroom (or whereever this copyright issue will ultimately play out) has its merits, but also I've seen such tactics have quite the opposite effect in this lifetime.

Whatever your opinion of Neil (whom you insist on conflating with Todd, including your last post's implication that Todd and Neil are working in concert on the current MM figure, which surely misses the point of Al's initial post on this thread and the reality of the situation altogether), he has distinguished himself as one of the most impeccable diplomats of the creative community -- an example you'd do well to emulate in some way, shape or form.

"Steve Bissette has gone quiet all of a sudden" hereafter because there's really no point in conversing further with you.

Why converse with someone who refutes the historical 'chain' evidenced via US histories of the medium with insults; who infers a powerful proprietary presence lurks behind all this that appears to have no visible public role in any available record of MM in all its incarnations, and insults the posters here for not knowing of said mysterious figure (which, as I've stated above, doesn't mean "a movie producer" might not have such a legal claim on the property -- but you're insulting anyone who argues otherwise, though there is no such proprietary presence in any UK or US version of events anyone here, or anyone I know personally who HAS been involved creatively with MM since 1980, has access to); and who presumes I have motives I don't have, and presumes my momentary silence (because I don't post on this single thread in the universe with his own obsessive regularity) is somehow immediate evidence of my bending knee to your bombast?

Should we all, ipso facto, assume 'The Truth' (the sheer ego implicit in the absolutist authority you cloak yourself in via your pseudoname) "has gone quiet all of a sudden", not replying mere nanoseconds after I've posted this, is therefore admitting his ill behavior is evidence of -- what?

No, we won't do that.

That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Steve Bissette on April 17, 2006, 07:11:59 AM
Hey, that's me posting above.

Hey, Al -- I DID log on -- then was brought to this thread -- posted, assuming I was logged in and would be identified -- and wasn't. In fact, when I posted THIS, I typed in the username "Stephen R Bissette" and was immediately refused with a note saying, "Sorry, but this username has already been taken."

Let me know, via email, what, if anything, I'm doing wrong.
Title: Deal with it
Post by: The Truth on April 17, 2006, 07:13:48 AM
Quote from: "Anonymous"
The little statue thing is a blatant violation of copyrights, yes. I agree with that. However, then you went off on a tangent and said that Alan Moore, Todd McFarlane and all those others were thieves for using Marvelman/Miracleman because it belonged to Anglo or whatever.

But Marvelman/Miracleman is a blatant copyrights violation himself, so your point about thievery is moot. the whole concept itself was already stolen.


The VISUAL design is as far away from any superhero as the next and that's where the theft lies.

Deal with It.

DUH! (for the 4rth time)

The Truth.
Title: Re: Deal with it
Post by: Joseph on April 17, 2006, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: "The Truth"
Quote from: "Anonymous"
The little statue thing is a blatant violation of copyrights, yes. I agree with that. However, then you went off on a tangent and said that Alan Moore, Todd McFarlane and all those others were thieves for using Marvelman/Miracleman because it belonged to Anglo or whatever.

But Marvelman/Miracleman is a blatant copyrights violation himself, so your point about thievery is moot. the whole concept itself was already stolen.


The VISUAL design is as far away from any superhero as the next and that's where the theft lies.

Deal with It.

DUH! (for the 4rth time)

The Truth.


Oh for the love of god cut it out. I cannot for the life of me even begin to comprehend how someone claiming to be a lawyer can be so incredibly dense.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Steve Bissette on April 17, 2006, 07:26:49 AM
Man, you are a real piece of work!

There is an abundance of superheroes, before and after the 1950s, in the MM mold. In US copyright, "protectable elements" has very specific meaning and contexts -- it'll be fascinating to see how this plays out, though truth to tell, we'll probably never know. Most legal proceedings over such issues end up settling out of court, and well out of public view, with binding non-disclosure agreements ensuring it all remains out of public view.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Bob on April 17, 2006, 07:34:11 AM
One of my favourite movies of all time is John Stuges' THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and one of the best scenes in it is when Chico, having been previously humiliated by Chris, bursts into the bar where the gunmen are talking.  He starts off drunk and rambling and gets more unstable as the scene goes on, and the experienced gunmen pretty much just ignore him, knowing he lacks the guts to actually shoot Chris in cold blood, and lacks the skill to actually take any of them in a fair shoot-out.  Horst Buchholz acts the hell out of that scene.

I'm not sure why I just thought of that scene...
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 17, 2006, 09:41:17 AM
Hey, Mr. Bissette- From now on, ya have to log-in to post. There's no more guest posting at this forum. Sorry about that.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Stephen R Bissette on April 17, 2006, 12:53:24 PM
Thanks, Al -- no problem, happy to do it. This makes life easier.

Final note on 'The Truth' posts to date:

If I'm reading you correctly, (a) you are relying on this venue to try to 'reach' Neil Gaiman; (b) you are presenting yourself as a legal representative of an unnamed second party, but (c) you seem to be saying if Neil chooses to respond (why he would otherwise, I wouldn't know) via a legal representative, he's somehow "in trouble" (my paraphrasing; I haven't the time to go back and check your precise wording) -- which, of course, he should do, especially given (d) what are essentially threats you've publicly posted here.

Your logic defies rational analysis on any number of levels -- though I concede none of this necessarily undermines your claim that this mysterious third party movie producer has legal propriety over the MM characters, concepts and trademarks. I am most curious to know more; as I said, there certainly are historic precedents.

Strange to see the comics industry treatment of freelancers prior to the 1990s (when freelancers having legal representation was considered problematic and reason enough to not deal with them, with the notable exception of Mike Friedrich's clients) is alive and well in 2006.
Title: Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on April 17, 2006, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: "Stephen R Bissette"
Final note on 'The Truth' posts to date:


'The Truth' has (hopefully) gone Buh-Bye.

Quote from: "Stephen R Bissette"
Strange to see the comics industry treatment of freelancers prior to the 1990s (when freelancers having legal representation was considered problematic and reason enough to not deal with them, with the notable exception of Mike Friedrich's clients) is alive and well in 2006.


Well, with all the crazy contracts that I've come across and had to sign, it's always good to have a lawyer on hand. Now, it seems more accepted for freelancers and creators to have lawyers... especially when Hollywood has a tendency to come over to recruit people from our industry.

It is a horrible thought to picture a publisher frowning on a freelancer seeking legal counsel for any contract he/she, might want to sign with said publisher.
Title: Re: Sim on Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on July 25, 2009, 07:48:42 AM
(http://albert.nickerson.tripod.com//picnewsmarvelman.jpg)

This is an intersting bit of news: "Marvel’s Marvelman...?" (http://alnickerson.blogspot.com/2009/07/marvels-marvelman.html).
Title: Re: Sim on Todd's "Man of Miracles"
Post by: Al Nickerson on January 30, 2012, 07:23:20 PM
"Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane settle..." (http://alnickerson.blogspot.com/2012/01/neil-gaiman-and-todd-mcfarlane-settle.html)