Author Topic: Sim on Todd's "Man of Miracles"  (Read 121675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stephen Bissette

  • Guest
Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
« Reply #15 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!

Al Nickerson

  • Administrator
  • Avenger
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
    • http://anactoffaithcomic.com/
    • Email
Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
« Reply #16 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

The Truth

  • Guest
Facts
« Reply #17 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

Bob

  • Parker Girl
  • ****
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • http://fourrealities.blogspot.com/
Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
« Reply #18 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.

The Truth

  • Guest
Facts 4
« Reply #19 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.

The Truth

  • Guest
Facts 5
« Reply #20 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

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: Facts 4
« Reply #21 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.

Bob

  • Parker Girl
  • ****
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • http://fourrealities.blogspot.com/
Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2006, 05:10:55 PM »
Sorry, "guest" in previous post is me.  Thought I was logged on.

Question

  • Guest
A question
« Reply #23 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)?

Al Nickerson

  • Administrator
  • Avenger
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
    • http://anactoffaithcomic.com/
    • Email
Re: Facts 4
« Reply #24 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 itís a bit difficult in giving a lot of credence to much of what he has to say when we donít 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 whatís really important is try to focus on the claims of those that appear to have any legal right to the characterÖ in this case, itís Gaiman and McFarlane. I know. That stinks. But, letís 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.

Al Nickerson

  • Administrator
  • Avenger
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
    • http://anactoffaithcomic.com/
    • Email
Re: A question
« Reply #25 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?

Neil Gaiman

  • Guest
Re: A question
« Reply #26 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!

The Truth

  • Guest
Re: Facts 4
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2006, 04:05:56 AM »
[quote="Al Nickerson[/quote]

I think whatís really important is try to focus on the claims of those that appear to have any legal right to the characterÖ in this case, itís 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

Bob

  • Parker Girl
  • ****
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • http://fourrealities.blogspot.com/
Sim & Todd's "Man of Miracles"
« Reply #28 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.

The Truth

  • Guest
Facts 6
« Reply #29 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