Sim on Todd's "Man of Miracles"

[HeathLail]

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

[The Truth]

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.

[Joseph]

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.

[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.

[The Truth]

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

[The Truth]

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.

[Question]

Where's Gary Groth when you need him?

[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.

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.

[The Truth]

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:

[Al Nickerson]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Steve Bissette]

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.

[The Truth]

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.