74 replies to this topic

[sonicroc]

LOL, check out Perci, a new character in Sonic Boom:

 

 

Who will win in this battle of shameless ripoffs? (Well okay, Sega will, since they've got the monies, but still...)

 

He's probably going to have to give the rights back anyway.  As I mentioned earlier, Sega could easily sue on the grounds that the only reason those characters exist at all was to sell the Sonic franchise via the comic. 

 

Sorry, but that doesn't actually matter. The fact is this: When you create a character, you own the rights to that character, unless you sign a contract that gives the rights over to someone else. Ken Penders and his co-writers didn't have to sign such contracts. Therefore, they rightfully own the characters they made for the comic, even if they made them with the intention that they would be used in the comic.

 

 

Sadly it seems to be something going on with a lot of comics lately: Jack Kirby's heirs are suing Marvel for the characters he created.

 

Why is this a bad thing?!

[furrykef]

Sorry, but that doesn't actually matter. The fact is this: When you create a character, you own the rights to that character, unless you sign a contract that gives the rights over to someone else. Ken Penders and his co-writers didn't have to sign such contracts. Therefore, they rightfully own the characters they made for the comic, even if they made them with the intention that they would be used in the comic.

Being legally right and morally right are different things. If the company you're working for thinks they own the stuff you make, and you string them along and let them believe that until you create a legal problem, I call that wrong.

[RedAuthar]

 

 

Sadly it seems to be something going on with a lot of comics lately: Jack Kirby's heirs are suing Marvel for the characters he created.

 

Why is this a bad thing?!

Because they are attempting to steal these characters to use for their own purposes so they can make money off them essentially destroying the Marvel Canon, costing the Marvel/Disney the Avengers Franchise and severely hurting the movie industry as some of their biggest blockbusters to be released.

 

Also since it isn't Jack Kirby himself who let Marvel keep the characters when he originally left it's disrespectful to him by saying they didn't care about them while he was alive, only now that they are big names and make money. 

 

Sorry, but that doesn't actually matter. The fact is this: When you create a character, you own the rights to that character, unless you sign a contract that gives the rights over to someone else. Ken Penders and his co-writers didn't have to sign such contracts. Therefore, they rightfully own the characters they made for the comic, even if they made them with the intention that they would be used in the comic.

Being legally right and morally right are different things. If the company you're working for thinks they own the stuff you make, and you string them along and let them believe that until you create a legal problem, I call that wrong.

 

Penders didn't sign anything he wrote or created either.  He has no more claim for them then Archie Comics does. 

[sonicroc]

Being legally right and morally right are different things. If the company you're working for thinks they own the stuff you make, and you string them along and let them believe that until you create a legal problem, I call that wrong.

 
If you think that is wrong, I would imagine you would also think what Archie has been doing is wrong: They haven't been paying their former artists and writers any money for their work for any of the reprinted Sonic material. (Except, of course, Ken Penders himself is being paid for his material now, but only after all of that rigamarole.) 

 

 

 

Sadly it seems to be something going on with a lot of comics lately: Jack Kirby's heirs are suing Marvel for the characters he created.

 
Why is this a bad thing?!

 

Because they are attempting to steal these characters to use for their own purposes so they can make money off them essentially destroying the Marvel Canon, costing the Marvel/Disney the Avengers Franchise and severely hurting the movie industry as some of their biggest blockbusters to be released.
 
Also since it isn't Jack Kirby himself who let Marvel keep the characters when he originally left it's disrespectful to him by saying they didn't care about them while he was alive, only now that they are big names and make money.

 

 
Don't you think it's a bit strange that you are criticizing Jack Kirby's estate for wanting to make lots of money off the brand, and then you suggest that Disney/Marvel/Hollywood ought to keep the rights because they are making lots of money off the brand? I sense that you're siding with Marvel simply because you like their movies. 

 

I don't know a lot about this specific court case, but based on what I can tell, you and I should both be hoping that the estate wins. Hollywood has an insane amount of lobbying power over the government, and if their grip is at all loosened in favor of creators, I definitely call that a good thing. (I know, I know, a government controlled by big estates would be a bad thing too, but I don't sense that's what's at stake here.) 

 

 

Penders didn't sign anything he wrote or created either.  He has no more claim for them then Archie Comics does.

Like I said, when you create a character, you own the copyright for that character, unless you sign it over to someone else. You don't need to sign anything to own the copyright to your own characters (although it's of course unsafe not to formally copyright them if you plan to use them for something). 

[RedAuthar]

 

Penders didn't sign anything he wrote or created either.  He has no more claim for them then Archie Comics does.

Like I said, when you create a character, you own the copyright for that character, unless you sign it over to someone else. You don't need to sign anything to own the copyright to your own characters (although it's of course unsafe not to formally copyright them if you plan to use them for something). 

 

When you're hired onto to work for an employer, that work is for that employer.  When you're hired on to WRITE for a comic book, you're writing for said comic book.  His whole terms of being hired is that he was doing work for them.  Not himself, them.

 

 

 

Don't you think it's a bit strange that you are criticizing Jack Kirby's estate for wanting to make lots of money off the brand, and then you suggest that Disney/Marvel/Hollywood ought to keep the rights because they are making lots of money off the brand? I sense that you're siding with Marvel simply because you like their movies. 

 

 

I'm siding with Marvel because Jack Kirby himself LET Marvel keep his creations.  His own family are the aggressors attacking Marvel because they feel they are entitled to Kirby's work, but only after he is dead.  That wasn't his wish, so clearly they care more about the money then who the claim they are fighting for.  

 

On top of that like Penders, this also alienates any fans because they clearly care more about their money then the fans who followed such titles as Captain America for years.  I'd also like to add as a fan I could care less who owns who, but rather that the story is the same one I've enjoyed for the long term.  The Kirby Estate doesn't care for any of the Marvel fans that have seen the likes of Captain America tied into those of Spider-Man, Wolverine, and Iron Man for many great adventures and stories.  They just care that said Character can make them a killing.  

 

If they just wanted a percentage of every comic/movie/game/whatever that featured Kirby's characters, more power to them.  But they don't want that.  They want the character so the money goes to them.  

 

Also Marvel isn't a Movie Company.  It is a Comic Book Company that teamed up with Movie Companies who wanted to use their stories as plots for Movies

I don't know a lot about this specific court case, but based on what I can tell, you and I should both be hoping that the estate wins. Hollywood has an insane amount of lobbying power over the government, and if their grip is at all loosened in favor of creators, I definitely call that a good thing. (I know, I know, a government controlled by big estates would be a bad thing too, but I don't sense that's what's at stake here.) 

 

 

Well first off, if you don't know anything about the case you shouldn't be rooting for either side.  That's just good sense in itself.

 

Second of all, this isn't in favor of the creators.  This would be in favor of the children of a dead artist who CO-CREATED these characters with the writer, Stan Lee (and in some cases Steve Ditko).  Also key notes: said artist did sign over the rights to these characters to Marvel, The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York already sided with Marvel in 2011, and The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with that case in 2013....

 

Also again, Kirby did leave to work for DC comics, where his characters were not as popular.  which the Estate doesn't seem to care for, again cementing the fact they care not about Kirby himself or his feelings on said matter, but rather that they get paid for his works because it is now popular because of the Movies.

[RedAuthar]

Just for the record...I'm trying to attack you directly but in hindsight, my text might come out that way.  It's hard to argue in text sometimes without coming across cold.  So just for the record, I'm not attacking you or your opinions.  I just don't agree with them.  

[furrykef]

Being legally right and morally right are different things. If the company you're working for thinks they own the stuff you make, and you string them along and let them believe that until you create a legal problem, I call that wrong.

 
If you think that is wrong, I would imagine you would also think what Archie has been doing is wrong: They haven't been paying their former artists and writers any money for their work for any of the reprinted Sonic material. (Except, of course, Ken Penders himself is being paid for his material now, but only after all of that rigamarole.)

I don't see why, since the idea of work for hire agreements (which is what Archie thought they had with Penders) is they own the stuff you make for them and you have no claim to it anymore. If you don't agree to the terms, then you shouldn't sign the contract. And if, as Penders claims, there was no contract, well, that's why you need a contract.

[sonicroc]

@RedAuthar: Yeah, LOL, actually I was gonna say, there is something really strange to me about engaging in this sort of online discussion. The interface with others is much less natural. (Then again, if I type something stupid, I can sometimes delete it before I hit "post"; wish I could do that in "real life.") 

 

And I don't know why I started arguing with you about the Marvel thing, since I don't really know anything about the issue. I will have to give you the benefit of a doubt on that... 

 

I guess my personality just lends itself to being on the defense. Ken Penders can be very obnoxious at times (and his Lien-Da design looks like something out of my worst nightmares), but he gets so much hate, so I feel like I need to at least put in a good defense for him.

 

And I'm still very much bothered by that one piece of fan art that somehow made it to the front page of FUS, with Sally flicking off Ken Penders, as I recall. That really hurt. 

 

I agree with you that, theoretically, if you're writing for a comic like Sonic the Hedgehog, it only seems natural that the copyright to characters you create for it would go over to the licensor. But the fact is, matters like that can't be handled just based on assumptions; they need to be settled via contract. I really don't understand why Archie didn't do this, but the fact is they didn't. 

 

Perhaps part of the problem is that the focus is on Ken Penders. But it's not just him: Scott Shaw also makes the very same claims: 

 

http://www.tssznews....shaw-uncovered/

 

Also, Nigel Kitching and the other writers for Sonic the Comic make the same claim about their work. Of course, that is a different comic, but the point is, people don't hate on them and say they're insane. 

 

I think the Lara-Su Chronicles is going to be terrible, and that Ken Penders would be better off selling groceries or something. But nonetheless I do believe that he and his fellow artists and writers should receive royalties for their work, as they own the copyright to their work due to Archie's apparent negligence. 

 

I think the most important thing to remember is this: Absolutely nothing is stopping Archie from including Ken Penders' characters in their comics. That would simply require that he'd get royalties for it. Archie could have considered the fact that thousands of fans were invested in the comic story, and decided that it would be worth giving over a little of their money for it. 

 

Instead, they just thought, "Well, we can sell the comic and give Ken Penders money, or we can sell the comic and not give Ken Penders money," without the slightest thought for the actual content of the comic and what it means for a story when you suddenly delete half the characters. (I personally have come to be okay with the previous canon coming to an end, especially since it ended with that epic Shard story; but I know a lot of people are still upset about it.) 

 

I guess this is what I find so frustrating, that everyone's pinning the blame on Ken Penders when it is very clear to me that the higher-ups at Archie are the ones who are at fault. 

[RedAuthar]

 

I guess my personality just lends itself to being on the defense.

Please don't feel like this is a bad thing.  I do play the "devil's advocate" ( a term I don't really like ...) myself for Archie Comics, Flynn, and SEGA.  

 

 

Also, Nigel Kitching and the other writers for Sonic the Comic make the same claim about their work. Of course, that is a different comic, but the point is, people don't hate on them and say they're insane. 

I think I heard Somewhere Bollers was as well. 

 

 

I think the Lara-Su Chronicles is going to be terrible, and that Ken Penders would be better off selling groceries or something. But nonetheless I do believe that he and his fellow artists and writers should receive royalties for their work, as they own the copyright to their work due to Archie's apparent negligence. 

 

I believe that Penders should get royalties for his characters.  In fact, My ideal solution would have been let Penders through Archie make his own spin-off as an alternate universe.

 

 

I think the most important thing to remember is this: Absolutely nothing is stopping Archie from including Ken Penders' characters in their comics. That would simply require that he'd get royalties for it. Archie could have considered the fact that thousands of fans were invested in the comic story, and decided that it would be worth giving over a little of their money for it. 

That and I think SEGA is waiting for him to release his comic so they can counter-sue him for his claim.  If Archie uses the characters that counter-sue would fail.

[sonicroc]

You know, I've been thinking: I'm probably wrong. It actually seems more likely that Sega decided that they were uncomfortable with the idea of having characters of ambiguous copyright in the comic, and so told Archie to remove all such characters forever.

 

But whatever. Like I said, I really have no problem with the original canon's ending. It's true that I haven't actually read any of the post-Super-Genesis story -- I'm still in the middle of Worlds Collide -- but if it stinks, I can just cancel my subscription, and spend the rest of my life reading my hundreds of older issues, most of which I have probably forgotten. And then there's Sonic the Comic Online, and Sea3on... So I'm pretty set.

 

Oh yeah, and I have little doubt that the fan community will step in and make a web-comic based on Ian Flynn's original plans for the comic, once he releases his "Lost Hedgehog Tales."

 

...

 

And I can read the Lara-Su Chronicles too! *shot*

[RedAuthar]

But whatever. Like I said, I really have no problem with the original canon's ending. It's true that I haven't actually read any of the post-Super-Genesis story -- I'm still in the middle of Worlds Collide --

That is the ending.  When Sonic comes back from World Collides, BAM, new canon.  They never solved anything or finished any storylines. 

[sonicroc]

 

But whatever. Like I said, I really have no problem with the original canon's ending. It's true that I haven't actually read any of the post-Super-Genesis story -- I'm still in the middle of Worlds Collide --

That is the ending.  When Sonic comes back from World Collides, BAM, new canon.  They never solved anything or finished any storylines. 

 

 

No, sorry, what I meant was, I'm fine with the way the canon ends before World's Collide. I'm sure Ian Flynn had some neat stuff planned with Naugus and all, but hey, the part where Thrash gets rid of the echidnas, that was one of the most dramatic and scary moments in the comic ever! (Then again, I didn't particularly appreciate that Knuckles and Thrash then proceeded to beat eachother up for three issues straight... ^^' )

 

Plus, like I said, I really appreciated Sonic Universe #50, the awesome double-sized Metal Sonic fest. Shard was always one of my favorite characters as a kid -- even though he wasn't called "Shard" -- so to have the comic end with that story was, for me, the perfect way to bring things to a close. I actually cried at the end.

 

And yes, there are plenty of loose ends, but hey, any good writer of a continuous comic would leave many threads to work with at any time. I read the comic since I was in elementary school, and I've loved much of it, but really, I don't feel like anything needs to be resolved that wasn't. (I'm just relieved that Mina got to apologize to Nicole before the reboot!) And like I said, if there's anything you absolutely have to know about what was going to happen to a character you really liked, you can read Lost Hedgehog Tales whenever that comes out. I think it's really sweet of Ian Flynn to do that for the long-time fans. And some fans are already getting together to try to web-comic-icize it...

 

Oh, and another important note: While it was certainly a feat for Flynn to overcome, throwing away his vast amounts of plans to come up with something new, I can't help but think that a part of him was very glad to finally have an excuse to reboot the comic. He already wanted to update Sally and the rest of the Freedom Fighters, because he felt they didn't have the same "coolness" of modern Sonic characters. (See here.) And I think it was a bit of a pain to have the weight of 200+ comics on his back. (He even had to include the FREAKING NERBS in the continuity.) Now he has complete control to do whatever he wants with the story and characters. (See here.) So, I think he's happy with the way things currently stand.

[Uncle Ben]

 

 

 

 

Does anyone want bleach, mind soap, a barf bag or all the above??

[LogiTeeka]

[Speedy_25]

[RedAuthar]

I'd say kill it with fire...but then fire would be contaminated and we'd have to destroy it. 

[MoKat]

 

Does anyone want bleach, mind soap, a barf bag or all the above??

 

All of the above, please.

        

[sonicroc]

Hmm... The shock value of the new look has worn off for me at this point; it mostly just looks cheesy to me, not so much hideous. What gets me is Lara-Su's wearing a Princess Leia slave outfit. That seem slightly out of character........

[MikeMurdock]

 

 

I have friends who make sprite comics that are more impressive than this cover

 

Where to begin...

-the text on top is hardly readble due to the effects

-the text o the bottom's cover burns my eye 

- the background images are a cluttered mess

-the mountain looks like he took a clip art and 'edited' it plus the realism with the cartoony style doesn't mesh well

- That design... the face D:

[HeavensChampion]

 

 

 

 

Does anyone want bleach, mind soap, a barf bag or all the above??

Again, she looks like she's in her underwear.