Great Gerber Piece!

[Zack]

I always enjoy reading about Gerber and his work, and this clarified a lot of the issues on OMEGA for me. Terrific job!

My only complaint is that you didn't get the original ending for the series out of Skrenes! That one's been driving me crazy for years.

Great job, man.

Zack Smith

[Stoss]

Gerber's issue is with Marvel ONLY, and he should remember that. placing the responsibility on the writer to research whether a property is clear for new creative work is a ridiculous demand which would waste everyone's time and money. Marvel's legal department would not allow the publishing of Omega if there were a true Intellecutal Property dispute... why would they allow themselves to possibly lose money, especially considering they are a public company subject to investor review? Gerber is just a man who got screwed and is sharing his sour grapes with the world... waaaaaaaaaah!

[T Rath]

The Gerber piece was good, much better than the opening piece about the "adultifying" of comics, which actually said nothing. Where was the comments from Byrne who has been critical? Or from anyone in support of the maturing of super-hero fare? I assume some retailer must think that as those purchasers are coming into his/her store. What about data showing that mature titles or storylines increase/decrease sales?

And in the Gerber piece, fairness would have dictated getting a comment from the new writer as well as from Marvel (although Rich did acknowledge Marvel didn't want to talk). A journalist would hold the piece until both sides are heard from - one week would not have hurt. Would you have gotten a prepared answer from Marvel? Probably, but that's better than no comment at all.

With all due respect, I can see you have good intentions with this style of column, but there's nothing there. I would stick to the rumors if I were you, as you are very good at that.

[NatGertler]

Gerber's issue is with Marvel ONLY, and he should remember that.No, actually, he clearly has an issue with creators who choose to participate in such efforts. Creators in this business often involve themselves in projects knowing that the original creator is not profiting from it.
Marvel's legal department would not allow the publishing of Omega if there were a true Intellecutal Property dispute...That is a strong presumption that isn't backed up by history. Marvel has published a number of things in the past that tripped them up in an intellectual property sense. This industry is filled with minefields, with ownership claims at times based on ill-documented agreements many decades old.

[RichJohnston]

Gerber's issue is with Marvel ONLY, and he should remember that. placing the responsibility on the writer to research whether a property is clear for new creative work is a ridiculous demand which would waste everyone's time and money. Marvel's legal department would not allow the publishing of Omega if there were a true Intellecutal Property dispute... why would they allow themselves to possibly lose money, especially considering they are a public company subject to investor review? Gerber is just a man who got screwed and is sharing his sour grapes with the world... waaaaaaaaaah!

They allowed the publication of Howard The Duck. And Captain America. And the X-Men appearance of Sir James Jaspers.

Who knows what else slipped through the net.

[RichJohnston]

The Gerber piece was good, much better than the opening piece about the "adultifying" of comics, which actually said nothing. Where was the comments from Byrne who has been critical? Or from anyone in support of the maturing of super-hero fare? I assume some retailer must think that as those purchasers are coming into his/her store. What about data showing that mature titles or storylines increase/decrease sales?

And in the Gerber piece, fairness would have dictated getting a comment from the new writer as well as from Marvel (although Rich did acknowledge Marvel didn't want to talk). A journalist would hold the piece until both sides are heard from - one week would not have hurt. Would you have gotten a prepared answer from Marvel? Probably, but that's better than no comment at all.

With all due respect, I can see you have good intentions with this style of column, but there's nothing there. I would stick to the rumors if I were you, as you are very good at that.

I talked to Jonathan a fair bit, but he didn't wish to publically comment. Marvel also did not wish to comment.

[berk]

I didn't read the whole article yet, just the Gerber section and oI have to say that I'm impressed once again by gerber's honesty and clarity. I totally agree with his stance on Omega and on the general question of writers playing with other people's creations when the creator has been shut out by corporate ownership of his/her material. I think Skrenes was probably on the right track with her assessment of the psychology involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to say whether or not it applies in this or any specific case.

Realistically, Leathem probably doesn't have much choice now, though. He's signed a contract and I doubt if he even has the freedom of choice to change the name of the characters or title of the series as gerber suggested he do.

[Steadfast]

On a side note about the Ultraverse, an Ultraverse character, Rune, created by Chris Ulm and Barry Winsor-Smith, was mentioned in a Marvel Handbook recently. Under the Infinity Watch entry in the Marvel Handbook Teams book, Rune is mentioned in the entry. As far as I know, this is the first time in years that an Ultraverse character is mentioned in a Marvel book. As a former Malibu Employee, I keep an eye out for these mentions as I was there at the start of the Ultraverse and it's eventual fall.

[CaptMagellan]

Loved this weeks column, especially the Gerber piece, and with 3 for 3, I'm still planning on voting for the new style.

[RichJohnston]

On a side note about the Ultraverse, an Ultraverse character, Rune, created by Chris Ulm and Barry Winsor-Smith, was mentioned in a Marvel Handbook recently. Under the Infinity Watch entry in the Marvel Handbook Teams book, Rune is mentioned in the entry. As far as I know, this is the first time in years that an Ultraverse character is mentioned in a Marvel book. As a former Malibu Employee, I keep an eye out for these mentions as I was there at the start of the Ultraverse and it's eventual fall.

Interesting. Got a scan and publication date at all? Any ownership not in the indicia?

[Paul McEnery]

I know Jonathan, actually, and he's a straight shooter. It's too bad he was naive in this instance, and I do believe he's got an option -- break the contract. Provide no work, receive no money. I hope that's what he does.

[Swingkid570]

And in the Gerber piece, fairness would have dictated getting a comment from the new writer as well as from Marvel (although Rich did acknowledge Marvel didn't want to talk). A journalist would hold the piece until both sides are heard from - one week would not have hurt. Would you have gotten a prepared answer from Marvel? Probably, but that's better than no comment at all.

No, a journalist holds his piece as long as he can before their deadline hits.

[berk]

I don't know much about this kind of business; would Leathem be vulnerable to any kind of legal reprisal from Marvel if he simply broke the contract and dropped the project?

[deadbeat76er]

Good piece from Paul O'Brian at Ninth Art... http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=1058

[Steadfast]

Interesting. Got a scan and publication date at all? Any ownership not in the indicia?

For the Handbook or for the Rune Series? The Handbook JUST came out like a month ago, so it should be pretty easy to check.

Infact, I just did. No ownership data in the indicia if the Handbook, except for the usual Marvel legalease. Oh, and in going back to check the Infinity Watch entry, not only do they use Rune's name, but they call him "the Ultraverse's Rune" and mention a character that was created for the Ultraforce/Avengers crossover, Nemesis.

Just offhand, if any one is interested in reading the crossover, it came in two parts. Part one (Avengers/Ultraforce) was done by Marvel and was a typical story of pairing characters against eachother in one of Grandmaster's games. The second (Ultraforce/Avengers), was drawn by George Perez, dealt with a blending of their realities. It was a MUCH better story.

[Cooper]

No, actually, he clearly has an issue with creators who choose to participate in such efforts. Creators in this business often involve themselves in projects knowing that the original creator is not profiting from it.

Does Gerber think Stan Lee should not have put Namor in FF#4 or Cap in Avengers #4? He didn't create them, and their creators were still in the business.

Of course, that was a different time. Omega the Unknown was a D-list character that made a negligible impact when originally published and is barely remembered now, so it seems odd to get up in arms about an Omega revival. Did Gerber get upset with the reimagining of the Creeper or the Challengers of the Unknown or the Doom Patrol or does this only apply to propertied he feels ownership toward?

[Disintegrating Clone]

Gerber is just a man who got screwed and is sharing his sour grapes with the world... waaaaaaaaaah!

That's right, he did, and he probably is. Marvel deprived him of the chance to work on his greatest character, Howard the Duck, instead allowing Howard either to fester or putting the likes of Bill Mantlo on the book. Gerber's sick of it, and it's no wonder. He's asking us not to buy the new Omega, and I think after what's happened to Howard, that this is a reasonable request.

Incidentally, Omega the Unknown wasn't actually all that good in the first place.

[NatGertler]

Does Gerber think Stan Lee should not have put Namor in FF#4 or Cap in Avengers #4? He didn't create them, and their creators were still in the business.I won't speak for Steve, but I will note that the artist on Avengers 4 was someone understood at the time and still widely believed to be Cap's co-creator (I only put in the caveat since Joe Simon has since come forth to claim Cap as his sole creation), and we can presume Jack was getting paid for this work.
Omega the Unknown was a D-list character that made a negligible impact when originally published and is barely remembered now, so it seems odd to get up in arms about an Omega revival.Creators' concern for their creations is not always directly linked to their popularity.

[Cooper]

I won't speak for Steve, but I will note that the artist on Avengers 4 was someone understood at the time and still widely believed to be Cap's co-creator (I only put in the caveat since Joe Simon has since come forth to claim Cap as his sole creation), and we can presume Jack was getting paid for this work.


But, in the other half of my example, I don't think any of Namor's creators (I think he was Bill Everett's) were involved in FF#4.

I haven't read the Gerber complaint for a number of weeks, but, unless he thinks he has a real case to make that he is the owner of Omega the Unknown (other than wishful thinking regarding his creative efforts), he can't get bent out of shape if the owner of the property decides to use it.

This is probably a sideshow anyway, as I dount this new Omega will do very well anyway.

[NatGertler]

I haven't read the Gerber complaint for a number of weeks, but, unless he thinks he has a real case to make that he is the owner of Omega the UnknownAnd he may very well feel that, considering that this is a guy who took Marvel to court over Howard and ended up settling out of court.
he can't get bent out of shape if the owner of the property decides to use it. Of course he can. Heck, people can get bent out of shape for reasons far smaller than things like seeing something they created abused.

[RichJohnston]

And he may very well feel that, considering that this is a guy who took Marvel to court over Howard and ended up settling out of court.
Of course he can. Heck, people can get bent out of shape for reasons far smaller than things like seeing something they created abused.

Am I right in thinking that Marvel took Gerber to court over the Howard For President buttons, and came out of it having to settle and pay Gerber off?

[NatGertler]

I can't say for certain whether you are right; your statement on the genesis of the case doesn't match any description that I've heard of it. If it was, there was a large lag; the Howard For President campaign was 1976, and the lawsuit was active a fair bit later (the Destroyer Duck #1 fundraiser came out in 1982). However, I was not nearly as in-the-loop back in those days. As to what the settlement was, I don't know that it has ever been made public.

It would seem odd at best for Marvel to sue over the buttons, as they were advertised in the pages of the comic itself (although issue 8 does include an accusation by Howard himself that Gerber was embezzling funds from the campaign). Issues 4 through 9 include ordering info for the buttons on the letters page (and issues 10-11 has info on the other HTD-for-prez item, a print). And on the Bulletin Bulletins page of issue 5 (and, I presume, other September 1976 cover-dated Marvels) it is mentioned that:STEVE "Baby" GERBER has received permission to sell a HOWARD THE DUCK FOR PRESIDENT button to all you faithful feather-followersso one would be hard-pressed to call it an unauthorized piece.

[DDM]

They allowed the publication of Howard The Duck. And Captain America. And the X-Men appearance of Sir James Jaspers.

Who knows what else slipped through the net.

The Fury...don't forget the Fury.

[PatrickG]

In all fairness, some of the disputes of ownership (like Cap) were not disputed twenty or thirty years ago and the creators were friendly towards Marvel at the time.

My understanding of the '78 copyright/trademark law revision is such that many of the claims today do not question past ownership. It's not disputed that DC owned Superman outright in 1986, for instance or whether Marvel owned Cap in 1963.

What's in dispute is creators (basing their idea in part upon ill-defined work for hire agreements and such) are claiming that they can claim partial ownership NOW.

I believe the law would essentially allow them to take ownership TODAY of a character without retroactively contesting Marvel or DC's ownership, say, as of ten years ago.

It's different from case-to-case but I think that's the approach being taken with Supes and Cap.

Because if we were talking about, say, Superman over his entire history, the Siegels would be NUTS to settle if they had a case. We wouldn't just be talking about a billion a year for them today but the retroactive payments owed to them (especially if inflation gets factored in, plus punitive damages, plus any damages associated with lisencing they disapprove of) would make Joanne Siegel wealthier than Bill Gates.

Time Warner may have deep pockets but what she would be owed in the event of retroactive payments would total more than the annual budgets for all of Warner Bros. movies, television series, home video, the WB network -- more than all of it put together.

If she has a claim, probably the best argument against her suing would be that it would result in thousands of people losing their jobs and a bankruptcy which would end up netting her nothing and creating a major panic in the entertainment industry.

If she won her case and payments were retroactive, it would be a victory for creators' rights... but the apocalypse of the comics industry as we know it.

The kind of money we're talking about would probably result in DC closing up shop and ALL characters being suspended. Because by the time you get through DC's 1,000+ characters, there's enough money at stake to basically financially ruin AOL-Time Warner and everyone they've done business with using super-heroes. Meanwhile, Marvel might find itself frozen down for fear of attracting a similar suit.

The direct market would collapse, killing just about everything except Darkhorse and Tokyo Pop.

We'd probably see well-to-do creators uniting (maybe under the Image banner) to relaunch the industry but it would have to be newstand fare and I'm not sure the current crop of talent, by and large, is capable of putting out broad appeal, all ages fare the likes of which traditional retail would demand.

One thing's for sure, everyone's ideas about "what it takes to attract the mainstream" would be put to the test and I think most people's ideas on that subject would fall flat.

[NatGertler]

Because if we were talking about, say, Superman over his entire history, the Siegels would be NUTS to settle if they had a case.While we aren't talking the character's entire history, a settlement would not be "nuts". The value of money is not linear; the difference between having $0 and $10 million is far larger than the difference between $10 million and a billion; the first is the gap between starvation and comfortable luxury for the rest of one's life, while the latter is just an upgrade in luxury. Having some money as a sure thing is often a better idea than having more money as a possibility, even at good odds.

And settlements come quickly, while ongoing court cases drain money and can go on for many years.... and Mrs. Siegel is not a young lass at this point.

But you are right, this case is about reversion of the rights, not retroactive ownership.