POLL RESULTS: Has The "Before Watchmen" Controversy Affected Your Interest In The Pre

[photonex68]

So you are saying here that because Moore "may" have looked at continuing Watchmen as was his right as creator that it makes DC right in exploiting Watchmen against his wishes? This based on your interpretation of "a couple of RPG play books" that have less legal validity than the intent to defraud clause in the original contract? How Kafka of you and DC. That's a real stretch dude.

It's no more of a stretch than the assumption that DC worded the rights-reversion clause of the contract the way they did with foreknowledge that Watchmen still wouldn't be out of print 25 years later.

[Alton]

It's no more of a stretch than the assumption that DC worded the rights-reversion clause of the contract the way they did with foreknowledge that Watchmen still wouldn't be out of print 25 years later.

I believe, and perhaps I'm wrong here, that Moore already had a proven sales record with DC and became pre Watchmen one of the guys on the rise at DC.So yes, I maintain that the powers that be at DC knew that anything Moore produced at that time could be big bucks for them and were looking for a loophole to get around the early days of creator rights.Whether or not certain characters were based on Charlton the final product was produced with non Charlton characters and DC does not own Watchmen characters or the book.This is simply a manipulative contract that gives them publishing rights and republishing rights to infinity.Even in the early days as the history of this unfolds there were plans to exploit this property into toys and movies and etc.It would be interesting to see this finally get into court, but that is unlikely at this point.It might be similar to the recent court finding between Gaiman and Image over Medieval Spawn or it could turn into the Johnny Blaze fiasco between Friedrich and Marvel.Gaiman's success in no small part had to do with confronting a small one horse operation as opposed to confronting WB/DC or Marvel with their mega law firms.Be that as it may, what does that have do with you trying to make an argument that because Moore had "possibly" entertained the idea to expand Watchmen that somehow validates DC's current exploitation of the property? It is his to exploit or not exploit as creator. If WB/DC retain some quasi legal right as publisher this is unfortunate.The people who do not have any right to exploit this property are all the creative teams starting with Azzarello,Cooke,Wein,etc.All of these people especially Wein should have known better. Chris Roberson is the only one who has shown any integrity on the matter so far.

[squashmaster]

Well, I would have bought Minutemen by Darwyn Cooke in 2 seconds flat, controversy or no.

[Alton]

Well, I would have bought Minutemen by Darwyn Cooke in 2 seconds flat, controversy or no.

That's perfectly fine and buy what you want. I'm not trying to start a boycott here.The recently released Trades for Cooke's run on Catwoman and Parker were high on my list as well until this Before Watchmen fracas, but no longer.Everybody has the right to buy what they want but all creators involved are permanently off my list as well as Before Watchmen work. Even if Moore were to reverse himself and climb on board tomorrow I would still feel this way.Have a good one.

[squashmaster]

That's perfectly fine and buy what you want. I'm not trying to start a boycott here.The recently released Trades for Cooke's run on Catwoman and Parker were high on my list as well until this Before Watchmen fracas, but no longer.Everybody has the right to buy what they want but all creators involved are permanently off my list as well as Before Watchmen work. Even if Moore were to reverse himself and climb on board tomorrow I would still feel this way.Have a good one.

You're missing out. Spaceman is ruling hard, it could be one of the new classics when it comes out in trade. And Cooke's Catwoman is some of the best Catwoman ever.

[Alton]

You're missing out. Spaceman is ruling hard, it could be one of the new classics when it comes out in trade. And Cooke's Catwoman is some of the best Catwoman ever.

Believe me I thought hard about cancelling Spaceman in mid stream. I was a fan of a lot of Vertigo. Parker, by another publisher I believe, is a character long overdue for reviving,but there is more than enough alternative press material out there to keep me happy.Nice talking to you.Now I'm really outta here.

[photonex68]

I believe, and perhaps I'm wrong here, that Moore already had a proven sales record with DC and became pre Watchmen one of the guys on the rise at DC.So yes, I maintain that the powers that be at DC knew that anything Moore produced at that time could be big bucks for them and were looking for a loophole to get around the early days of creator rights.

I have difficulty following that line of reasoning, considering that the contract itself was unusual at the time for its rights-reversion clause. That presumes what looks to me like melodramatically sinister motives for a property that DC had no idea whether it would really sell that well, regardless of Moore's rep.

Whether or not certain characters were based on Charlton the final product was produced with non Charlton characters and DC does not own Watchmen characters or the book.

Except that yes, DC does own the characters (or at least the rights to them), specifically because of the contract Moore signed with them.

This is simply a manipulative contract that gives them publishing rights and republishing rights to infinity.Even in the early days as the history of this unfolds there were plans to exploit this property into toys and movies and etc.

That's a mighty big accusation, as is your insistence that the contract Moore signed has a "right to defraud" clause, as you described it earlier. What I don't see, however, is any proof supporting these statements.

[Alton]

I have difficulty following that line of reasoning, considering that the contract itself was unusual at the time for its rights-reversion clause. That presumes what looks to me like melodramatically sinister motives for a property that DC had no idea whether it would really sell that well, regardless of Moore's rep.



Except that yes, DC does own the characters (or at least the rights to them), specifically because of the contract Moore signed with them.



That's a mighty big accusation, as is your insistence that the contract Moore signed has a "right to defraud" clause, as you described it earlier. What I don't see, however, is any proof supporting these statements.

It's a waste of time to debate this further because some big baby pulled a couple of our comments off this thread.Have a good one dude.

[The Valeyard]

For those of you boycotting Before Watchmen - Do you plan on (or are you already) boycotting other properties from creators who have gotten screwed in the past? Jack Kirby? Siegel and Shuster? They dealt with contract issues as well. Promises that were never held.

Do you (or will you) stop buying those titles?