The show makers didn't just base their show on Kirkman's raw scripts, they used the finished comics themselves as their bases. Which means they were influenced specifically by Tony Moore's artwork (at least where those early first season episodes are concerned) and style.
This goes BEYOND character designs and set dress. This has to do with everything else an artist brings to the table.
Now I'm not saying Tony Moore should necessarily deserve the 'co-creator' label on the Walking Dead, but he certainly should get some compensation for what's clearly been derived from his work.
Last edited by The Adventurer; 08-10-2012 at 10:57 AM.
Notable New Comics Shipping the Week of 09-12-12
2000 AD 1796. LEGION LOST 0. MANHATTAN PROJECTS 6. PUNK ROCK JESUS 3. THE SHADE 12.
Last edited by LEADER DESSLOK; 08-10-2012 at 08:57 PM.
FAV Comics: Lil' ABNER, DICK TRACY, BATMAN, UNCLE SCROOGE, KAMUI, TOMB OF DRACULA, THE MIGHTY THOR by LEE\KIRBY, WONDER WOMAN by PEREZ\KAREN BERGER, AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 1-206 and EC COMICS!
Tony moore was co-owner of the property, I think he's saying he signed over his shares under false pretense.
This is not about credit, it's about $$$. If Tony is telling the truth, he deserves his share. Doesn't matter the amount of issues he drew, he was there at the start. That he's not allowed to look at the financial records might make somebody suspicious they aren't being paid the right amount.
As for you work, you make a legally binding contract with an artist on terms you both agree. what are you worried about?
What these kind of things tell me, as far as creating your own work, if both parties are equally unknown and working on spec, an artist should write their own material or create it and if necessary hire a scripter.
Last edited by prismablue; 08-31-2012 at 10:08 PM.
so if you can't draw you shouldn't be allowed to write a comic and vise versa?!
that's just a typo, right?
I just want to mention in passing that even in work-for-hire comics (or what the big publishing company claims were "work-for-hire" comics), the existence of a nice clear legal contract is still important as a way to keep things unambiguous!
For instance: I believe the entire case of Jack Kirby's heirs, in their recent dispute with Marvel over their alleged right to invoke "termination of transfer of copyrights after 56 years in each instance" on a ton of Kirby's Silver Age work and any characters who debuted therein, rests upon the awkward fact that back when Kirby was drawing the first appearances of a zillion Marvel characters in the 1960s, there was not anything resembling a "signed contract" to spell out, in black and white, exactly what sort of ongoing business relationship Kirby actually had with Marvel Comics, and thus who qualified in legal terms as "the original owner of each relevant copyright."
If he had actually signed a work-for-hire agreement before submitting the artwork for "Fantastic Four #1," then the whole dispute in modern times never would have gotten off the ground, as I understand it.
Last edited by Lorendiac; 12-06-2012 at 10:44 AM.