Tony Moore Seeks Co-Authorship of "Walking Dead"

[capuga]

I don't exactly know where I stand on this issue over-all. But the one thing that I think should be kept in mind, The Walking Dead TV show, in several notable instances, drew upon imagery specifically drawn by Tony Moore (mostly in the pilot; I'm thinking key imagery such as Rick stumbling through the hospital, the cut in half bicyclist, and the horse being eaten in the city. Among others). Yes Robert Kirkman conceived and wrote those scenes, but it was Moore's specific renderings of those images that drew the inspiration for what appeared in the show.

Kirkman may have 'created' it, conceptually. But its Moore's visualization of those moments that influenced the show creators in how to stylize the show.

And I think that's got to count for something, somewhere.

But it's not like Moore created some kind of unique imagery for those scenes. He was told to draw Rick waking up in a hospital bed and he drew a hospital bed. What did he create? The look and feel of hospital rooms is well established, he didn't add anything to it. He brought Kirkman's vision to visual life but that's what every artist does with the script. I don't see an element of creation in there.

[The Adventurer]

But it's not like Moore created some kind of unique imagery for those scenes. He was told to draw Rick waking up in a hospital bed and he drew a hospital bed. What did he create? The look and feel of hospital rooms is well established, he didn't add anything to it. He brought Kirkman's vision to visual life but that's what every artist does with the script. I don't see an element of creation in there.

I think you underestimate what an artist brings to the table when they interpret a script into finished form. I'm not talking about details about a room, I'm talking about composition, mood, lighting, moment to moment panel transitions, etc... all the stuff show creators would pick up on as a kind of proto-storyboard for their show plans.

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.

[capuga]

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.

Not if he doesn't own the rights to that imagery. Even if his art inspired the mood for the beginning of the show, they're not going to pay him for something he has no ownership rights to. Did Nolan and company need to pay Frank Miller for the parts of the Batman movies that were inspired by his work? No, because DC owns those rights.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

I think you underestimate what an artist brings to the table when they interpret a script into finished form. I'm not talking about details about a room, I'm talking about composition, mood, lighting, moment to moment panel transitions, etc... all the stuff show creators would pick up on as a kind of proto-storyboard for their show plans.

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.

I get the idea behind an artist bringing his or her own interpretation to a given image or scene--but the fact is that most times one artists' being hired over another has something to do with an artist's "unique vision" and this is supposed to be understood or rather a matter of course. His "vision" is being purchased the day he or she signs on the dotted line. For an artist to receive "compensation" for that "vision" to be used in other formats, what you are essentially saying is that Tony Moore or any other artist should receive a royalty for this re-use. Royalites should be discussed in advance otherwise, an artist should consider it a job completed and move on to the next project or client-- hopefully, a little bit wiser.

[prismablue]

Think he regrets leaving The Walking Dead? I think so. I wonder how it will all end up. I have a bunch of characters I created and even have visual ideas for them but it's a scary world in which someone can do a lot of the work but a collaborator could get unwarranteed & undue credit simply because they worked on the project. Don't get me wrong. Tony Moore does deserve some credit for helping create The Walking Dead, but I feel he is getting more than his fair share (being that he only worked on 6 issues out of 100 so far in the series and counting). Anyone who knows anything about The Walking Dead knows Kirkman is the driving force behind the series (and Adlard more-so than Tony Moore since he had a huge part in creating most of the iconic characters in this series).

This is what scares me about doing creator-owned comics. Say I have a huge amount of characters created, thought up way back when I was in high school (1994) and I team up with an artist to bring it all to life. How much should the artist get as far as ownership? Most of my characters even have a "look" I thought up for them, costumes and so-forth. I know artists deserve credit. No way am I anti-artists. I love and admire their work. But how do we really know what's fair? Should it be 50-50 all the time even if one creator did more than the other?

Not a knock on Tony Moore. He deserves credit for what he did as far as helping create The Walking Dead. I think he is getting more than his fair share since Adlard has had as much if not a whole hell of a lot more to do with creating artistically in this series. How many characters has he helped create in comparison with Moore's 6 issues? 94 issues and counting. As far as royalties how does Tony Moore know he isn't getting his fair share? Royalties are the biggest arguement in the entertainment industry. Movies-music-books-comics etc all have royalty issues with creators. I don't think there is a perfect solution and don't think there ever will be. Does a songwriter deserve more credit than the singer? Does a writer deserve more credit than the artist? I think whoever does more of the work deserves more of the credit.
.

There is no denying that Adlard's contribution to the series in tremendous, but it has nothing to do with the creation of the series. Steve Ditko is still the co-creator of Spider-man, even though other artists have contributed tremendously to the characters success.

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.

[transvestitegod]

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.

I like collaboration, but I feel writers should draw the majority of their work and vice versa. I really don't like this tag team crap that comics creation has become.

[the goddamn batman]

so if you can't draw you shouldn't be allowed to write a comic and vise versa?!

that's just a typo, right?

[capuga]

so if you can't draw you shouldn't be allowed to write a comic and vise versa?!

that's just a typo, right?

No kidding. That's just silliness. Get the best writer you can writing it and the best artist you can drawing it. They're unlikely to be the same person very often.

[Badger1701]

I like collaboration, but I feel writers should draw the majority of their work and vice versa. I really don't like this tag team crap that comics creation has become.

Has become? It's pretty much been like that for the bulk of the existence of the medium.

[Charles Soule]

For all you new creators out there. Make sure to read this blog by Charles Soule (27, 27:second set). He gives advice on comic contracts and how to iron out issues before you start working together. The last installment was way back in Feb. Maybe if we flood his blog he'll put up the next entry.

http://charlessoule.wordpress.com/ca...gree-to-agree/

It took me a little while, but I finally put up a new chapter - this one's about things to watch for when signing a contract. Could help avoid some of the things discussed in this very thread. Thanks for the kind words, and I hope people are finding the series to be useful.

[Lorendiac]

And this, folks, is the dark side of Creator-owned comics. (not trying to start a work for hire vs. creator owned debate) Capuga, you bring up a really good point about Moore's involvement now versus his involvement when Kirkman was struggling to keep their property afloat.

This kind of thing should illustrate the importance of legal contracts in creator owned comics, and how they are meant to protect everyone involved from potential disputes such as this one.

I just now noticed this thread. Interesting stuff!

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.