The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[fieldy snuts]

The details here aren't clear at all, and the parties involved can only say so much--I think it's far too soon to declare this "shady business dealings" until some of the actual facts are in rather than internet speculation.

There's nothing shady at all about work-for-hire if that's what you've agreed to do.

I agree, but if the standpoint he's taking is exactly the same as the big 2's then he'll be a pretty big hypocrite.

[Victorian Squid]

I agree, but if the standpoint he's taking is exactly the same as the big 2's then he'll be a pretty big hypocrite.

It's just too soon to say. There isn't enough factual information in the public domain to speculate on that. I know everyone on the internet loves to cry "hypocrite!" but wait until some of the facts are in at least rather than just gossip.

[GHERU]

Hasn't Kirkman taken the other stance on the work-for-hire description saying that Image is a place where creators are safe from those sorts of shady business dealings when comparing Image to Marvel's and DC's ongoing legal battles with estates?

didn't The Walking Dead start well before Kirkman's epiphany or elevation to the Image hierarchy?

and, if Moore is still bing paid for what he did, if he gets paid for the TV show for a book he drew seven issues of and did covers for ~20 (of 80+), basically - if he still gets royalties his contract, his situation is light years better than what all those estates get.

[fieldy snuts]

It's just too soon to say. There isn't enough factual information in the public domain to speculate on that. I know everyone on the internet loves to cry "hypocrite!" but wait until some of the facts are in at least rather than just gossip.

But....that's what the internet is for to crucify people with gossip and rumor mongering

[Victorian Squid]

But....that's what the internet is for to crucify people with gossip and rumor mongering

Well ok carry on then!

There's none of us who don't make sacrifices to our ideals at some points in our lives, in many cases for our own good in fact. We're all of us hypocrites on some level from time to time. I daresay if one took the time to parse through the numerous posts of nearly any Outhouse member as the online community does with the likes of Kirkman or Alan Moore, one could probably find ample conflicting beliefs to convict any one of us of some minor "hypocracy" or inconsistency.

The real key here is what those contracts actually say.

[Doc Jon]

It's just too soon to say. There isn't enough factual information in the public domain to speculate on that. I know everyone on the internet loves to cry "hypocrite!" but wait until some of the facts are in at least rather than just gossip.

True.

I just find it interesting if he is saying that Moore was work-for-hire since he's always been credited as a co-creator.

[Doc Jon]

Well ok carry on then!

There's none of us who don't make sacrifices to our ideals at some points in our lives, in many cases for our own good in fact. We're all of us hypocrites on some level from time to time. I daresay if one took the time to parse through the numerous posts of nearly any Outhouse member as the online community does with the likes of Kirkman or Alan Moore, one could probably find ample conflicting beliefs to convict any one of us of some minor "hypocracy" or inconsistency.

The real key here is what those contracts actually say.

If Moore did indeed sign over his percentage or whatever knowing full well what that meant, and he is receiving the proper compensation as agreed upon, then I don't see an issue here.

Like you, I find the interwebz too eager to jump on creators and cry foul.

[Victorian Squid]

True.

I just find it interesting if he is saying that Moore was work-for-hire since he's always been credited as a co-creator.

I thought it was well-established that the early WD books do not in fact call Moore a co-creator. If it wasn't published, it isn't a "credit", no matter what terminology fans use anecdotally.

[Victorian Squid]

If Moore did indeed sign over his percentage or whatever knowing full well what that meant, and he is receiving the proper compensation as agreed upon, then I don't see an issue here.

Like you, I find the interwebz too eager to jump on creators and cry foul.

Yep, it could go either way. Or another way entirely.

One thing is for sure--it is no coincidence that the rights have been or will be in litigation for both Ghost Rider and Walking dead. Once a IP makes a real pile of cash, things often get ugly even between childhood friends.

[Doc Jon]

I thought it was well-established that the early WD books do not in fact call Moore a co-creator. If it wasn't published, it isn't a "credit", no matter what terminology fans use anecdotally.

Well he's listed as one of the creators on Image's site...

[Doc Jon]

Yep, it could go either way. Or another way entirely.

One thing is for sure--it is no coincidence that the rights have been or will be in litigation for both Ghost Rider and Walking dead. Once a IP makes a real pile of cash, things often get ugly even between childhood friends.

Yup, which is why I need to get Jude off Blud Blood right now...

[syxxpakk]

In the first TPB volume, Robert Kirkman has a "Creator" credit but Tony Moore does not. I don't have the first issue so I can't comment on the single.

[GHERU]

Well he's listed as one of the creators on Image's site...

and, for what its worth, on Wikkepedia

[Victorian Squid]

Well he's listed as one of the creators on Image's site...

If so, sounds like a gray area to me but who knows? Likely the actual contracts and negotiations that have already taken place (and Kirkman claims both men were represented by lawyers at that time) will weigh more heavily than the Image website.

Yup, which is why I need to get Jude off Blud Blood right now...

[Victorian Squid]

and, for what its worth, on Wikkepedia

I don't think that would be worth much.