The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Timbales]

The root of the issues around Moore and DC is what is legal vs. what is ethical and respectful. Dismissing what Moore does as being legal while slamming DC for being unethical is contradictory at best.

[BlueStreak]

its a legal concept that states people can do whatever they want with some one else's creations
a contract can be a legal document that states companies can do whatever they want with some one else's creations

I don't see how they are "completely different"

Well, legally speaking, they are two different things.

Public domain is a default legal state that applies to everything. There's no getting around it (no matter what Disney says) and there's nothing misleading or unethical behind the premise of public domain. It's a deadline: "You no longer have exclusive rights to your creations after X amount of years". The same thing exists in every other part of patent or copyright law.

A contract is written by a particular person and can be used to exploit another person. Unlike public domain, contracts CAN be misleading and unethical. For instance, if DC had made the contract knowing that it would never go out of print and expressed to Moore that it would, that would be both ethically and morally wrong even if it was legal (and even that's a bit suspect).

What Roberson and Moore are saying is not that the contract is an illegal one. What they are saying is that Moore signed the contract in good faith that the "out of print clause" would eventually happen and that DC indicated as much. When it became clear that it would not, they say that ethically and morally, DC should have renegotiated the contract.

The entire "They should have known better/should have gotten a better lawyer" argument doesn't mean that something is ethically wrong. Could Moore have protected himself better? Probably. Does that mean that what happened to him wasn't still ethically wrong? Of course not. At best, the whole thing is shades of grey.

I didn't read the contract and I wasn't part of the conversation, so I can't say whether what DC did to Moore was wrong or not. However, just because a contract is legal (and I have no doubt that DC's was) does not mean that it can't still be unethical.

[GHERU]

Because it's a long established law, one which Moore would presumably accept, I don't think he'd have a problem with somebody using Rorschach in 200 years time, he'd be dead, who cares?

That's the difference, Moore isn't dead, L Frank Baum is. You can never know whether he'd approve of Lost Girls or not. Odds are he wouldn't, but you never know. We do know absolutely that Moore does not approve of Before Watchmen.

And really, you can't use public domain to defend DC and Marvel, they're notorious for trying to get out of the law, Superman should be in public domain by now, but they changed it. It's the same with Disney characters.

contracts are a long established law and it seems that people want companies to not accept that

and, it doesn't matter what DC does with the Watchmen characters only if Moore is dead? We may never know? They were children's book characters, even if the decedents should have no say because of the legal concept of public domain, should Moore have been conscious of the legacy of Baum, Carroll, and everyone else's characters he's used? Isn't that part of his whole thing with Before Watchmen?

Alice in Wonderland/Looking Glass is one of my all time favorite stores that stands up well on its own... just like Watchmen, I didn't need an "After Wonderland" story delving into her sexuality and whatnot - but all that's ok because Carroll is dead? its ok because of the legal shield of public domain? Its more ethical than fulfilling and abiding by the terms of a contract that says DC can do the same thing to characters Moore didn't create, but tweeked?

We know that Liefeld doesn't like the character development of Shatterstar, does that mean Marvel should have left him a padded swordsman with no depth?
and, i am not defending Marvel or DC at all, but the whole argument that Marvel and DC shouldn't use characters they have a legal right to use however they want because some one who used characters he had a legal right to use however he wants says so doesn't hold all that much weight for me.

For over 20 years DC let an obvious cash machine linger, as bad as an idea Before Watchmen might me, I'm not mad at DC for doing it, I'm impressed it took this long

[Punchy]

The root of the issues around Moore and DC is what is legal vs. what is ethical and respectful. Dismissing what Moore does as being legal while slamming DC for being unethical is contradictory at best.

Things can be legal and unethical, they can be illegal and ethical, there's no real correlation.

[GHERU]

Well, legally speaking, they are two different things.

Public domain is a default legal state that applies to everything. There's no getting around it (no matter what Disney says) and there's nothing misleading or unethical behind the premise of public domain. It's a deadline: "You no longer have exclusive rights to your creations after X amount of years". The same thing exists in every other part of patent or copyright law.

A contract is written by a particular person and can be used to exploit another person. Unlike public domain, contracts CAN be misleading and unethical. For instance, if DC had made the contract knowing that it would never go out of print and expressed to Moore that it would, that would be both ethically and morally wrong even if it was legal (and even that's a bit suspect).

What Roberson and Moore are saying is not that the contract is an illegal one. What they are saying is that Moore signed the contract in good faith that the "out of print clause" would eventually happen and that DC indicated as much. When it became clear that it would not, they say that ethically and morally, DC should have renegotiated the contract.

The entire "They should have known better/should have gotten a better lawyer" argument doesn't mean that something is ethically wrong. Could Moore have protected himself better? Probably. Does that mean that what happened to him wasn't still ethically wrong? Of course not. At best, the whole thing is shades of grey.

I didn't read the contract and I wasn't part of the conversation, so I can't say whether what DC did to Moore was wrong or not. However, just because a contract is legal (and I have no doubt that DC's was) does not mean that it can't still be unethical.

ethically DC probably should have renegotiated
ethically Moore probably shouldn't have turned the Invisible man into a rapist

legally, as far as I know, both are allowed to do what they did

you can tell me they are different all you want (and I grant that, just not "completely different) but someone who has spent 90% of his career doing whatever they want to whoever's creations he could legally get his hand on bitching about someone else doing the same thing reeks of hypocrisy (as do many of his rants), and I have a hard time feeling sorry for the man

[Punchy]

ethically DC probably should have renegotiated
ethically Moore probably shouldn't have turned the Invisible man into a rapist

legally, as far as I know, both are allowed to do what they did

you can tell me they are different all you want (and I grant that, just not "completely different) but someone who has spent 90% of his career doing whatever they want to whoever's creations he could legally get his hand on bitching about someone else doing the same thing reeks of hypocrisy (as do many of his rants), and I have a hard time feeling sorry for the man

Lost Girls and LOEG = 90% of his career?

[Juan Cena]

Well, legally speaking, they are two different things.

Public domain is a default legal state that applies to everything. There's no getting around it (no matter what Disney says) and there's nothing misleading or unethical behind the premise of public domain. It's a deadline: "You no longer have exclusive rights to your creations after X amount of years". The same thing exists in every other part of patent or copyright law.

A contract is written by a particular person and can be used to exploit another person. Unlike public domain, contracts CAN be misleading and unethical. For instance, if DC had made the contract knowing that it would never go out of print and expressed to Moore that it would, that would be both ethically and morally wrong even if it was legal (and even that's a bit suspect).

What Roberson and Moore are saying is not that the contract is an illegal one. What they are saying is that Moore signed the contract in good faith that the "out of print clause" would eventually happen and that DC indicated as much. When it became clear that it would not, they say that ethically and morally, DC should have renegotiated the contract.

The entire "They should have known better/should have gotten a better lawyer" argument doesn't mean that something is ethically wrong. Could Moore have protected himself better? Probably. Does that mean that what happened to him wasn't still ethically wrong? Of course not. At best, the whole thing is shades of grey.

I didn't read the contract and I wasn't part of the conversation, so I can't say whether what DC did to Moore was wrong or not. However, just because a contract is legal (and I have no doubt that DC's was) does not mean that it can't still be unethical.

What's missing in the "ethical" and "legal" arguments what is "logical" i.e what is mutually beneficial to both/all parties involved. The fact that the mentality of both parties can be described in the word "Mine!" isn't helping things.

[ReturnoftheMack]

I'm with GHERU.

[Timbales]

Things can be legal and unethical, they can be illegal and ethical, there's no real correlation.

when it comes to issues around Moore, I disagree

[Benderbrau]

I'm with GHERU.

That's an endorsement for the next Outhouse President IMO

[BlueStreak]

ethically DC probably should have renegotiated
ethically Moore probably shouldn't have turned the Invisible man into a rapist

legally, as far as I know, both are allowed to do what they did

you can tell me they are different all you want (and I grant that, just not "completely different) but someone who has spent 90% of his career doing whatever they want to whoever's creations he could legally get his hand on bitching about someone else doing the same thing reeks of hypocrisy (as do many of his rants), and I have a hard time feeling sorry for the man

Well, ethically, Moore has every right to make the Invisible Man as a rapist, just as other creators over the years have made derivative works of popular novels. Hell, when Superman falls into the public domain, DC will have the same ethical rights, just as they have the same ethical rights to make Before Watchmen (as a derivative work).

I disagree with Moore's point that DC is in the wrong for making Before Watchmen without his say so. It was going to happen eventually due to public domain. You're right that Moore is being hypocritical in that regard.

For me, the ethics is about the contract and what DC promised Moore. If Roberson believes Moore's story, DC was unethical and I probably wouldn't be keen on working for them either if I had a contract.

[Juan Cena]

Lost Girls and LOEG = 90% of his career?

I'm sure that includes stuff like Marvelman, Swamp Thing, etc.

[GHERU]

Lost Girls and LOEG = 90% of his career?

did he create the characters in Watchmen
did he create Swampthing?
did he create Spawn?
Captain Britain?
Superman?
Green Lantern?

he legally had the rite to write those characters because Image/DC/Marvel had the legal right to assign him to those books...the asshats

[GHERU]

Well, ethically, Moore has every right to make the Invisible Man as a rapist, just as other creators over the years have made derivative works of popular novels. Hell, when Superman falls into the public domain, DC will have the same ethical rights, just as they have the same ethical rights to make Before Watchmen (as a derivative work).

I disagree with Moore's point that DC is in the wrong for making Before Watchmen without his say so. It was going to happen eventually due to public domain. You're right that Moore is being hypocritical in that regard.

For me, the ethics is about the contract and what DC promised Moore. If Roberson believes Moore's story, DC was unethical and I probably wouldn't be keen on working for them either if I had a contract.

I agree that if the contract is/was illegal and/or they did lie to him then DC is indeed in the wrong

[Juan Cena]

Well, ethically, Moore has every right to make the Invisible Man as a rapist, just as other creators over the years have made derivative works of popular novels. Hell, when Superman falls into the public domain, DC will have the same ethical rights, just as they have the same ethical rights to make Before Watchmen (as a derivative work).

I disagree with Moore's point that DC is in the wrong for making Before Watchmen without his say so. It was going to happen eventually due to public domain. You're right that Moore is being hypocritical in that regard.

For me, the ethics is about the contract and what DC promised Moore. If Roberson believes Moore's story, DC was unethical and I probably wouldn't be keen on working for them either if I had a contract.

Of course with Superman, DC has trademark law to fall back on, which is different from copyright law. (See: Dynamite's legal issues with the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate.)