[
Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*
*Membership spots not really limited!
by sdsichero » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:47 am
bkthomson wrote:
Just tested positive to Step. What a way to start the week!
by sdsichero » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:50 am
Quesada: Some historical context would be helpful towards understanding the situation. This story begins in 2007, when Gary decided to sue Marvel claiming that, as a writer, he was the sole creator of Ghost Rider and that Marvel was infringing on his rights. A federal judge disagreed. Recently, Gary's lawyers have said publicly that they intend to appeal their loss, and that ball is now in their court.
Now, here's where the story seems to take on a life of its own. First and foremost, Marvel has not settled with Gary. What has been misinterpreted as a settlement is a court document that Gary's very own attorneys agreed to, along with Marvel's attorneys. That document basically ends his lawsuit against Marvel at the trial court level with Marvel having won and Gary's case dismissed. By agreeing on a number for the profits Gary made from selling unlicensed Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider merchandise after the court has decided that Marvel is the owner of that copyright, it allows Gary's attorneys to file his appeal now rather than have Gary litigate further. It is in no way a "fine" or "punishment" for Gary. It is something that the court asked both parties to do and agree upon. This is one more step in an expensive and time-consuming legal process initiated way back in 2007.
Buckley: We should also clarify another rumor that Marvel is somehow preventing Gary from promoting his creative association with Ghost Rider. This is simply not true. The court document Joe mentioned specifically gives Gary the right to sign authorized Ghost Rider books and merchandise and sell his autograph.
One broader issue that's been widely discussed is that of the convention economy and freelance artist's place in it. Everyone knows comic creators sell original art and other materials at artist's allies across the country. Marvel has even worked with some current freelancers to create licensed prints specifically for this purpose. But the view overall has been that artists are able to sell their wares without legal threat from the publisher. With this suit, has there been a whole cloth change in stance from Marvel regarding convention artist's alley business? And if so, what is Marvel's view of this practice? Does a creator have the right to sketch Spider-Man for fans for money?
Quesada: Let me put this as simply as I can: Marvel is not looking to make any new policy announcements through this lawsuit -- a lawsuit that began five years ago.
As a case in point, the Internet and the creative community became incredibly concerned when Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, thinking that Marvel now wouldn't return original art to its artists, even despite my publicly stating the contrary. As you can see, that was unfounded.
Buckley: We in no way want to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans. We want fans to speak and interact with the creators who wrote, penciled, inked, lettered, colored or edited their favorite stories. Part of that positive interaction is that a fan can walk away with a signed memento or personalized sketch from an artist.
by bkthomson » Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:21 pm
Show Tonight! I should have my voice back.Dragavon wrote:He's being diplomatic again.
Zechs wrote:I have to repress you more. You're way too goodie two shoes.
Fat Ollie Weeks wrote:I swear to God, you are so boring sometimes I think you're just a stealth-mod-bot that Jude has coded.
by Dragavon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:59 pm
bkthomson wrote::smt026 Show Tonight! I should have my voice back.
by bkthomson » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:01 pm
Ben Reilly wrote:Too bad!
Dragavon wrote:He's being diplomatic again.
Zechs wrote:I have to repress you more. You're way too goodie two shoes.
Fat Ollie Weeks wrote:I swear to God, you are so boring sometimes I think you're just a stealth-mod-bot that Jude has coded.
by Dragavon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:10 pm
bkthomson wrote:
I was thinking the same thing for you when you said you saw Ghost Rider.
Sometimes I enjoy bad movies. Or at least substandard movies.by sdsichero » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:52 pm
bkthomson wrote::smt026 Show Tonight! I should have my voice back.
by prozacman » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:05 pm
Ben Reilly wrote:
by Dragavon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:10 pm
prozacman wrote:Then you will love my review of Ghost Rider tonight
by sdsichero » Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:53 am
by bkthomson » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:25 pm
by Zechs » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:51 pm
bkthomson wrote:What is new? Anything to talk about?
sdsichero wrote:
I especially like and admire Zechs. He's everything I wish I could be!
Dragavon wrote:Zechs... is...
Zechs...is...
I can't say it. It's too horrible. Zechs...is...not...wrong...
by bkthomson » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:32 pm
Dragavon wrote:He's being diplomatic again.
Zechs wrote:I have to repress you more. You're way too goodie two shoes.
Fat Ollie Weeks wrote:I swear to God, you are so boring sometimes I think you're just a stealth-mod-bot that Jude has coded.
by sdsichero » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:22 pm
Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot] and 30 guests
| Advertisement |
|---|
|
|
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed
