The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **GHERU** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:08 pm

syxxpakk wrote: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.

yea, this part of the story will be interesting to see play out

by **Victorian Squid** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:09 pm

syxxpakk wrote: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.

Well, Kirkman says the early issues don't. If he were wrong or lying about that, I'm sure someone would have called him on it already.

by **GHERU** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:09 pm

Svlad Cjelli wrote:
I don't think that would be worth much.

I missed the part where we were talking about court approved sources :wink:

by **Victorian Squid** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:14 pm

GHERU wrote:I missed the part where we were talking about court approved sources

Cool.

I find the story as I understand it from Moore hard to swallow. Apparently before the TV show, there was a possible movie deal but according to him Kirkman told him it wouldn't get made unless he signed over his rights, and Moore says, "Oh gosh okay here you go, Bob. I sure hope that multi-million dollar movie gets made without me now that I've signed that paper there!"

It makes no sense. And it would be an incredibly poor decision to make on Moore's part, especially if there were a movie (or TV) deal in the works.

I just don't get it.

by **syxxpakk** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:16 pm

Oh wait. I do have the single issue. Here is a scan of the credits page:

by **Victorian Squid** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:17 pm

syxxpakk wrote:Oh wait. I do have the single issue. Here is a scan of the credits page:

Exactly as Kirkman said it did, and as he is paid for in royalties.

by **GHERU** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:37 pm

by **Timbales** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:30 am

You know what I find funny when it comes to rights fights? It only becomes an argument when something is successful and there is money to be made. Nobody fights for recognition on a project that tanked or one that created debt.

by **Doc Jon** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:50 am

Svlad Cjelli wrote:
Cool.

I find the story as I understand it from Moore hard to swallow. Apparently before the TV show, there was a possible movie deal but according to him Kirkman told him it wouldn't get made unless he signed over his rights, and Moore says, "Oh gosh okay here you go, Bob. I sure hope that multi-million dollar movie gets made without me now that I've signed that paper there!"

It makes no sense. And it would be an incredibly poor decision to make on Moore's part, especially if there were a movie (or TV) deal in the works.

I just don't get it.

The only way I can imagine it is that Kirkman would have said something to the effect that a tv studio didn't want the rights to belong to multiple creators who may have input into the show. Maybe it would be a concern in complicating production or something to that effect.

So (if Moore is to be believed) I'm sure the idea was that he would sign it over so that Kirkman had full creative control and therefore the studio had only one person to deal with. Kirkman would have of course promised that Moore would still get paid or something like that.

That's the only way it makes sense to me. Again, this is if one is to believe Moore.

by **achilles** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:51 am

Doc Jon wrote:
The only way I can imagine it is that Kirkman would have said something to the effect that a tv studio didn't want the rights to belong to multiple creators who may have input into the show. Maybe it would be a concern in complicating production or something to that effect.

So (if Moore is to be believed) I'm sure the idea was that he would sign it over so that Kirkman had full creative control and therefore the studio had only one person to deal with. Kirkman would have of course promised that Moore would still get paid or something like that.

That's the only way it makes sense to me. Again, this is if one is to believe Moore.

If that's the case, he was incredibly stupid and should lose his rights for that reason alone. Damn, anyone who signs a contract regarding rights without having a lawyer look over it first in this day and age is just dumb. But yeah, I find his story hard to believe anyway.

by **Chris** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:37 pm

Timbales wrote:You know what I find funny when it comes to rights fights? It only becomes an argument when something is successful and there is money to be made. Nobody fights for recognition on a project that tanked or one that created debt.

Sure. Why care about an unsuccessful endeavor?

by **Victorian Squid** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:28 pm

achilles wrote:
If that's the case, he was incredibly stupid and should lose his rights for that reason alone. Damn, anyone who signs a contract regarding rights without having a lawyer look over it first in this day and age is just dumb. But yeah, I find his story hard to believe anyway.

Hopefully is can be ironed out relatively quickly and amicably--I like both those guys.

by **Victorian Squid** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:32 pm

Holland Oats wrote:
Sure. Why care about an unsuccessful endeavor?

Well, with comic book IPs, I hope by now everyone has learned to accept the very real possibility of a "second act" or reinvention of a character. After all, Ghost Rider was not really very successful in his early flaming-head days.