Luke Kirby

[Dark Jimbo]

That's about eight years old, so maybe he's softened his views at least enough to allow for the reprint.

[Jim_Campbell]

That's about eight years old, so maybe he's softened his views at least enough to allow for the reprint.

I think it's safer to assume that Rebellion's legal advice on Zenith probably extends to Luke Kirby and they're going ahead regardless of McKenzie's feelings on the matter.

[Dark Jimbo]

Ha, yeah, that's got the ring of truth to it!

[The Amstor Computer]

I think it's safer to assume that Rebellion's legal advice on Zenith probably extends to Luke Kirby and they're going ahead regardless of McKenzie's feelings on the matter.

Having now seen comment elsewhere, I think you may have the right of it. Teach me to read too much into a quote...

[CalHab]

Both McKenzie and Ridgway outline their positions (circa 2007)  in the interview and comments on David Bishop's blog:
http://viciousimagery.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/28-days-of-2000-ad-271-john-ridgway.html

[Spikes]

You can tell he doesn't like him, because he edited out his name when quoting him.

Very 1984, 

[Grant Goggans]

This is what McKenzie posted as a public comment on my LiveJournal on Sep 4 2007:



"An issue I will take a much bigger exception to is your pronouncements about the ins and outs of British copyright law, which you state as though you had a degree in that subject. The copyright did not get signed over - as you state - when the cheque was cashed. That is not possible under European law. Copyright is only ever reassigned when the creator (that's me) signs away his rights in a legally binding contract (which I didn't).

Publishers only ever publish material to make money. Not to please fans and certainly not so kids can take my stories to school in a conveniently portable package. If they're able to publish without paying the creators, they will. But I'm not going to sit around a get ripped off in the process.

Look at it this way. You're a cab driver. I get in your cab and pay you $10 to take me downtown. The next day I get in your cab again and expect you to take me downtown again. "That's ten bucks," you (rightly) say. "No," I reply. "I already paid you yesterday."

Can you see what I did there?

Really, creators get a raw enough deal in publishing without the customers cheering on the publishers to screw the talent even more.

And people wonder why I got out of the comics business ...

On a lighter note, there probably will be more Luke Kirby stories. Possibly not in comics, but certainly not for the owners of 2000AD. But that's a story for another day ..."

[GordonR]

Alan's bold stance on creators' rights gladdens the heart.

How strange, though, that he didn't try to reform a system he feels so strongly about while he was still part of 2000AD editorial.  Or that he actively enforced work-for-hire practices on other creators while apparently privately trying to ensure those same conditions didn't apply to him.

[CalHab]

Alan's bold stance on creators' rights gladdens the heart.

How strange, though, that he didn't try to reform a system he feels so strongly about while he was still part of 2000AD editorial.  Or that he actively enforced work-for-hire practices on other creators while apparently privately trying to ensure those same conditions didn't apply to him.

Quite. To put it charitably, he is a bit inconsistent on the issue,

[CalHab]

Ridgway, on the other hand, comes across admirably.  I'd view McKenzie in a better light if he wasn't trying to assert sole ownership at the artist's expense.

[GordonR]

Alan's bold stance on creators' rights gladdens the heart.

How strange, though, that he didn't try to reform a system he feels so strongly about while he was still part of 2000AD editorial.  Or that he actively enforced work-for-hire practices on other creators while apparently privately trying to ensure those same conditions didn't apply to him.

Quite. To put it charitably, he is a bit inconsistent on the issue,

Or him claiming the creators' rights mantle, while also saying he's the sole creator or the work, thus actively trying to screw John Ridgeway out of any participation in the rights.

Alan Moore, he ain't.

[Hawkmumbler]

Alan's bold stance on creators' rights gladdens the heart.

How strange, though, that he didn't try to reform a system he feels so strongly about while he was still part of 2000AD editorial.  Or that he actively enforced work-for-hire practices on other creators while apparently privately trying to ensure those same conditions didn't apply to him.

Quite. To put it charitably, he is a bit inconsistent on the issue,

Or him claiming the creators' rights mantle, while also saying he's the sole creator or the work, thus actively trying to screw John Ridgeway out of any participation in the rights.

Alan Moore, he ain't.

Aye, artists seem to get frequently fucked over for creative rights.

[Jim_Campbell]

Aye, artists seem to get frequently fucked over for creative rights.

You'd be amazed how many 'creator owned' books are actually 'writer owned' with everyone else involved on WFH contracts.

[GordonR]

Aye, artists seem to get frequently fucked over for creative rights.

You'd be amazed how many 'creator owned' books are actually 'writer owned' with everyone else involved on WFH contracts.

Yes.  Just remember - when you see some people banging on about creator rights, what they really mean is my rights, and they'll happily exploit other creators further down the industry food chain.

[TordelBack]

It seems a very odd view for a comics editor to express, that the artist isn't co-creator of a strip.  I can't help imagining what Luke Kirby would have been if Alan had asked (for example) me to draw it...  I'm not sure that a hairy stick figure chasing a small stick figure around on a backdrop of photocopied trees wouldn't quite have captured the atmosphere, sense of period and place, and believable characters that John imbued it with, no matter how many captions Alan stuck on it assuring us that it was rural Britain in the 1960s. 

Even contemporary artists who I would consider eminently suitable for this kind of low-key period-supernatural thing, for example Ranson, Burns or Ortiz, would have given us something very different from what we got.  I'd be fairly sure that it was John's specific vision as much as anything that created such a memorable story, which isn't to take away from Alan's concept and script at all.