Main Menu

Do John Wagner & Carlos Ezquerra own Judge Dredd?

Started by Frank, 19 May, 2019, 09:29:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funt Solo

++ A-Z ++  coma ++

IndigoPrime

Quote from: Frank on 21 May, 2019, 12:30:52 AMI think IPC's copyright claim was invalid. Honouring the original terms under which the work was created wouldn't involve the courts.
Given what Bishop says above, any gentlemen's agreement has been superseded. Terms wouldn't then revert for no reason to a previous set of circumstances.

AlexF

Frank, I continue to admire your Frankness, and I do actually think you've made the ghost of a good point, buried in the hyperbole of an attention-grabbing thread-head.

You've made one mistake, though - the Abnett/Flint/Williams VCs was both longer in episode count and superior in thrill-power to the original run! For me it's a rare example of a revival/reboot/continuation by a new creative team that was genuinely worth all of our time.

Anyone with solutions to the problem of how to arrange fair pay for both creators (always noble and impoverished!) in publishers (always evil and loaded!) in a capitalist world, good luck! I'm sure there's a Future Shock story in there at least...

Frank

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 May, 2019, 07:29:22 AM
Given what Bishop says above, any gentlemen's agreement has been superseded. Terms wouldn't then revert for no reason to a previous set of circumstances.

I'm not saying anyone's legally obligated to do anything. *

I haven't read a single objection to Wagner's idea that Ezquerra's family should benefit from new Strontium Dog stories. It struck me as odd that we accept the justice of that in tragic circumstances but not when the creators we love are still around to blow the cash on monogramed saddles for the alpacas.

I'm saying there's a way for Tharg to do something he probably wants to do without incurring the repercussions which, presumably, are the reason he hasn't done so already. **


* Although, the idea that the legal department of Fleetway Film & Television was the one aspect of that venture which wasn't a hilarious shambles intrigues me.

** Because, as explained above, framing such a decision as honouring the terms under which the material was originally created would only apply to the tiny number of non-IPC staffers who worked on the comic's launch.

broodblik

This is always a strange and difficult topic especially for creators. If there was no clear-cut prove of ownership, then legally the publishers have an easier task of claiming ownership. Verbally agreements are always vertically impossible to prove. I believe in fairness between the different parties. I still think that in a lot of these cases the creators are the ones that do not get the rightful cut.
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car.

Old age is the Lord's way of telling us to step aside for something new. Death's in case we didn't take the hint.

IndigoPrime

There is a world of difference between "wouldn't it be nice for Rebellion to throw Ezquerra's family a few quid beyond whatever he might be owed – if anything – as a creator should new S/D happen" and "Rebellion should give ownership of its biggest character to one of the co-creators".

Frank

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 May, 2019, 02:15:57 PM
There is a world of difference between "wouldn't it be nice for Rebellion to throw Ezquerra's family a few quid beyond whatever he might be owed – if anything – as a creator should new S/D happen" and "Rebellion should give ownership of its biggest character to one of the co-creators".

I'm not demanding Tharg 'should' do anything; I'm highlighting a way he could. *

And the 'contracted out' terms described above, which I'm suggesting offer an opportunity to acknowledge the unique contribution of individuals without creating a general rule, never amounted to full ownership.

The original 2000ad creators were offered a continuing financial stake** in the future success of their work. Exactly what John Wagner proposes should be offered to the heirs of the late Carlos Ezquerra.


* Without the consequences which, I assume, are the reason he hasn't done so previously. Framing any settlement as honouring the original terms under which the work was created - which only applied to freelancers involved in the stage of 2000ad's development before the IPC board declared the comic work-for-hire only - wouldn't lead to the creators of Dead Meat, Synnamon, or Skip Tracer suddenly demanding their financial reward reflect the worth of the material.

** I have no idea whether the original terms offered a flat page rate on further use (front end) or a pro rata share of profits on any issue which featured strips or characters they originated (back end). I have no idea whether either arrangement would be worth very little money or quite a lot. The beauty of it is that if the comic makes very little money, the copyright holder isn't losing a lot of money by acknowledging the contribution of the original creators. If the comic turns a healthy profit, the copyright holder can afford to see 8-12% go to a deserving home.

Skullmo

It's a joke. I was joking.