Jim Lee Speaks about Alan Moore...

[Julian Lytle]

Yes, they were in the public domain. I think Templeton was poking fun at the arguments raging over the ethics involved in using characters created by others without their permission and at the people who take highly polarized, extreme views on these subjects (among other things).

Yeah but you see that's where it falls flat for me. Them characters are now er'bodies. It's like comparing a city park to a leased car.

[JimN]

Yeah but you see that's where it falls flat for me. Them characters are now er'bodies. It's like comparing a city park to a leased car.

I think you may have missed the larger points.

Edit: I just realized that might sound snarky and I didn't mean it come out that way. My point was just that i think Templeton used those characters as a means to an end. Their status in the public domain isn't particularly relevant compared to the main points he was making in that strip. He's commenting on the larger issues of ethics in comics* and on the hotheaded, extreme reactions seen about that subject online.

Jim

[RedMoses]

Similarities exist from a legal standpoint, and from a company/creator's rights to use characters.  The point that the cartoon brushes over is the original intent in creation. 

Were the characters/stories created with the belief that the rights would be returned to the creator? 

Were the characters created with the intent of telling a finite story, or were they designed to tell stories in whatever capacity they're needed?

That is where this case is unique compared to many of the other oft disputed cases.

[RickV]

I really need to just drop these threads at some point but people keep writing really great in depth posts about it.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/25/the-creators-position-viewed-through-the-lens-of-alan-moore/

[steve bryant]

I really need to just drop these threads at some point but people keep writing really great in depth posts about it.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/25/the-creators-position-viewed-through-the-lens-of-alan-moore/

Great article from Heidi.

What I'd really like to see one out of this whole debacle, would be for everyone decrying the ethics of Before Watchmen to STOP buying all comics owned by corporations. Drop Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Transformers, etc...and commit those same dollars to creator-owned books.

[JimN]

Similarities exist from a legal standpoint, and from a company/creator's rights to use characters.  The point that the cartoon brushes over is the original intent in creation.

It's a strip, not a thesis. In that format, there's no room to be comprehensive, nor is that the intent.

Were the characters/stories created with the belief that the rights would be returned to the creator? 

Probably not and that's not really relevant.

Were the characters created with the intent of telling a finite story, or were they designed to tell stories in whatever capacity they're needed?

Again, that's not really relevant. The strip was about ethics and overreactions, not specific rights issues. In this case, the public domain characters and their use were simply used as a means to raise an ethical question about comics so that Templeton could deliver the punchline/final point of the strip. There's no intent to create an absolute parallel to the ethical questions surrounding Watchmen and it really wasn't necessary to do so.

Ugh... talk about paralysis by analysis...

 

[RedMoses]

It's a strip, not a thesis. In that format, there's no room to be comprehensive, nor is that the intent.

...

The strip was about ethics and overreactions, not specific rights issues.

To the first point, I enjoyed the strip.  I get it.  And my questions have more to do with peoples' comments, more so than the actual strip.  The strip just happens to parallel many people's arguments that this case is no different than Kirby, Siegel & Shuster, public domain, etc.

And on the second note, my questions were dealing exclusively with moral/ethical points rather than rights issues.

And finally, I need to quit arguing since I'm morally dubious.  I wish Moore had the rights back, but I'm in for all of Before Watchmen and really liked the movie. 

I'd be just as in, if they were doing a grand, pocket-universe Charlton character event.  Maybe even more excited.

[RickV]

But then you can't link it to something evergreen.

[JimN]

Great article from Heidi.

It was an interesting read but I wish she hadn't wandered quite so much. I'm obviously right there with her in preferring to see creators do something new rather than revisit old, corporate-controlled characters but I understand the financial realities of the comics business well enough to understand why the latter happens all the time. I've always felt (with comics, films, books, etc.) that Id rather see something new and great than a sequel or prequel to something that was great. However, sometimes the latter are wonderful so there's room for all of it.

What I'd really like to see one out of this whole debacle, would be for everyone decrying the ethics of Before Watchmen to STOP buying all comics owned by corporations. Drop Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Transformers, etc...and commit those same dollars to creator-owned books.

I'd love to see that. I'd also like to see someone decrying the ethics of Before Watchmen to thoroughly explain their position re: those ethics because I still haven't seen that articulated clearly, or at least not in a way that helps me understand why people think the very concept of the project is so appalling and reprehensible.

[RickV]

I'd love to see that. I'd also like to see someone decrying the ethics of Before Watchmen to thoroughly explain their position re: those ethics because I still haven't seen that articulated clearly, or at least not in a way that helps me understand why people think the very concept of the project is so appalling and reprehensible.

I honestly do not understand how that is possible after the 30 some odd pages on this site alone that you do not fully grasp why the select few of us do not support this.

(I have sworn off everything Marvel(this wasn't necessarily ethical it was something other) & DC and I wasn't reading anything else licensed anyway).

[steve bryant]

It was an interesting read but I wish she hadn't wandered quite so much. I'm obviously right there with her in preferring to see creators do something new rather than revisit old, corporate-controlled characters but I understand the financial realities of the comics business well enough to understand why the latter happens all the time. I've always felt (with comics, films, books, etc.) that Id rather see something new and great than a sequel or prequel to something that was great. However, sometimes the latter are wonderful so there's room for all of it.

I didn't mind the wandering. It's hard for me to separate so many aspects of the way that the industry works, and the treatment of creators, and the nature of the "characters first" marketplace, that I didn't mind. It took as many tangents as my mind does on the topic, so I could relate.  

I'd also like to see someone decrying the ethics of Before Watchmen to thoroughly explain their position re: those ethics because I still haven't seen that articulated clearly, or at least not in a way that helps me understand why people think the very concept of the project is so appalling and reprehensible.

I understand why people are upset. As comic fans, we're all brought up to believe that justice wins out, and that if Moore thought he and Gibbons would get the book back, he should get it back, regardless of the the outcome that was dictated by the unprecedented success of the book. It's unfortunate, but still legal.

This quote, from the Chris Roberson interview at TCJ,  highlighted a huge gap in perceptions:

Alan Moore has implied that one of the reasons he hasn’t sued over Watchmen is that if he did, he wouldn’t be able to speak publicly about the situation.

I think there’s that. I think there’s also, and he’s joked about this a couple of times, but if he were to file suit against Time Warner he would likely have a protracted and very expensive lawsuit on his hands. We have the case of the Siegel estate who had a very clear-cut indisputable claim to recover the rights on Action Comics #1 after a certain amount of time passed. They exercised those rights and were awarded them, and still Joanne Siegel went to her grave never seeing the end of that, because Time Warner has a battery of lawyers who were going to fight her.

Here's the disconnect for me: Fans seem to understand that Moore, financially, couldn't take on DC/Time-Warner and win. They can put themselves in Moore's shoes and say "That would be like throwing money away." I get that. Yet they never look at the other side of the coin.

DC Entertainment isn't a sentient being. It's a corporation. The consensus opinion is that Paul Levitz was Watchmen's gatekeeper, protecting the IP from sequels, prequels and so on. The consensus opinion is also that Before Watchmen came about by way of Dianne Nielsen.

In a corporate environment, how would your boss respond if you said, "I refuse to work on that project."

In most cases, I suspect you'd find yourself in the unemployment line pretty quickly.

How much do Dan DiDio, Jim Lee, and Geoff Johns earn? Over $100k a year? Over $250k a year? More? How much are they earning in stock options, bonuses and benefits? How long has each one been working in comics and related entertainment fields to get where they are today? 15–20 years each?

What would each of these guys be throwing away, in terms of years spent building a career and financial stability for them and their families?

"Honey, I quit my job today, because 25 years ago a comic creator was screwed and the company wants me to further exploit his contract. We'll need to cash in my retirement fund until I get another job."

"Alan Moore's integrity needs my help more than my daughter needs to go to college."

"No, Dear. Alan's not fighting the company, but I am. We'll need to sell the house."

Spouses love conversations like that.  

I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I'm just saying that I understand. We all make our ethical choices as best we can. We all try our best to follow our conscience. I don't want to piss all over the choice that someone else made because I'm not privy to the details of their situation.I'm sure that people in their 20s look at it differently than those in their 30s or their 40s or their 50s.

And even if all three of them had quit, do you honestly think it would have stopped DC from going down the line to Bob Harras, or whoever else is next in line, and asking them to head up the project?

I say we start an internet meme: Quit Your Job for Alan Moore Day. If you feel strongly enough about how Alan Moore was wronged, quit your job on the day that the first issue of Before Watchmen is released.

It will have as much impact as if DiDio, Johns and Lee had quit their jobs in protest.

(Again, I understand the anger over Moore's situation, but I'm pragmatic —or maybe cynical—enough to know that Before Watchmen was an eventuality.)

[JimN]

I honestly do not understand how that is possible after the 30 some odd pages on this site alone that you do not fully grasp why the select few of us do not support this.

It's not that I don't grasp the various reasons people don't support the project. They're easy enough to see. People love Watchmen. They see it as a stand-alone work that doesn't need and shouldn't receive the embellishment of prequels, sequels, etc. Some even see it as a masterpiece. They think Moore has been cheated or mistreated or both and that his wishes regarding the book he co-created should be respected (Gibbons doesn't seem to enter the equation half the time). They see this as a purely commercial endeavor rather than an artistic one, etc.

I get all of the above and I think I grasp the ethical questions surrounding Watchmen. At this point, I've read pretty extensively on the subject. What I have a hard time understanding is the degree of outrage, why someone like Chris Roberson believes the project is "unconscionable" (a strong word) and what, ethically speaking, is so appalling about the project itself.

I continue to get the feeling that it has far more to do with Moore's stature as a comics writer and the perception of many that Watchmen is THE greatest achievement of the medium than with actual ethical transgressions. Publishing Before Watchmen doesn't seem inherently unethical to me and yet it seems to be perceived that way. That's where I struggle: I have a difficult time seeing how publishing these prequels is immoral rather than just another commercial enterprise to be met with enthusiasm or indifference depending on personal preference.

I don't know if I articulated that well or not but in a nutshell, I still have a hard time grasping the degree of moral outrage about the project, why it's supposedly more than just something people don't want to see, it's wrong.

I hope that makes sense.

[steve bryant]

I say we start an internet meme: Quit Your Job for Alan Moore Day. If you feel strongly enough about how Alan Moore was wronged, quit your job on the day that the first issue of Before Watchmen is released.

It will have as much impact as if DiDio, Johns and Lee had quit their jobs in protest.

To clarify my sarcasm, I'm saying there are better ways to protest Before Watchmen and/or the treatment of creators. You won't stop these books from being produced, but you can change things for the future. Take all the money you would have spent on the book—and all DC, Marvel, and other corporate-owned character books—and buy creator-owned books.

[JimN]

I didn't mind the wandering. It's hard for me to separate so many aspects of the way that the industry works, and the treatment of creators, and the nature of the "characters first" marketplace, that I didn't mind. It took as many tangents as my mind does on the topic, so I could relate.  

I understand why people are upset. As comic fans, we're all brought up to believe that justice wins out, and that if Moore thought he and Gibbons would get the book back, he should get it back, regardless of the the outcome that was dictated by the unprecedented success of the book. It's unfortunate, but still legal.

Well said and I grasp that. It's just that, to me, it seems peripheral to Before Watchmen. It's an issue that's been out there all along. I suppose it's as simple as Before Watchmen serving as a catalyst to dredge up issues surrounding the original deal again and the problem I'm having is that when all the talk about the ethics and morality of publishing the prequels comes up, I keep looking for more than "Moore and Gibbons thought they'd own the rights to this by now and DC should have given them back" and there's just not much more there. Like you, I figured that Before Watchmen was essentially inevitable and I can see why it's viewed as undesirable. i just can't see why, under the circumstances, it's wrong.

By the way, good post!

[RickV]

Well I guess I will have to make it crystal.

I had a conversation with a pro creator at Emerald City Comicon. He explained the Before Watchmen situation like this: Alan Moore is one of the most respected writers in comics. He has co-created, revamped, or introduced tons of things that have enriched both the medium and the artform. His books are routinely some of the best-crafted works around, even if they’re not to your or my tastes, and he’s one of the few writers in the running for GOAT. But when he says, “Hey, listen. Please don’t do more Watchmen. I’ve been mistreated by DC, and I think the book stands very well on its own besides,” the response from DC and the creative teams involved is essentially, “No, fuck you, Alan.”

Personally if I want to have any respect for this industry, it will forever change where I put my money and what I read if people choose to so blatantly disrespect the wishes of someone who has made and fought for a better industry.

I do not believe that BW was not going to happen, I do not believe that it is outside the legal parameters of DC, I do not believe that Moore & Gibbons will ever receive the rights to it, I do not believe that anything I personally choose to do will affect how the companies do business, however I do believe that I do not have to support practices just because it is destined or always happening. That is flawed position.

Before Watchmen represents a shift backwards to an era that Watchmen tried to destroy.

A real cost of Before Watchmen to companies like DC is that it puts into modern terms the age-old exploitation of creative people by business people, something that's soaked into comics' DNA so thoroughly one can forget it's there. This is a magnificent reminder of what these creators are facing in very real terms, the mindsets and the ambitions and the bottom lines that form scary, shadowy shapes behind the everyday grind and humiliations and dissatisfactions. As much as you and I might shake our heads and do the Little Rascals surprise face when we hear someone say some of the things that have been said in support of and defense of Before Watchmen or the Superman lawsuit, imagine how distressing it would be if these were your creative partners, the people on which you hoped to build a foundation for a fulfilling life. The humor in the title is that Watchmen was seen as a creator-rights forward title with ambition; this new thing is certainly reflective of a time before that.

That is why the support for it and the people involved with it angers me, and why I choose not to do so anymore.

Dave Gibbons doesn't enter the conversation because Dave Gibbons himself has wisely chosen not to enter it.

[Julian Lytle]

I think you may have missed the larger points.

Edit: I just realized that might sound snarky and I didn't mean it come out that way. My point was just that i think Templeton used those characters as a means to an end. Their status in the public domain isn't particularly relevant compared to the main points he was making in that strip. He's commenting on the larger issues of ethics in comics* and on the hotheaded, extreme reactions seen about that subject online.

Jim

Yeah that for me where it falls apart. I think that public domain factor is a big underlying part of the argument. To dismiss that or say it doesn't just because someone is using these public character(s) that they didn't create or that people are getting all in tizzy over this and shouldn't is kinda...I don't know misguided. At least to me.

[Wood]

MAD PROPS Steve 

FWIW, I'm quite confident you've hit the nail on the head. People forget that corporations aren't "evil", they are created for purposes that are not human. They are entities, and when publicly traded, they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to act in the best interest of their SHAREHOLDERS.  While I get that such things can seem ill conceived and at odds with the "way things should work", let's remember how important shareholder returns are to just about all our existences. Even if you don't invest in the stock market directly, chances are you have a retirement account or pension system that relies on shareholder returns. And even if you aren't involved in that kind of passive investment, the importance of shareholder returns on the overall economy is enormous, particularly with home prices and appreciation being a thing of the past (at least for the last five years).

[steve bryant]

To clarify my sarcasm, I'm saying there are better ways to protest Before Watchmen and/or the treatment of creators. You won't stop these books from being produced, but you can change things for the future. Take all the money you would have spent on the book—and all DC, Marvel, and other corporate-owned character books—and buy creator-owned books.

Personally if I want to have any respect for this industry, it will forever change where I put my money and what I read ...

Exactly my point.   

[steve bryant]

MAD PROPS Steve 

FWIW, I'm quite confident you've hit the nail on the head. People forget that corporations aren't "evil", they are created for purposes that are not human. They are entities, and when publicly traded, they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to act in the best interest of their SHAREHOLDERS.  While I get that such things can seem ill conceived and at odds with the "way things should work", let's remember how important shareholder returns are to just about all our existences. Even if you don't invest in the stock market directly, chances are you have a retirement account or pension system that relies on shareholder returns. And even if you aren't involved in that kind of passive investment, the importance of shareholder returns on the overall economy is enormous, particularly with home prices and appreciation being a thing of the past (at least for the last five years).

Thanks, man.

Ultimately, I've tried my best to not question the choices and beliefs on either side—Moore for feeling he was wronged, Roberson for quitting in solidarity, or DiDio, Johns and Lee for staying with DC—because I have no idea what went into the decision-making process for any of them.

The only life/career/ethical choices I feel qualified to weigh in on are my own.

[Jeppe]

Ultimately, I've tried my best to not question the choices and beliefs on either side—Moore for feeling he was wronged, Roberson for quitting in solidarity, or DiDio, Johns and Lee for staying with DC—because I have no idea what went into the decision-making process for any of them.

The only life/career/ethical choices I feel qualified to weigh in on are my own.

You would make a good historian, Steve 
Trying to read the mind and personal motivation of individuals is one of the most oft-repeated mistakes on the part of journalists, historians, and pundits alike. Unless one is a believer in psychoanalysis-at-a-distance, the actions of people and the nature of the institutions in which they operate should really be the only elements entering a debate like this.