JM: I understand what you're saying; In most cases, it is unrealistic to expect the surviving creator to conform to a dead partner's wishes, and the best one could expect from the surviving creator would probably be a pale approximation of the deceased's work. But, I do think that the deceased's wishes should be respected. Which, to me, seems like good reasons to end the series and move on to a new series that's entirely Moebius's own. Rework the art, change the names, etc. Save money on legal fees and asprin.

Another thing that just occurred to me that should be considered is how jarring the change from pulpy realism to mystical weirdness will be to anyone reading the collected series from beginning to end. Sort of like the last ten minutes of A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS ending with something out of THE FIFTH ELEMENT or somesuch. If Giraud doesn't like the pulpish, cliched aspects of BLUEBERRY, then why does he want to continue working on the series? Like it or not, the soulful mystic ponderings he's working on now will eventually trapped between the covers of a COMPLETE BLUEBERRY collection or series, next to those Charlier stories; no matter how far out he wants to go with his solo BLUEBERRY stories, they're still connected to those earlier stories. Is that worth the added sales a BLUEBERRY book would have over a new title by Moebius?

Who is to deny the right of the deceased creator to have his plans for future works respected by his collaborator?

I have nothing but sunspots to blame on the following lame analogy: It's as if Charlier and Giraud were building a bridge across a river together [following Charlier's map] until Charlier died. Giraud then decided to shitcan the bridge, broke a few planks loose, tied them together and went rafting down the river, instead of finishing the bridge and reaching the ground Charlier saw on the other side. If Giraud can't or won't finish the bridge as Charlier had planned, that's perfectly fine, but he should go cut down his own damn trees to make his raft and leave Charlier's bridge alone.

Finally, I'm not interested in the finished product of a solo co-creator book. That has nothing to do with my objection; the next solo-Moebius BLUEBERRY [or solo-Uderzo ASTERIX for that matter] could be the Greatest Graphic Novel of this century, and it still wouldn't make his decision to ignore his collaborator's wishes any less disrespectful.

Like Herr Busiek said, I'm sure Moebius feels what he's doing is the right thing. I just don't agree with him. No offence.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how MUCH, or how EXPLICITLY, does Giraud's current work deviate from the published overview/outline? It seems unlikely there's anything in it to the effect of "And he never, ever, EVER gets involved with anything supernatural".

But unless there is, how can Charlier fils make a case that the outline is being unequivocally violated? It may be that after the weird experiences Giraud is currently putting the character through, he eventually DOES die of old age in the Prohibition era.

I don't know if it would make a difference in most people's stands, but it might be interesting to know in what way, and how unambiguously, Giraud is ALLEGEDLY deviating from the published plan.

Quack, Don


------------------
GRAPHIC NOVEL REVIEW FOR LIBRARIES
P.O. Box 55148
Phoenix, AZ 85078

Wow! The tide is turning in favor of Charlier. Dead writers rule OK! :-)

My $0.02:

1) In case anyone wants to know, I have no personal stake in this. No strong personal feelings. So feel free to express your opinions, no matter how strong.

2) Kurt: under French Law, there is such a thing as an abuse of right. If the two (three, four, etc.) co-owners cannnot agree on a course of action, the Court (or Arbiter) will decide in their place. You, my friend, are an idealist. Life does not stop.

In the real world, feuds between brothers and sisters have often been brought to Court, for example because their late father's company can no longer be run properly, the family's real estate can no longer be sold, etc. Then the property in dispute is placed under judicial control, meaning that a magistrate will in effect decide what should be done, using common sense, industry practices, the interests of the majority, etc. as a rule.

If the BLUEBERRY matter came to court, based on what has happened in the past, the Court would probably rule in favor of the Surviving Creator, unless he'd done something wrong or illegal.

If Giraud died and it was his Heirs and Charlier's Heirs who fought in Court, in the absence of a compromise, BLUEBERRY would likely be placed under judicial control, and a Magistrate would make the decisions.

Your comment about turning down an offer for film rights is also highly arguable. If the offer is genuine, the producer reputable, the amounts in question respectable, in short, if there is no objective reason to turn down the offer other than "I don't want to" or some kind of "crazy" reason, then it's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.

Let's say that you and Fry live in France and a reputable producer offers you $1 million for LIBERTY PROJECT. Let's say that you, Kurt, are a very successful writer with a dozen other series. $500,000 isn't that important to you. You don't need the money. You don't like the producer. You say no.

Let's say that Fry, on the other hand, is living in the street, has no money, hasn't drawn anything else in five years, can't feed his children, etc. For him, $500,000 -- hell, $500 -- is a godsend that will make a HUGE difference in his life.

(I'm purposefully exaggerating, I know.)

Now, based on this, I can state with a fair degree of safety that if Fry were to take you to (French) Court, either they'll arm-twist you into agreeing to the offer (maybe with some changes to take care of any real qualms you may have), or they'll sock you for $500,000 that you'll be forced to pay Fry because, in effect, this is what your stubborness cost him.

3) Can a Charlier-driven BLUEBERRY be published in parallel with a Giraud-driven BLUEBERRY? Legally, probably so. Practically, I doubt that publishers would realistically want to put out two competing series. While this is a fascinating notion, I don't think it's feasible.

4) How far is Giraud deviating from the Charlier Outline? So far, not much, but you can hear the train whistling in the distance...

One thing particularly rises Charlier's son heckles: the notion of introducing indian magic or supernatural elements in the series, which he knows his father would never have done. Any serious clash will come when Giraud proposes a book that contains such elements. Notwithstanding the fact that, yes, corrective steps could later be taken to put things back on Charlier's original track... We're not dealing with entirely rational people here... :-)

Things are still okay for the time being. For how long, I don't know. What we're having here is a theoretical discussion tho. Should Giraud be hypothetically able to show Blueberry ending his life as a wizened old shaman smoking cactus in a New Mexico cave?

3) Why doesn't Moebius drop BLUEBERRY & create another western hero more to his liking then?

I don't think you guys quite understand the attachment that Giraud feels towards BLUEBERRY. He (co-)created the character in 1963, visualized it, gave it his look, and yes, many of his character traits. Over the years, he more or less forced Charlier to turn it into a rebel, an anti-hero (waaaaaay before Alan Moore or Frank Miller did it in this country). His relationship with women often parallels Giraud's. (Chihuahua Pearl was modelled after Giraud's first wife, Claudine.) Compare BLUEBERRY to other Charlier's creations -- lame, conventional, one-dimensional, square-jawed characters -- and you'll realize how much of Giraud has gone into the character. In fact, Giraud has actually *aged* BLUEBERRY, perhaps with PRINCE VALIANT, one of the very few times this has been done in comics. It is not merely a character but a projection of himself.

MtPanic evoked the parental analogy: Charlier wanted his son to grow up to be a lawyer. Giraud wanted his son to grow up to be an artist. Charlier passed away. Tough. Now Giraud is sending the kid to art school.

4) I think the right of the deceased co-creator to impose his will beyond the grave should not be recognized. When he dies, that stuff dies with him.

The very nature of this argument: Giraud: "I want to put magic in Blueberry"; Charlier's Son: "No you won't because my Dad would never have done it (and it's the thin end of the wedge)" shows the danger of recognizing that sort of things.

Kurt: can you imagine the late James Fry's son telling you what you should or should not do in LIBERTY PROJECT based on an accurate (or not?) interpretation of his dad's wishes? This would open the door to all kinds of ludicrous arguments.

Kurt, Milo... It is your right as readers to not buy the books written by Giraud if you disagree with what he does. But not to force him to raise his kid in a way that is not true to who he is.

Ultimately, I come on the side of letting an artist (creator) be true to himself (herself), and let the lawyers and heirs and all other non-creative folks be damned. And the fans too. If they don't like it, fine, they can vote with their pocketbooks.

Any other course of action would result either in (a) a (possibly ghastly) parody; or (b) censorship (forced cancellation of a work).

JM



[This message has been edited by JM Lofficier (edited 06-30-99).]

Mt. Panic:
"It occurs to me that the Charlier heirs may have it in their rights to hire a creative team to pursue the late Mssr Charlier's vision and let the fans decide which they want to continue reading."

Setting aside the legal technicalities, this seems to me to be the fairest course. I'm sure many readers would buy and enjoy both versions (are French readers as hung up on "continuity" as Americans?). After all, how many mutually-exclusive versions of Tarzan have their been over the years? Doesn't seem to have hurt the character any.


------------------
J. Kevin Carrier
Fantasy Theater
http://members.aol.com/jkcarrier/fantasy.htm

I remember reading an Aardvark Comment where Dave Sim said that Gerhard is co-owner of Cerebus and if he wished to go off and do his own Cerebus stories that completely contradicted the Sim outline, that he was free to do so. Why not do something like this with Blueberry and let the readers decide?

Dan Nitzani

"A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five."
- Groucho Marx

The notion of a Charlier-commissioned "parallel" BLUEBERRY is fascinating. Yet I don't think it's going to happen, for the following reasons:

-- Charlier's son is not himself a writer, so he'd have to find himself a new writer prepared to write in his father's style. Not an insurmontable obstacle, but not obvious either;

-- Same with the artist, and that is a far greater problem.

Until now, only three other artists have drown BLUEBERRY:

1) Colin Wilson, in style highly imitsative of Giraud, and rather successfully; however, for reasons to complicated to go into here, Charlier's son already alienated Wilson, who quit the YOUNG BLUEBERRY series and went back to Australia or New Zealand.

2) William Vance who did two volumes of MARSHALL BLUEBERRY in his own style, sort of got panned by the critics and quit. (The third & final volume will be drawn by Michel Rouge, another Giraud clone, IMHO far less competent than Wilson.)

3) Michel Blanc-Dumont who's taken over the YB series, drawing in his own style, and again is facing a divided public.

Generally, a portion of the French public has been hostile to a BLUEBERRY that does not look like Giraud -- not to say that is not drawn by Giraud himself.

Finding a replacement artist acceptable to both a publisher and the public would be a huge challenge. And sales would certainly suffer. (The spin-off series already sell around 40% of what the "main" series does.)

4) I don't think any legitimate, mainstream comics publisher would publish a *competing* BLUEBERRY series. Partly because yes, French comics readers are also, if not obsessed but very intent on preserving a certain unity. More so than US readers in some respects. One of the problems in selling SANDMAN in France, for example, is they don't understand how a single book can have different artists. For the French, a comic series is the work of one or tw persons, not a company-owned property tht can be farmed out to various creators. So a competig BLUEBERRY would be a marketing nightmare.

All this IMHO of course.

Kim, I'd be curious to hear your views?

JM

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kurt: under French Law, there is such a thing as an abuse of right. If the two (three, four, etc.) co-owners cannnot agree on a course of action, the Court (or Arbiter) will decide in their place. You, my friend, are an idealist.>>

I've been called worse.

It strikes me that in a situation when you've asked what we think should happen -- not what will happen, since none of us are French jurists, but what _should_ happen -- then what we're discussing is ideals.

>>Your comment about turning down an offer for film rights is also highly arguable. If the offer is genuine, the producer reputable, the amounts in question respectable, in short, if there is no objective reason to turn down the offer other than "I don't want to" or some kind of "crazy" reason, then it's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.>>

I think the notion of ownership only mattering if the owner's reasons for making the choices he or she does are "objective" is ludicrous. "I don't want to" is not a crazy reason -- it's the essence of ownership.

And in an equal co-ownership situation, "I don't want to" is something either party should be able to say. If someone else can say, "That's not a good enough reason for not wanting to," then it ain't ownership.

>>Let's say that you and Fry live in France and a reputable producer offers you $1 million for LIBERTY PROJECT. Let's say that you, Kurt, are a very successful writer with a dozen other series. $500,000 isn't that important to you. You don't need the money. You don't like the producer. You say no.
Let's say that Fry, on the other hand, is living in the street, has no money, hasn't drawn anything else in five years, can't feed his children, etc. For him, $500,000 -- hell, $500 -- is a godsend that will make a HUGE difference in his life.
(I'm purposefully exaggerating, I know.)
Now, based on this, I can state with a fair degree of safety that if Fry were to take you to (French) Court, either they'll arm-twist you into agreeing to the offer (maybe with some changes to take care of any real qualms you may have), or they'll sock you for $500,000 that you'll be forced to pay Fry because, in effect, this is what your stubborness cost him.>>

All I can say in response to this is that I'm glad I don't live in France, then. But I'd rather be pressured into paying James -- hey, I seem to be rolling in francs, after all -- than to have my control of something I co-created abrogated like that.

What if I just don't want to see these characters I created -- and which, let's say, I have as great an attachment for as Giraud does BLUEBERRY -- turned into a live-action film by other creative hands? If $500,000 is not enough for me to see my "child" raped and demeaned, I don't think a judge should be allowed to tell me that half a million smackers sounds like good money to him, so bend over and take it -- my "child" goes into the whorehouse, but at least I get paid...

>>I don't think you guys quite understand the attachment that Giraud feels towards BLUEBERRY.>>

I can understand it. I just think that no matter how strong the attachment is, he's got to recognize that he's not the sole owner of the character. If he wants to act like the sole owner of the character, he should create a character he does solely own.

Chris Claremont has a really strong attachment to the X-MEN, but emotional attachment, even based on real sweat equity and caring, doesn't change whatever ownership status exists.

>>4) I think the right of the deceased co-creator to impose his will beyond the grave should not be recognized. When he dies, that stuff dies with him.>>

If that's the case, then the co-creator shouldn't be allowed to will his co-ownership to a descendant. If he can, though, I think that should be recognized -- just as surely as if he'd retired and hired a manager to look out for his interests. He chose the person he wanted to control his share of BLUEBERRY.

>>Kurt: can you imagine the late James Fry's son telling you what you should or should not do in LIBERTY PROJECT based on an accurate (or not?) interpretation of his dad's wishes?>>

Yes, provided I could actually imagine a child of James's in the first place.

If I didn't want to open myself up to that kind of situation, I shouldn't have co-created LIBERTY PROJECT under those conditions. When I started ASTRO CITY, for instance, I worked out a deal whereby I could retain control long term, and many of my conversations with Brent Anderson's agent Mike Friedrich concerned the fact that someday, equity in ASTRO CITY will be held by my daughter and/or Brent's son. So we took that sort of thing into account at the time Brent was hired.

With LIBERTY PROJECT and JONNY DEMON, though, it's straight co-ownership. I can't do anything with the properties without the approval of the other owner, whether that's the artist or his heirs, and vice versa. If that should mean no future LIBERTY PROJECT works at some point, then that's how it goes, in keeping with the ownership situation.

>>This would open the door to all kinds of ludicrous arguments.>>

Like what?

>>Kurt, Milo... It is your right as readers to not buy the books written by Giraud if you disagree with what he does. But not to force him to raise his kid in a way that is not true to who he is.>>

I never said I wanted to force him to raise his child in any particular way -- or even to treat his intellectual property in any particular way, since intellectual property and children aren't the same thing (for one thing, parenthood is not bequeathable), colorful metaphors about art school and whorehouses aside. I'm just offering an opinion, as requested, with no force behind it but suasion.

But do I think Phillipe Charlier should have the right to assert control of what his father left to him.

>>Any other course of action would result either in (a) a (possibly ghastly) parody; or (b) censorship (forced cancellation of a work).>>

I don't think forced cancellation of a work is censorship -- not if it's happening because one of the owners of the property does not want it to proceed in that direction. I think that's control -- which includes the choice not to publish.

And lest you think this is a one-way thing -- I think Giraud should have the right to prevent Charlier from doing anything with the property that he doesn't agree to, either. I think co-ownership should depend on cooperation, and without that cooperation, nothing should be done. Unless, of course, the terms of that co-ownership were established in such a way as to give greater control to one of the parties.

kurt

Kurt,

I don't like quoting -- it makes messages much too long and mine are long enough as it is -- so I hope you won't mind if I answer you without referring to exact chapter & verse.

I think you're confusing business rights and artistic rights. When a creator dies, his heirs inherit the same financial interests -- and no one is questioning this here -- but they do not inherit (even under French Law) the same unadulterated rights of artistic control that the Creator had while alive because these rights are largely personal rights.

JM Charlier is dead. So he left an outline, written, mind you, in 1974. So what? Maybe he would have changed his mind. People have been known to do that. Maybe Giraud would have convinced him to come a little closer to his side. It certainly happened in the past. No one can know *for sure* what he would have done today because he is dead.

So you're left with only two options: either you go with Giraud, or you go with the son interpreting his late father's wishes.

IMHO, in the history of art & literature, way too many heirs have made asinine decisions trying to protect the memory of the dear departed. I'm actually surprised to see you supporting such a theory.

Philippe Charlier is NOT Jean-Michel Charlier. He is not a writer. His ability to interpret what his father's wishes might have been today is, IMHO, at best questionable, at worst misguided.

In no event, it should be allowed to override the decisions of the surviving creator, at least in artistic matters. (It's clear that we're not talking business matters here where I agree he is vested with the same rights as Daddy.)

Candidly, I think Giraud would have no problem if Charlier's son wanted to commission others to create his own BLUEBRRY. It probably wouldn't register on his "radar". But he does look at Charlier Jr.'s attempts at coercing him as a moral equivalent of censorship.

Now let's talk about ownership.

The essence of ownership is indeed control, as you put it, but when you have two or more owners *and they cannot agree on what to do* then the Court decides in their stead. It's the way it goes in France and I suspect it's the same here.

Daddy used to own Acme Inc. Daddy dies. The three children cannot agree on what to do with Acme Inc. The court will step in. And at last one of the kids is bound to be unhappy about the outcome.

As you must know, ownership is rarely absolute, and when it is shared with others, whether we're talking about Acme Inc or a comic-book character, there are practical limits that will be enforced by the Courts.

Therefore your argument that, in the absence of a consensus, things should grind to a complete standstill is unrealistic, and I think morally unacceptable, because in effect you're elevating the right to say no over the right to say yes.

(Courts, by the way, traditionally favor affirmative courses of action.)

JM

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kurt, I think you're confusing business rights and artistic rights.>>

I don't think so. I don't think any of this affects the question of who gets the money, as you yourself pointed out earlier.

>> JM Charlier is dead. So he left an outline, written, mind you, in 1974. So what?>>

If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?

I think an outline has relevance as the only known form of the creator's wishes, backing up his son's concern for a co-owned property.

>> Maybe he would have changed his mind.>>

And maybe he wouldn't. Maybe he'd have changed it to something even less like what Giraud wants to do.

>> So you're left with only two options: either you go with Giraud, or you go with the son interpreting his late father's wishes.>>

There's a third option: Don't do anything unless the two of them can agree on a course.

>>IMHO, in the history of art & literature, way too many heirs have made asinine decisions trying to protect the memory of the dear departed.>>

I'd agree -- but I think creators have made stupid or damaging decisions as well, and there's no law against that. They get to make choices you or I would consider dumb because they have the right to -- and that includes the right to choose who'll get to make those decisions after they die. As long as that's the case -- as long as I, as a creator, get to choose who I want to inherit my intellectual property, I think that my wishes on the subject should be honored. Same for Jean-Michel Charlier.

>>I'm actually surprised to see you supporting such a theory.>>

I think the foundation of "creator's rights" is "rights." As such, I'd rather see a creative property unexploited rather than start jerking around the people who theoretically own it, whether those people are Marvel Comics, Marv Wolfman, Phillipe Charlier or anyone else.

>>Philippe Charlier is NOT Jean-Michel Charlier.>>

I apologize if I ever gave the impression that I thought Philippe Charlier was actually his dead father. I certainly didn't mean to.

>>The essence of ownership is indeed control, as you put it, but when you have two or more owners *and they cannot agree on what to do* then the Court decides in their stead. It's the way it goes in France and I suspect it's the same here. Daddy used to own Acme Inc. Daddy dies. The three children cannot agree on what to do with Acme Inc. The court will step in.>>

As I understand it, the reasons the courts step in in the case of Acme Inc. is that it's an operating business, and if no decisions are made, people will lose their jobs, contracts will be unfulfilled, and so on -- it's the equivalent of removing a driver from a moving car.

But in a case like this, there is no moving car. If Giraud doesn't get to do another BLUEBERRY album without Charlier's approval, he will undoubtedly do something else. The previous albums will stay in print and continue to sell, the publisher's staff will collect their pay, and the business as a whole will remain functioning. Giraud might not be happy, but then, that's not an economic disaster.

Court decisions of this sort, about what to do with ACME, are business decisions, not the artistic rights you're talking about.

>>Therefore your argument that, in the absence of a consensus, things should grind to a complete standstill is unrealistic, and I think morally unacceptable, because in effect you're elevating the right to say no over the right to say yes.>>

I don't actually see an inherent moral value in elevating the right to say yes over the right to say no. I don't really see a moral imperative that more BLUEBERRY albums must be produced, even at the cost of violating the rights of the half-owner.

But I'm repeating myself, and I don't think we're getting anywhere. You asked for opinions on what should happen, not guesses as to what the courts will do. I've given my opinion, and for all that you keep telling me that the courts are likely going to do something else -- which I understood from the get-go -- it's still what I think _should_ happen; it's what I think respects the rights of all those involved, rather than deciding that the need to do something supersedes the rights of any of the owners of an intellectual property.

Outvote the others, if you can. Buy 'em off, if you can. But don't dismiss them as crazy and take their property by force, telling them to shut up and sit down because they're getting paid.

But again, I'm repeating myself. I've offered my opinion, and I think we've taken it as far as it's going to go. I'd better let the conversation continue among others.

kurt

Kurt,

You said:

"I don't actually see an inherent moral value in elevating the right to say yes over the right to say no. I don't really see a moral imperative that more BLUEBERRY albums must be produced, even at the cost of violating the rights of the half-owner."

But you see, by preventing books to be published, you're violating the rights of the other half-owner...

So no matter what you do, you're still hurting someone.

In the event of an irreconcilable difference, you're advocating enforced silence over freedom of expression.

This is why philosophically I deeply disagree with your position.

But let's hear it from other folks.

JM