Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#471622 - 07/29/01 11:17 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
skylion Offline
Member

Registered: 07/07/01
Posts: 59
Loc: covington, ky usa
I posted Neil's blogger, the same one that I posted here on the bbs at spawn.com. It has been deleted. Are there any staffers of those boards on this board that would care to pony up an exlaination? Huh?

Top
#471623 - 07/29/01 11:34 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
UncleBob Offline
Member

Registered: 07/09/00
Posts: 115
Loc: Mount Carmel, IL 62863
Ummm... Hey Skylion...

It's still there...
http://www.spawn.com/board/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005338.html

------------------
Did you take the time to really discover how little we know about each other?
theunclebob@hotmail.com - ICQ Me - Phone: 618.262.8064

Top
#471624 - 07/30/01 07:27 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
skylion Offline
Member

Registered: 07/07/01
Posts: 59
Loc: covington, ky usa
I looked on every single page for that thread, and had my wife double check for me. As of 11:00 pm est it was nowhere on the boards. Funny it is there now. If I am wrong about it I would say so. But I am not wrong, in this.

Top
#471625 - 07/30/01 11:06 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Adrian Brown Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/00
Posts: 240
Loc: London, England
Quote:
Originally posted by BeauSmith:
Granted, fellas...I'm no Perry Mason, but it seems to me that Marvel's legal department wouldn't wanna touch the Miracleman reprints with a 10 foot pole.

Looks to me that whoever does try it will have to deal with somebody...don't know who...that will start throwin' lawsuits around like flies around a picnic feast.

Marvel doesn't strike me as the type to wanna do battle over something they don't have much to gain from. They don't have the deep pockets for casual lawsuits like they used to. Joe might talk a good game on it to see his name in print, but I don't think the Marvel laywers would be real eager to back him up.

I could be wrong...just my thoughts.

Beau


Why would TMP want to challenge anyone's rights to reprint Neil Gaiman's Miracleman ?
(or *finally* print the final episodes)
I mean, I'm as quick as the next person to label Todd the bad guy in this, but free publicity for a character that he merchandise and follow up on seems like a satisfying bit of business to me.

One thing in all his "silent" statements, he hasn't said no to someone else reprinting the character either.
_________________________
* * * * * * *
Just 1 Page charity comic at the
UK Comic Expo, @ Bristol in May 2005

Top
#471626 - 07/30/01 11:08 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Adrian Brown Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/00
Posts: 240
Loc: London, England
... or EVEN to TMP publishing it.

------------------
_________________________
* * * * * * *
Just 1 Page charity comic at the
UK Comic Expo, @ Bristol in May 2005

Top
#471627 - 07/30/01 11:10 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
JM Lofficier Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/00
Posts: 289
Loc: Resea, CA, USA
Several parties -- not just Neil Gaiman -- may legitimately file an opposition to McFarlane's trademark application. I hope they do. A hearing costs far, far less than a regular lawsuit, and for all intents and purposes, would likely achieve the same results -- throw a giant monkeywrench into the gears and properly tests each party's claims.

McFarlane's claim to own MM is based on Eclipse's previous claim, itself based on whatever rights it got from Dez Skinn, and that entire chain of title seems rather shaky to me.

Other than the PR value, I can't quite see what Marvel would have to gain from this, and besides anyone working to untangle such a chain of title would only do so with the assurance of owning the whole thing at the end. I don't know about others, but I don't think that full MM ownership by Marvel would necessarily be a good thing...

JM

Top
#471628 - 07/30/01 11:43 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
S. Wintle Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 06/21/01
Posts: 30
JM, Where do you get off posting such articulate, intelligent, fair-minded messages? Ya Bastid.

As an aside, if the Skinn-Eclipse-McFarlane line of events is shaky, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the Dez-Moore-Gaiman links are equally shaky?
_________________________
Flat Earth
Approved by the Comics Code Authority.

Top
#471629 - 07/30/01 01:52 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
JM Lofficier Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/00
Posts: 289
Loc: Resea, CA, USA
It's Bastrich to you, sir, not Bastid. :-)

And to answer your question, yes, it does. (Limiting our conversation to underlying rights, not existing material.)

Until we're clear about the Miller-Anglo-Skinn relationship, I don't think anyone further down the chain has a very solid leg to stand on.

McFarlane introducing MM in HELLSPAWN is sort of equivalent to him using the Siegels to introduce SUPERMAN in SPAWN, except that neither Miller, nor Anglo (nor Skinn) have the resources of DC. It's the sort of action that, normally, a lawyer would advise against.

Or for all we know, MM may be deemed to be in the Public Domain (not the stories, the character), in which case no one can truly own him/it.

I will hazard a guess that Alan Moore, cutting to the chase with good common sense, probably felt that no one truly owned, or should own MM (which after all was conceived in an act of piracy), which is why he felt free to hand it on to his successors.

The steps allegedly taken by McFarlane to register sole ownership of the MM trademark fly against both legal evidence (based on what has been publicly revealed so far) and good, old fashioned common sense. (All in my humble opinion, based on very limited information.)

I have no particular problem with McFarlane using MM (through his purchase of Eclipse), if any of the other parties were also free to use him.

Alternatively, a MM consortium la Conan Properties could be set up, in which everyone entitled to a share would be represented, and that entity would control the character and take decisions as regards its use.

JM

Top
#471630 - 07/30/01 02:49 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Matt_Fabb Offline
Member

Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 279
Loc: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Marvel doesn't seem like a very likely "unexpected source" since it's been reported that Joe Quesada wanted to reprint Mircleman and most people would expect it to come from Marvel. However, at the same time Neil Gaiman has been on tour crossing North American and the UK promoting his new book American Gods (which is an amazing book by the way) and may have not heard that Joe Quesada's comments were reported, which then would make Marvel an "enexpected source" in Neil's mind.

As for DC/Vertigo, that also wouldn't be very unexpected since so much of Gaiman's material has been released by them.

Maybe Dreamhaven Books , which is the closest Gaiman has come to self-publishing when they release Gaiman's Angels & Visitations book, "Warning Contains Language" CD, among various of other items.

(Edited to fix the link)

[This message has been edited by Matt_Fabb (edited 07-31-2001).]

Top
#471631 - 07/30/01 04:15 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
UncleBob Offline
Member

Registered: 07/09/00
Posts: 115
Loc: Mount Carmel, IL 62863
Quote:
skylion:
I looked on every single page for that thread, and had my wife double check for me. As of 11:00 pm est it was nowhere on the boards. Funny it is there now. If I am wrong about it I would say so. But I am not wrong, in this.


I saw it there on the first page before I came here (making my usual rounds). My guess is ya just overlooked it or something.

I don't know 100% of how the UBB program works, but I don't think a post can be deleted and later added back...

------------------
Did you take the time to really discover how little we know about each other?
theunclebob@hotmail.com - ICQ Me - Phone: 618.262.8064

Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >