Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5
Topic Options
#471642 - 07/31/01 05:05 PM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Korvac Offline

Registered: 02/08/00
Posts: 1686
Loc: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>>While it's doubtful Todd would be willing to pay for MM twice (Eclipse auction and the theoretical payoff to UK claimants to the character[s]) it would put him on stronger legal ground against Neil or anyone Neil would take the 80's material to and could result in him getting the film back.<<

Go back through the threads and look up the Comic's International story. Todd's already indicated what respect he holds for rival British claims.

Nothing tops the simple joy of a monkey knife fight.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
-Stephen Colbert

#471643 - 08/07/01 12:02 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Walt Stone Offline

Registered: 01/01/01
Posts: 496
Loc: Katy, Tx
Rich Johnston (from his rumor column) has reported that Dez Skinn posted "I seem to recall the Eclipse contracts had a '5 year rights reversion' clause. Must dig the file out when we've moved."

If true, this would change the sea-level just a bit.

I AM surprised this memory didn't shake loose sometime earlier, mind you.


#471644 - 08/07/01 01:15 AM Re: "Miracleman" Trademark Status Update
Doug T Offline

Registered: 05/14/00
Posts: 98
Loc: Chicago, IL USA
Originally posted by Walt Stone:
I AM surprised this memory didn't shake loose sometime earlier, mind you.

That looks suspicious to me, too. Skinn likes to stir things up, and it's interesting that this memory comes back into his mind at such a convenient moment. And if this is true, why hasn't Skinn pursued it? If the rights reverted five years after the last publication of Miracleman, then that was over three years ago.

Of course, if Skinn is correct, perhaps he's been waiting for Todd to publish something so he can go into court with his reversion clause and claim 10% (or whatever his cut would be) of the profits.

Doug Tonks

Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5