More NonSense: Election 2016

Go to: xkcd

Alan Cole loves Randall Munroe's visualisation of the 2016 electoral map.

TCJ has an interview with NBM founder Terry Nantier.

The late Annie Goetzinger profiled by TCJ.

Christopher Priest and his work on Black Panther is profiled by Abraham Riesman.

An unnamed nursing company has accused Stan Lee of repeated sexual harassment; Lee has in turn claimed that he is the victim of a shakedown.

In the latest chapter of DC's deteriorating relationship with Alan Moore, his creation Promethea will be incorporated into the DC Universe. Neither Moore or co-creator J.H. Williams III were consulted:

So, this is without affording me the dignity hearing about it from proper channels. I've not brought this to Alan's attention, doubt he knew, until now. Besides that, I can't in good conscience condone this happening in any form at all.

Lea Hernandez has repeatedly apologised for her work on the defunct Marvel Mangaverse, calling it racist. Lea was the artist for the Mangaverse version of the Punisher. She the urged the publisher to stop reprinting the comics:

Speaking of being a casually racist asshole, I did art for the Marvel Mangaverse Punisher, written by Peter David. It’s racist, and I was uncomfortable when I drew it, but it had been written by Peter, a friend, and approved by an editor.

The main characters, Japanese-Caucasian sisters, were named Hashi Brown and Sosumi Brown. (Update: there’s also a female villain named “Skan Kee Ho.” There was exotification of Asians. I depicted Sosumi, the Punisher, in a sexy kimono alá manga art of “bad” women even as I was careful to dress Hashi in a “schoolgirl” uniform that was mid-thigh length shorts and a jacket, alá Utena. Because I was sick of the sexualization of children, but didn’t grasp that exotification needed to be off the table, too...  

To anyone who was hurt by the racism in Marvel Mangaverse Punisher, of which I was the artist, I offer my deepest apologies. I can’t change the circumstances that led me to be afraid of pushing back, but I am changing how I conduct myself going forward.
I also apologize for taking 17 years to fully comprehend an apology and being accountable for the work was in order... 

Since it’s been reprinted recently, it’s too late to ask Marvel to stop this reprinting Mangaverse Punisher. It’s not to late to ask them to quit reprinting it, though. Marvel, please quit reprinting Mangaverse Punisher. It’s racist.

Apparently, none of the major corporate interests are moving to extend copyrights, despite their imminent expiration as soon as next year.

Cartoon: Who Owns The World?

Go to: The Nib, by Maurizio Boscarol

More NonSense: Creation and Reproduction

Pádraig Ó Méalóid's interview with Alan Moore has unsurprisingly produced some backlash. Here's commentary by Marc Singer,  Marc-Oliver Frisch.

Julia Wertz on how her alcoholism informed her autobiographical webcomic The Fart Party.

Orion Martin racebends the X-Men, and links to one of my posts.

Chris Sims weighs in on the controversial legacy of Stan Lee.

Bully takes a look at the fantastical technology drawn by Jack Kirby.

Dave Girard on the rise and fall of QuarkXPress. Will Adobe make the same mistakes with InDesign?

Joe Mullin remembers the history of the Sony Betamax on the 30th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, which dramatically expanded the right to fair use.

Webcomic: A Private Kirby Adventure

Go to: American Barbarian by Tom Scioli

Also:

Tributes to the King of Comics from Tom Spurgeon, Robert Steibel, Chris Sims, Kevin Melrose, Patrick Reed, Bully Says:

A detailed analysis of the Kirby ruling by Jeff Trexler

Kirby4Heroes Campaign and Hero Initiative

Other links by Kevin Melrose, Heidi McDonald

Happy 96th Birthday Jack Kirby.

More NonSense: Superman's 75th Anniversary Edition (Updated)

Entertainment Weekly celebrates the 75th Anniversary of the Man of Steel (via Kevin Melrose).

ComicsAlliance honors the artists who have given life to "Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's brilliant creation" these past decades.

Edward Helmore on the long legal battle to control the rights to Superman.

Siegel family attorney Mark Toberoff swears "This case is by no means over" (via Kevin Melrose).

Alan Moore on the seedy, disreputable comic book industry that profited from Superman's early popularity while ripping off its creative talent:

The industry’s apologists have offered various glosses for the shameful act of theft upon which the vast business that supports them seems to have been founded. One of the more despicable of these constructions has it that Siegel and Shuster should have been more shrewd in signing contracts, which appears to be a variant on the well-known American proverbial advice regarding suckers and the inadvisability of giving them an even break. More lately there have been attempts to mitigate the industry’s offence with an appeal to half-baked mysticism and postmodernism, maintaining that Superman and the commercial children’s comic characters which followed him are all in some sense archetypes that hover in the ether, waiting to be plucked by any lucky idiot who passes by. Ingeniously, this sidesteps the whole Siegel and Shuster problem by insisting that creators in the superhero field aren’t actually creators after all, but merely the recipients of some kind of transcendent windfall fruit that should be freely shared around. Even if this were true, it’s difficult to see exactly how it justifies a perhaps gangster-founded company of fruiterers (just to continue the analogy) declaring that these profitable magic apples all belong to them in perpetuity. Still, one can see why such a morally-evasive brand of metaphysics might appeal to the large corporate concerns which steer the comic industry; to those amongst the readership whose primary allegiance is to a specific superhero rather than the ordinary non-invulnerable human who originated him; and to those loyally and profitably labouring at franchises, who know they’re in no danger of ever creating an original idea which would be valuable enough to steal.

"Five Superman Publications I Like Better Than The Movies" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 by Tom Spurgeon and some other guys.

Joe Shuster draws Superman vs. a Grizzly Bear. Awesome.

Classic Superman Radio ads.

This town wants to be Smallville.

Tom Scioli thinks Jim Starlin’s brief stint on the character is the best Superman ever.

Jake Roper explains that Superman, or any superhuman for that matter, hitting an object with a fist that's traveling at 99% the speed of light would be really, really, really, really, really bad (via Kevin Melrose). I suppose that means that if you can take a punch from Superman, you're way beyond bulletproof.

Tom Bondurant on this week's Superman-related projects: Superman Unchained and Man of Steel.

Bully on the apocalyptic aspects of the movie.

Andrew Wheeler would like you to know that Henry Cavill is the latest in a line of unknown actors cast to play the Man of Steel. And if the pattern holds up, this role will be the high point of his entire acting career. It's a good thing then that he is one absurdly handsome man.

Marc Singer in his review of Man of Steel is irritated by the same elements that bother me, especially this particular pet peeve:

Like the ponderous Superman Returns, Man of Steel can't resist the cheap and easy Christ imagery. The subtext isn't helped when the villainous Kryptonian starts talking about how evolution always wins or how morality is an evolutionary weakness. Which I'm pretty sure is not how evolution works, but Snyder made his point. 

(The Superman I love the most, the genial scientist and humanist who walked into a golden sunset in 1986 and reappeared for a dozen glorious issues in the mid-2000s, would no doubt respond with some gentle corrective about how morality is humanity's greatest evolutionary adaptation. And then knock Faora into orbit.)

I'm rarely unequivocal when making recommendations, especially with superhero movies. And Man of Steel is not the greatest example of the genre. So for all the watered-down Nietzsche and muddled understanding of science, I still kinda like the movie, if for no other reason than on the strength of its cast. This off course in no way alters my skepticism of Zach Snyder.

Michael May asks whether there is a meaningfully right or wrong way to interpret corporate-owned characters.

Tom Scioli on how Man of Steel is filled with 80s nostalgia for geeks.

Ultimate Origins

Go to: Comics And Nothing But by David Lasky (via The Ephemerist)

Man Of Tomorrow

Did you know the never-ending battle began 75 years ago today? Comics would never the same.

Back then, Superman was a bit of a jerk to the rich and powerful.

Joseph Shuster: We were both great science-fiction fans, reading Amazing Stories and Wonder Stories in those days.

Jerome Siegel: When Joe and I first met, it was like the right chemicals coming together. I loved his artwork... I thought he had flair - though he was a beginner - I thought he had the flair of a Frank R. Paul, who was one of the best science-fiction illustrators in the field.

Shuster: And I was an avid reader of H.G. Wells -

Siegel: Right... Joe as well as I; and we were both reading the same type of material.

Joanne Siegel: In fact, the three of us were destined to meet, because we were kids all playing at being grown up, trying desperately to be grown up. And since that first day of our friendship, we're still together.

― From a 1983 interview published in Nemo #2.

Lois Lane standing up to the Man. Well, a man.

... So I ask you to please consider – do these mean spirited tactics meet with your approval? Do you really think the families of Superman’s creators should be treated this way?

As you know, DC and Warner Bros. have profited enormously from 72 years of exploiting Jerry and Joe’s wonderful creation. Superman is now a billion dollar franchise and has been DC’s flagship property for all this time.

― Joanne Siegel in a 2010 open letter to Jeffrey L. Bewkes of Time Warner Inc. regarding the corporation's actions directed towards the Shuster and Siegel families during their protracted legal battle to reclaim the rights to Superman.

Superman and Lois Lane were created by Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel.  Lois was originally modeled by Joanne Siegel.

Action Comics pages referenced here.

Cross-blogged here.

Update: DC confuses. Cleveland rocks.

More NonSense: The Kirby Ruling and Dan DiDio

Marvel Entertainment won an important summary judgement against the family of the late Jack Kirby: Judge Colleen McMahon denied the family any claim to the copyrights for the characters or comics Kirby co-created when working at Marvel. Kiel Phegley and Andy Khouri report on the judgement. Rich Johnston  has a copy of the full ruling.

"At the outset, it is important to state what this motion is not about. Contrary to recent press accounts... this case is not about whether Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is the real 'creator' of Marvel characters, or whether Kirby (and other freelance artists who created culturally iconic comic book characters for Marvel and other publishers) were treated 'fairly' by companies that grew rich off the fruit of their labor. It is about whether Kirby's work qualifies as work-for-hire under the Copyright Act of 1909, as interpreted by the courts, notably the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If it does, then Marvel owns the copyright in the Kirby Works, whether that is 'fair' or not. If it does not, then the Kirby Heirs have a statutory right to take back those copyrights, no matter the impact on recent corporate acquisition or on earnings from blockbuster movies made and yet to be made.

I conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the Kirby Works were indeed works for hire within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1909. Therefore the section 304(c) Termination Notices did not operate to convey any federally-protected copyrights in the Kirby Works or the Kirby Heirs. Marvel's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Kirby Heirs cross motion is denied."

Responses from Tom Spurgeon, Matthias Wivel, Jeff Trexler (via Heidi McDonald), Colleen Doran, Steve Bissette (via Tom Spurgeon and Rich Johnston), Michael Dean, Christopher Allen, followup by Matthias Wivel,

Kirby family lawyer Marc Toberoff, who also represents the Siegel family in their fight over the Superman copyrights with DC Entertainment, vows to appeal the decision.

The furor over Dan Didio's infamous answer to the question on DC's measly practice on the hiring of female creators for their relaunch only increased when a recording of it was put on the web. Tom Spurgeon commented "I'm not sure I thought this possible, but the full response somehow manages to be more ludicrous that its panel-report description." Heidi McDonald, who was in attendance, posted  "Is it SO HARD (emphasis hers) for Dan DiDio to say “We are trying to get more women involved...” The controversy prompted Laura Hudson to write a long response. Her conclusion:

"To answer Dan DiDio's question: There are many, many very talented women working in the industry who could infuse something very valuable into DC Comics, at a time when they probably need it the most. As a female fan, I desperately wish he would consider their aesthetics and contributions to the industry as viable options for the superhero books I want to read so badly but feel so chronically alienated by, something that honestly breaks my heart on a regular basis..."

DC took the unusual step to directly address fan concerns on their official blog, adopting a conciliatory attitude: "We Hear You." This seems to have placated some of the critics, according to JK Parkin, Laura Hudson, David Brothers.

A. Nathaniel Ommus on navel-gazing in comics.

Ryan Holmberg on Tatsumi Yoshihiro’s Black Rainbow.

RC Harvey: John Goldwater, the Comics Code Authority, and Archie.

Chris Mautner on Jack Cole.

More NonSense: Shameful Practices

Jack Kirby

Gary Groth's refutal of Jim Shooter's revisionist account of the infamous battle between Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby, over the ownership of his original art, is a reminder of how the troubled relationship between individual creator and company is still very much an unsettled issue. Just ask Joanne Siegel.

Matt Thorn posts on how TOKYOPOP negatively affected the quality of translations through driving down the wages of translators. His "reap as you sow" thesis also connects TP's treatment of it's OEL creators to the greed and shortsightedness that has plagued the comic book industry ever since the first publishers paid next to nothing for original content, while retaining all the rights: 

TokyoPop could have worked to nurture a mature customer base and remain relevant, but they were, in my opinion, similarly hobbled by greed and shortsightedness–greed and shortsightedness that tainted the entire North American manga publishing industry.

I'm sympathetic to the situation of underpaid employees, and even more sympathetic to creators being forced to give up their creator rights. Given how relatively little manga was being officially translated at the time, it's hard for me to confirm whether  TP's translations were any worse than previous efforts. And if anything, they read better than most fan subs. Almost any professional effort was bound to look better in comparison. So what do I know. Brigid Alverson, Kate Dacey and Daniella Orihuela-Gruber have reactions.

George Takei's petition against the rumored casting of the film adaptation of Akira might be jumping the gun a bit, although it's not a surprising reaction given Hollywood's history. That doesn't hinder those who feel that Caucasians are underrepresented enough on the big screen to protest Idris Elba playing Heimdall - Multiculturalism be damned.

Akira is an iconic Japanese work - set in Japan, filled with Japanese characters, dealing with issues that were pertinent to Japan in the Eightees. So I'm not expecting much after it passes the Hollywood studio treatment. I'm still laughing at Dragonball Evolution and Godzilla starring Matthew Broderick. It isn't so much the issue of casting (athough that can be symptomatic of it), as to the way the tampering involved in these adaptations tends to result in a race to the bottom. But I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised if the movie turns out to be any good.

A Personal Plea

Joanne Siegel, Photo courtesy of Laura Siegel Larson

Go to: Letter From Lois Lane To Time Warner Boss by Joanne Siegel
transcribed by Nikki Finke (via Rich Johnston)

The Grabbers Pt 1

Go to: Evil Twin Comics by Fred Van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey

The sordid history of copyright practices within the comic book industry, told in comic form.

Men of Tomorrow and The American Dream

If Siegel and Shuster had done business with honorable men, their lives — and the lives of their families — would have been far different. But they didn’t. Harry Donenfeld was a crook. Jack Liebowitz was a two-faced socialist who abandoned his principles in the name of corporate profits. If there’s a Hell below, I’ll surely meet both men there. No: Siegel and Shuster struggled financially for decades, and while each died earning stipends that DC Comics had been shamed into paying them, these sums were nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars the company had reaped over the decades and continues to reap, a gluttonous middle finger thrust into the face of the American Dream.

- Dirk Deppey on the sordid history of Detective Comics conduct toward Superman creators Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster.

I'm pretty much in agreement with those sentiments. However Judge Larson's decision limited itself to the creation of Superman in Action Comics #1. He upheld a previous court ruling rejecting DC's dubious claims that the company had significant input into the creation of the story:

The thrust of defendants’ argument was made and rejected by the Second Circuit in the 1970s Superman copyright renewal litigation, and is thus precluded as a matter of collateral estoppel here. In that litigation, defendants’ predecessors-in-interest presented much of the same evidence now submitted in this case to argue that this additional material transformed the entirety of Siegel and Shuster’s pre-existing Superman material published in Action Comics, Vol. 1, into a work made for hire. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, elaborating: “In the case before us, Superman and his miraculous powers were completely developed long before the employment relationship was instituted. The record indicates that the revisions directed by the defendants were simply to accommodate Superman to a magazine format. We do not consider this sufficient to create the presumption that the [comic book] strip was a work for hire.” Siegel, 508 F.2d at 914. This conclusion forecloses any further litigation on the point of whether Shuster’s additional drawings when reformatting the underlying Superman material into a comic book format or other facts related to such a theory such as the colorization process for Action Comics, Vol. 1, or the party responsible for the illustration of the cover to the magazine, rendered all or portions of the resulting comic book a work made for hire.

Which sidestepped the issue of ownership for subsequent works created under work-for-hire conditions. As Deppey puts it:

...few if any original concepts and/or characters currently in use by major comic-book companies can so easily be demonstrated to have been created and produced outside the premises of the company before being licensed for publication. Two borderline examples — Dan DeCarlo’s co-authorship of Josie and Marv Wolfman’s creation of Blade — have already been struck down by the courts as having been created on a work-for-hire basis. From the perspective of the larger New York corporate-comics industry, then, this really isn’t going to change anything save, perhaps, the way that DC Comics’ accounting department deals with Superman. And even there, changes won’t become immediately apparent until the other issues in the Siegal case are resolved. Until that occurs, DC Comics is still entitled to create and publish new Superman comics, and Warner Brothers is still entitled to make Superman movies and license the characters out to third parties for lunchboxes and whatnot.

So there won't be an avalanche of creators from the thirties or forties successfully reversing copyright for comics created under work-for-hire conditions back to themselves. Nonetheless the story of DC's screwing of Siegel and Shuster is the story that defined the one-sided nature of the relationship between publisher and creator for the next several decades. And it's important that some justice be served for their years laboring for less than honorable people.

Truth and Justice

After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago – the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.

- Judge Stephen Larson in the conclusion of his written opinion accompanying the decision to grant copyright to Jerome Siegel's heirs.

...Still, despite its limited scope and remaining unfinished details, this is a historic ruling rich with symbolic significance. And in a poignant coincidence, the judge issued his order on the same day that Grant Morrison's homage to Siegel and Shuster in All Star Superman #10 hit the stands.

- Jeff Trexler on the decision.

Happy 70th Birthday! Sometimes the never-ending battle is worth it.