PeterDavid.net

Heinlein once remarked that it is always the little guy who is hurt in a bankruptcy. Somehow, the rich ones are never shy a dime afterwards.

Consider the case of an Ottawa millionaire who had purchased controlling interests in the city's NHL hockey team, and the world-class arena they played in.

Unfortunately for him, he'd neglected to listen to all the studies which had showed that Ottawa is too small a market for such an expensive proposition.

So, tired of losing money on the team, he declared bankruptcy and put it and the arena up for sale.

Then turned around and bought them back at a small fraction of their declared value - over the howls of investors and other creditors.

He was then able to continue operating, without all the interest payments on the outstanding debts. He had what he wanted, and the creditors were screwed.

Unfortunately for him a wheel came off anyway and he wound up being forced to sell again.

But this left a lot of people - myself included - wondering how the hell someone who is supposedly bankrupt can come up with millions of dollars to re-buy such a proberty, even if at a bargain price. Bankruptcy laws clearly need to be changed.

All I can say is, what goes around, comes around. Todd won't have to sell any of his baseballs, and only the people whom he owes will feel the pain.

Still, overall, I think it is bursting a bubble in his ego, which is the best news of all.

From an article regarding the bankruptcy:

Last year, he said his McFarlane Cos., then an umbrella of seven businesses, had annual sales exceeding $50 million.

Makes you wonder what he's doing with that $50 million if he's not paying out jury awards (or buying baseballs).

This really is a shame.

Considering how Bankruptcy works in the this country (only for the rich), why doesa it even exist?

Oops, answered my own question there...

No way. Todd declaring bankruptcy? Christ.

Todd MacFarlane is best known by the general public as someone who owns three used baseballs and slandered a hockey player.
Comics fans remember that he drew a comic that, because seven million copied were published, according to the law of supply and demand should be one of the least valuable comics in existance.
Trivia buffs will recall that he did some interesting decorative panel borders on his first assignment, Infinity, Inc. he also drew an issue or two of G.I.Joe (or am I thinking of Michael Golden?)
PAD fans remember that Mr. Mac drew some gray Hulk stories.
Animation and free speech fans can respect that he did maintain the integrity of Spawn (the animated series) by having it air unaltered on HBO. On the other hand, the movie was shite.
People working in the comics field recall that Mac was an Image Comics founder and the company began by mouthing the noblest of intentions, but then failed to live up to them and turned into another work for hire sweat shop that the founders allegedly were trying to escape from at Marvel.
And now the Toddlemeister will be known as someone that no one in their right mind will want to work for or with.
But, you know, the toys are really nice.

Just to clarify a bit, Todd has not filed for bankruptcy. Todd McFarlane Productions, Inc., one of his seven companies, filed.

I don't want to sound uneducated, but I don't know about the bad blood between PAD and McFarlane. Can someone give me a recap?

Thanks,
F-

With all that gold and chocolate and cookoo clocks, who'd have guessed that Switzerland could go bankrupt?

I must say, I was very pleased to hear the news, if only because Todd is kind of an ass. I believe I used the word "karma" on my own site, but Peter is probably correct in stating that this is merely a way to dodge paying out any money he owes (although, in Neil Gaiman's case, I believe it wasn't money, but characters that were exchanged - Neil gets Miracleman and Todd got Angela, et al, and that was that, but I could be mistaken).

And, really, in the case of Tony Twist, c'mon...that's a First Amendment thing right there. As much as I dislike Todd and his business practices, he named a character after a hockey player...parody, satire, whatever you want to call it, it should have been protected under the Freedom of Speech, and $15 million is way too much money to have been awarded to Twist.

I knew about the Gaiman screwing and the Twist case as well as the obvious, though-not-directly-stated shadiness with Bendis. I was not aware of negative stuff with Angel Medina. I met Angel at the Big Apple Con back in September and he was one of the most cordial, gracious and friendly pros I've ever met. He had nothing but good things to say about any name that came up. This may well have been the reason that he didn't bring Toddy up.

Fred

Last year, he said his McFarlane Cos., then an umbrella of seven businesses, had annual sales exceeding $50 million.

Makes you wonder what he's doing with that $50 million if he's not paying out jury awards (or buying baseballs).

Gross sales is income before expenses. Production costs (raw materials, rent, salaries, advertising, etc) have to be subtracted from the sales before there is profit.

Chuck Rozanski did an excellent column on this in CBG. http://www.milehighcomics.com/tales/cbg84.html

Posted by Fred at December 19, 2004 01:52 PM

I don't want to sound uneducated, but I don't know about the bad blood between PAD and McFarlane. Can someone give me a recap?

Thanks,
F-

Good luck obtaining an answer. I've even written PAD personally about it and like 3 other emails of mine it all went unanswered.
I'm sorry to say you may not receive an answer here as well because often times things said here are very unkind and uncivil.
Of course that's an internet thing I suppose rather than people being passionate about comic books.

Fred,

In a nutshell, Todd made some very public, very ignorant statements. PAD called him on it. Todd denied it. Todd proposed a debate between the two at a convention. PAD couldn't even really wipe the floor with him, but Todd turned it into a circus event and never actually answered any of the questions. He played it off as a big joke. In the end, Todd was the one who looked like a joke.

Fred

Archives exist for a reason: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/000731.html

-Kelly

oops *damn no-edit feature* "PAD couldn't even really wipe the floor with him, but Todd turned it into a circus event and never actually answered any of the questions." Should read "PAD couldn't even really wipe the floor with him, because Todd turned it into a circus event and never actually answered any of the questions."

"People working in the comics field recall that Mac was an Image Comics founder and the company began by mouthing the noblest of intentions, but then failed to live up to them and turned into another work for hire sweat shop that the founders allegedly were trying to escape from at Marvel."

Yeah, I hate all those comics like Age of Bronze, Powers, Walking Dead, Noble Causes, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Empire, etc. I'm sure glad all Image turned out to be was a work-for-hire sweatshop like Marvel and DC.

League of Extraodinary Gentlemen was published by DC under their ABC imprint.

Call me nuts (Okay, you're nuts) but I REALLY don't think much is going to come of this. Either ol' Todd will just shrug this off like he does a lot of other things, or he and his company won't. And I don't think, (okay, you're nuts)that he drew any GI Joe books, but as big a Joe fan as I am, I never memorized the artists.

Rat,

I have never been a G.I. Joe reader, but I do remember him doing an homage cover to His Siper-Man #1 (featuring Snake Eyes) I believe.

For the probable (possible?) start of "the feud" check out Peter David's BUT I DIGRESS... collection of essays. In a nutshell, when Todd & Co. were announcing Image Comics as the greatest thing to happen to comics ever, PAD "knocked the wheels off the wagon. And he's never forgiven me for it." PAD argued that mixing business and friendship (as they claimed to be doing) was a volatile mix, and that they left companies making superhero comics not to do experimental, daring controversial work, but to do more superhero comics.

And the rest, as they say, is history...

(If PAD, or anyone who has BUT I DIGRESS... on hand, wants to clarify or correct my comments, feel free.)

I watched the whole PAD/Todd debacle start in Petey's 'But I Digress' columns back in the day. One of the main reasons I went to the Philly Con that year (I lived in Michigan at the time) was to see the debate. It was brutal.

I still have the mocking program that Todd made for the event. I must say I wasn't sad to see him get verbally eviscerated.

Later that convention, my wife and I sat right next to him and watched a film he wrote the screenplay for; he pointed out where he appeared only to quickly get killed. Good times.

Anyway, that's a nutshell version of what happened, along with info about me that you could care less about. Tada!

Here's the George Perez drawing from after the debate that appeared in But I Digress:

http://vu.morrissey-solo.com/moz/perez/art/hulk-s.jpg

Ralf Haring notes that a number of comic books, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, belie the statement that Image is just another work-for-hire sweatshop.

Den comments that DC is the publisher of the ABC imprint books, including League.

Regarding the ABC books: The America's Best Comics imprint was something that Alan Moore and Jim Lee worked out as being published through Wildstorm, before Wildstorm became a part of DC. In fact, when that happened, many people expected Moore to pull out because of past problems between DC and himself; the speculation at the time was that the ABC deal only continued because Jim and Wildstorm could act as a buffer between Alan and DC.

Also, unless I am greatly mistaken, Wildstorm does not own the ABC characters/universe; Alan and his collaborators do.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to lump League of Extraordinary Gentlemen into a group of well-regarded, creator-owned books, that were brought to us via Image (mostly through Image Central, but some through the various studios owned by the original Image 6-7).

WRT the sweat-shop/work-for-hire comments:

It is certainly true that the various Image founders have all, at some point, employed other creators to produce works depicting characters created by and owned by the founders. I am not privy to the specific contracts employed, but let's say they are work-for-hire contracts. I can no longer recall the specific statements made by the Image founders regarding their desire to leave Marvel. At the time, to the best of my recollection, Marvel's only venue for creator-owned work was the Epic line; and the tenor of that line was still primarily heroic adventure stories of some sort, but was not primarily (I would argue not at all) straight-forward super-heroics of the sort the founders would go on to produce. If the Image founders wanted to be able to create and own their own super-hero characters, Marvel didn't really have a place for them (and evidently was uninterested in creating one). Note that even before Image Central came into existence, Image did allow non-founders the option to create their own characters and situations, and to continue to own same (Sam Kieth's MAXX, Dale Keown's PITT). Yes, these were far outweighed by the likes of UNION, SUPREME, STORMWATCH, and BRIGADE (or even CY-GOR and FREAK FORCE), but the opportunities existed.

The worst you can really say about how they followed through on their intentions in this regard is that they weren't as radical as they sounded.

R David Francis

Jacob, Fred C, and Kelly Saxman- thanks for the info.

F-

Gross sales is income before expenses. Production costs (raw materials, rent, salaries, advertising, etc) have to be subtracted from the sales before there is profit.

*sigh* Yes, I have taken Business 101, thank you very much.

Maybe somebody should be auditing McFarlane's businesses books to find out where this kind of money went (seeing as how the joke went over atleast one person's head), because it has never sounded like his businesses were hurting in the past.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to lump League of Extraordinary Gentlemen into a group of well-regarded, creator-owned books, that were brought to us via Image (mostly through Image Central, but some through the various studios owned by the original Image 6-7).

I'm sure how a book that was never published by Image in line that did not even begin publishing until after Jim Lee sold his Wildstorm imprint to DC can be considered an Image.

*sigh* Yes, I have taken Business 101, thank you very much... (seeing as how the joke went over at least one person's head)

I thought you might be joking, but as a former hobby retailer of 15 years I've dealy with a LOT of people who think that total sales = total profits. I just wanted to be sure.

Those who do think the above equation is true need to read the previously referenced column.

PAD's mostly correct on TM's goal here: hide behind bankruptcy law in order to weasel out of his mounting financial obligations.

While bankruptcy law isn't intended to provide additional relief for coroporations and the rich, the way the system is set up ends up having that effect. Non-rich individuals have a hard time recovering because their income potential really doesn't change after the bankruptcy is completed. They have less or no debt, so more relative income compared to before, but they still have the same skill-set and earnings potential as before.

Corporations, on the other hand, have less debt, and a good deal of the assets they had prior to the bankruptcy. Companies can also find willing investors post BR, who will pump in additional capital (the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute" comes to mind).

The reasons behind bankruptcy law are many: slavery/indentured service are outlawed; the law favors investment and risk, and offers some protection to those willing to take that risk, and large companies that employ tens of thousands of employees going out of business could be devastating to the national economy.

Now, it's possible that, by declaring BR, TM's company could be buying itself more trouble than help. It's hard for me to understand how a company with an annual gross of $50 million can't afford a $15 million debt. If they can't pay it in one lump sum, the court would be willing to agree to a settlement, like $5 mil. a year for three years, plus interest of course.

TM's CO. is now going to have to open its books for its creditors to see, and to submit a plan to the court for approval. If his books show he's got the money to pay his debts, the court's going to make him do just that. And if he has to sell the copyrights to some of his characters in order to meet those obligations, the court could order that. The downside to bankruptcy is that, while you're in the process, you lose some measure of control over your assets. He'll be allowed to keep enough to continue as a going venture during and after, but he may not have all his toys left.

And plus there's this: If those records show that his companies have joint or shared onwership of some of his properties, his other companies could be brought into the proceeding. Todd may have just screwed himself. It would have been a whole lot simpler to just have paid Twist off in the beginning.

This isn't really a First Amendment issue. The government's not saying anything about what TM can and can't put in his books. It's a private civil issue, so it mostly falls outside the realm of the First Amendment.

It *can* be seen as a free speech issue, but as we all should know by now, there's no right of free speech when it comes to clashes between individuals. Satire and parody are one thing, but taking a national hockey player and attaching his name to a murderous thug in a serious, dramatic story isn't satire or parody. It has the effect of making people think that your character is based on the real person, and could affect his name. If anything, it's libel.

Imagine if McFarlane had created an OJ Juice character that murdered young blonde women? How fast would OJ Simpson have been in court getting that stopped?

Napolean Park wrote:
Trivia buffs will recall that he did some interesting decorative panel borders on his first assignment, Infinity, Inc. he also drew an issue or two of G.I.Joe (or am I thinking of Michael Golden?)

McFarlane's first professional assignment was actually for Marvel's Epic line, on Coyote. He also illustrated an issue of Marvel's New Universe title, Spitfire and the Troubleshooters (or Codename: Spitfire, as it was renamed at one point).

DC's Infinity Inc. was his first *regular* assignment.

Apologies is someone posted this already, but here's a page of Neil Gaiman's blog on his case with McFarlane

http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004/02/in-which-endless-legal-case-is-put-to.asp

Thanks for the Todd-through-the-wall comic - that had me laughing.

Todd's a jerk, as most people know. He won't be a pauper after all the lawsuits are settled, but it sounds like he won't get away with all of his past sins either. Most importantly, few will work with him now.

cheers,
Andrew

League of Extraodinary Gentlemen was published by DC under their ABC imprint.

LoEG was originally started at Image under WildStorm's ABC imprint, as explained by David. I considered it similar to Empire, which was started at Image and finished at DC.

Also, unless I am greatly mistaken, Wildstorm does not own the ABC characters/universe; Alan and his collaborators do.

Moore and O'Neill own LoEG. The rest are owned by DC. The various artists involved requested that, probably having something to do with a more regular pay schedule.

Midnight Nation is another one I thought of. I've also been discovering Maxx lately due to DC's new reprints after having written it off in the early 90s.

Andrew:

>Todd's a jerk, as most people know. He won't be a pauper after all the lawsuits are settled, but it sounds like he won't get away with all of his past sins either. Most importantly, few will work with him now.

I think that you underestimate what some are willing to do to be published or get their work out there. Will Big Leaguers work with him without reservation? Most porbably won't. Will the little guy and many others in the industry still jump at the chance to have themselves associated with him? No doubt in my mind.

Fred

Imagine if McFarlane had created an OJ Juice character that murdered young blonde women? How fast would OJ Simpson have been in court getting that stopped?

I'm not so sure of that. Although I'm sure he'll go to his grave denying that he's guilty as sin, he'd be a fool to go into court again about anything related to that whole business. I've heard that the defining question of the Pearlmans' civil suit against hims is, "Was there ever a worse witness than O. J. Simpson?" The answer to that defining question appears to be "No."

As I said he'd have to be a fool to want to end up in court in any matter relating to the murders...but I'm not sure that that would stop him now that I think about it.

LoEG was originally started at Image under WildStorm's ABC imprint, as explained by David. I considered it similar to Empire, which was started at Image and finished at DC.

The difference between LoEG and Empire is that at least one issue of Empire was actually published by Image. No issues of LoEG were published until after Wildstorm (and with it, ABC) moved to DC.

So, again, LoEG was published by DC, not Image.

Napoleon Park: Trivia buffs will recall that he did some interesting decorative panel borders on his first assignment, Infinity, Inc. he also drew an issue or two of G.I.Joe (or am I thinking of Michael Golden?)
Luigi Novi: Todd did do an issue of that book, but the editor chose not to use it at the time, and another artist drew the version that was published. After Todd left Marvel, Marvel chose to publish that “lost” issue, I assume to get something out of it.

Fred: I don't want to sound uneducated, but I don't know about the bad blood between PAD and McFarlane. Can someone give me a recap? Thanks.
Luigi Novi: Peter has long given his thoughts on a variety of issues in his But I Digress column, even when they were to disagree or criticize people or organizations, regardless of whether they were those with whom he had close positive ties (Marvel, Jim Shooter, Don and Maggie Thompson, etc.) or not (Gary Groth, John Byrne, Baron’s, enemies of Free Speech, etc.). Naturally, therefore, Image in general and Todd in particular naturally came under his scrutiny when they first started up, particularly given the controversial things said and done by both Todd and other Image founders.

One of the flaps, for example, was when one founder (I can’t remember if it was Todd or Erik Larsen) said that in many ways, they were “holding back” at Marvel, and would truly cut loose at Image. Peter interpreted this, if I understood correctly, to mean that they were not giving it their all at Marvel. Me, I interpreted this simply as the understandable hype and excitement surrounding the launch of a company like Image, and the invigorated feeling the founders felt at being able to control and own their own creations. It was perhaps the only matter surrounding the Image launch on which I thought Peter was overreacting a bit. (No offense, Peter).

Then, there were others things: Todd’s stated 0pinion on how artists were more important than artists (interesting, therefore, that Todd continued writing Spawn long after he stopped illustrating it, especially given that he became a star as an artist), his allegedly luring Dale Keown away from Hulk to Image by convincing him that his career would never go anywhere on that book (interesting, given that that’s the book on which Todd rose to his first level of prominence, and lead to his gig on Spider-Man, and that Dale Keown became a star himself on that book), etc. Peter and Todd eventually had a debate, at Todd’s suggestion, at a comic book convention that was moderated by George Perez. I do not know the precise matter on which they disagreed that led to it, if I understand, one of the things they discussed was Todd’s explanation of poor anatomy via citing the notion that Jack Kirby had less than perfect anatomy, but was “consistent,” or something to that effect. Peter was generally believed to have won the debate, though Erik Larsen later complained that Peter did everything he could to prevent the debate from being fun (though I’m not sure if that’s the primary purpose of debate).

If anyone could provide more details here (or corrections, where appropriate), please do so.

Also, I wish I hadn’t missed the debate, but does anyone know where I can get a transcript of it? Does one exist? Please let me know, cuz I’d love to read it.

Ralf Haring: Yeah, I hate all those comics like Age of Bronze, Powers, Walking Dead, Noble Causes, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Empire, etc. I'm sure glad all Image turned out to be was a work-for-hire sweatshop like Marvel and DC.
Luigi Novi: Straw Man. Napoleon didn’t say Image did not produce good titles, particularly when they started branching out to other creators. What he pointed out was that during their early years of the company, Image founders, often not being more careful about the public statements they made, did not merely proclaim what they were going to do in a positive manner, but claimed to be morally superior to Marvel, and made questionable public statements about Marvel, only to later be shown to be guilty of the same things Marvel did, and to be at times unprofessional, irresponsible, and hypocritical, so much so one the part of one of them, Liefeld, that he eventually had to be expelled from the company. Their subsequent expansion with critically acclaimed titles from talented writers and artists occurred subsequent to that, for which Image is rightly credited.

I also believe that the whole back-and-forth regarding LOXG, Empire, ABC, Wildstorm, Alan Moore, etc. misses the point. The point was that Ralf seemed to understand Napoleon’s comment to mean that Image doesn’t publish critically worthy or intelligent titles, which is obviously untrue, and not what he said. He made a point about Image’s irresponsible public statements and the hypocritical nature of some of their actions during their first few years, not the well-written and well-illustrated material brought into the Image fold as the company expanded. Whether Empire was written entirely under the Image banner, or even whether League EVER was, is beside the point. The fact that any part of Empire was published under Image shows that today, at least, Image is a diverse publisher willing to publish well-made works by talented creators, and indeed, the majority of their output is by such creators, as the only two founding members actively involved creatively in any ongoing books are Todd and Erik Larsen, and the only one of those two doing writing or drawing on them is Erik.

Had Wildstorm stayed at Image, the ABC line would likely have been published there too (since Moore certainly had nothing against Image, as that’s where he was originally going to publish it, and already had a critically acclaimed run on Rob Liefeld’s line before he was fired from Image), which again punctuates this point.

David Hunt: I've heard that the defining question of the Pearlmans' civil suit against hims is, "Was there ever a worse witness than O. J. Simpson?" The answer to that defining question appears to be "No."
Luigi Novi: I think you mean the Goldmans.

Luigi Novi: I think you mean the Goldmans

Hmmm. I think you're right. I thank God that the details of that travesty are finally fading. I never truly understood the term "media circus" until O.J.'s trial.

The fact that any part of Empire was published under Image shows that today, at least, Image is a diverse publisher willing to publish well-made works by talented creators, and indeed, the majority of their output is by such creators, as the only two founding members actively involved creatively in any ongoing books are Todd and Erik Larsen, and the only one of those two doing writing or drawing on them is Erik.

Actually, in the near future, Silvestri will be back to drawing a book for Top Cow to be written by Mark Waid. Valentino is also writing and drawing books again since he was fired.

I also don't think that the majority of Image's current output is material of any particular quality, but a big chunk of it is fully creator-owned. There are other big chunks of it that are work-for-hire and are just mini-versions of Marvel or DC, but I think saying Image is nothing but that shows a snapshot that is stuck fifteen years in the past.

David Hunt, just curious, but why do you think OJ would be reluctant to go to court (again) to protect what little value his name has left? If anything, he'd probably jump at the chance to get some money out of someone that usurps his image and likeness without his permission, especially if there was money to be had.

At this point, I doubt very much that OJ cares whether the rest of the world thinks him innocent or guilty. What's a few more minutes of infamy to someone already villified?

The real Twist was a hockey bruiser. McFarlane's Twist was a mob bruiser. The fiction mirrored the reality. If Todd had just included Twist, the real life Hockey player, in his book, and shown him beating people up on the ice, there'd be no lawsuit. Maybe a cease and desist order, but no money fees.

While I'm usually the first one to speak about the slippery slope effect of things, I don't think this is the great threat to free speech and creators some are making it out to be. This wasn't an accidental coincidence, it was a deliberate usurpation of another's likeness.

OJ could sue to collect on damages to his good name. The question is, what is his good name worth today? I don't think you can sue for less than a dollar.

Sure you can. Until the Treasury eliminates the penny, which I think actually costs more to mint than it's worth these days.

And I dunno, maybe there'll be a line of DVDs on Sports Stars Gone Wild that OJ could host?

Or he could host infommercials for Ginsu Knives.

Ginsu knives...there are so many inappropriate comments to make about that line of infomercials and OJ....must...not give in.....

re: how is it rich people declare bankruptcy and don't actually end up broke.. Although I don't know the specifics of this case or the Canadian Hockey owner my guess is that they didn't declare bankruptcy. Their company did, and depending on how the company is incorporated that makes all the difference. If for example, they are Limited Liability Corporations, then the owner is not personally liable for any losses the company may suffer or debts owed. On the otherhand, it is much harder to get the initial investments because investors can't come after you if the business goes south. I am not sure it is "rich" people benefiting as much as business owners in general, rich or not. It's just no one would care if my LLC went under. Of course, that doesn't mean Todd isn't abusing the system.

The reason that OJ would be wise to stay out of the courts on matters relating to the murder of Nicole and Ron Goldman is that the rules of evidence and the burden of proof are very different in a civil court as opposed to a criminal court. The rules of evidence are much looser, and the burden of proof is shared between the two sides (preponderance of the evidence) rather than residing solely on the side of prosecution (beyond a reasonable doubt). This is why he could win his criminal case and still lose the subsequent civil case brought by the Goldmans.

In addition, I think that it would be close to impossible for OJ to prevail in any civil matter. I think that all future juries would be tainted by the original trial.

If OJ was a plaintiff in such a case, I would love to be the defense attorney. I would bring up the original trial as much as possible.

One little call from Todd to Tony in the very beginning asking if he could use his name could have prevented all of this.

But PAD's comments about Todd reorganizing are completely correct. We were building a house and were a week away from closing when the builder went backrupt and we lost the house. He formed a new company a month later and went on with his life (a week before declaring bankruptcy, he sold his house and put the money in his wife's name so no one could touch it) while we got the shaft. Todd will probably do the same thing.

Thanks to you too, Luigi Novi, for filling in some blanks. I too would love a copy of the debate transcript, if one exits.

F-

Regarding OJ and a civil trial ... it already happened. He was found liable and ordered to pay $8.5 million to the Goldman family.

**Luigi Novi

Also, I wish I hadn’t missed the debate, but does anyone know where I can get a transcript of it? Does one exist? Please let me know, cuz I’d love to read it.**

The only known (at least to me, anyway) transcript of that debate was in the Comic Buyer's Guide issue that covered that paticular convention. The copyright on that debate is/was held by McFarlane, PAD, and one other person (George Perez? I don't recall), and thus cannot be reprinted anywhere else, including the Internet, without the permission of all three. And since PAD stated several times back then that he wished to have this debate forgotten as quickly as possible (he found McFarlane's 'challenge' to be a stupid and childish one) I rather doubt it will be reprinted anyplace anytime soon.

Possibly the CBG might still have that issue in its back issue bin; at the very least it might say what issue number you need to track down in order to read the debate for yourself. What kind of business do old issues of CBG do on ebay; does anyone know? :)

Chris

kingbobb said:
"[Defamation] *can* be seen as a free speech issue, but as we all should know by now, there's no right of free speech when it comes to clashes between individuals."

A clash between individuals ceases to be a private matter when the power of the government is invoked. Which is what happens when Citizen A sues Citizen B for defamation. The Court system is part of the government and acts with the authority of the government. If Citizen A is awarded a judgment in his defamation case against Citizen B, Citizen B must pay that judgment or face the power of the govnernment.

That defamation lawsuits implicate the First Amendment is a settled matter of law. The "big" U.S. Supreme Court case in the area is New York Times v. Sullivan.

For those of you who are interested in the debate:

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Comics/Conventions/Philadelphia/McFarlane-David%20Debate%20Highligh

Not a transcript but the next best thing.

Luke, I post corrected, to a degree. That's a very interesting opinion (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html)

I'd recommend those interested to read it, although even a quick scan made my head hurt.

However, there's a significant distinction: NYT v Sullivan involved a libel suit by a public official against the NYT for comments printed in an editorital ad. The distinction being that that case was a public offical bringing suit, which amounted to the government bringing a libel suit against a member of the press. The court imputed the officials action on to the government, making the libel suit an action protected by the first amendment.

There is some discussion about civil libel suits acting to repress free speech, but my take is that the court was specifically addressing a public official using libel as a way to curtail free speech. If the First Amendment applies equally to actions between purely private parties, we'd not have an action of libel or slander, as they'd be deemed unconstitutional.

Actually, on reading NYT closer, I don't think it speaks at all to the civil matter of libel between purely private individuals. NYT is dealing with discussion of public matters, or public questions/debate.

So while defamation lawsuits do implicate the First Amendment, mostly it's along the lines of "the Constitution does not protect libelous publications." So printing/speaking lies about someone not a public official is not protected speech under the Constitution.

I first read about the bankruptcy filing here inlcuding the speculations that Todd would use it to get out of his obligations to other creators. So I emailed Neil Gaiman and here is the reply on that score:

Hi Neil,As you are no doubt aware, a lot of people are talking about Todd McFarlane filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Most people are assuming it is all of Todd's finances in every form going bankrupt, but I've seen it pointed it out that it is actually only one of his seven companies that filed for protection. I'm wondering is this one involved in the lawsuit you won? Cal

"My understanding is that it only marginally affects me, as the court judgment on the copyright violations was against both TMP and Todd personally, and he's not personally bankrupt, so that's where we would collect from. Now that Todd's primary appeal process is over (and he lost) we're waiting for the final accounting to figure out how much Todd owes, and for the judgment to then be made final. It may be the TMP bankruptcy will slow that up a bit, but, I'm told, probably not too much..."

thought folks here might like to know...
cal

Sounds like Todd is using this more to get out of the Tony Twist judgment than Gaiman's. The Gaiman ruling I fully support. Todd clearly was in breach of contract. But $15 million for naming an obscure mobster type character after a hockey player?

Come on!

$15 mil. for a hockey player seems a lot, even for a salary. Still, I've seen comments that St. Loius really likes him, and maybe he did miss out on some local sponsorship/ad campaign that, over 6 years or so, would have come to $15 mil.

This could just be a pre-emptive move to get out of paying Neil. If Todd dumps all his assets into TMP, then gets those debts settled in bankruptcy, when Gaiman comes around to collect, poor Todd says he's broke, and files for personal BR again. Meanwhile, TMP goes on chugging, and his 6 other companies continue to make him millions of dollars.

Why can't I create scams like that?

Ralf Haring: Actually, in the near future, Silvestri will be back to drawing a book for Top Cow to be written by Mark Waid. Valentino is also writing and drawing books again since he was fired.
Luigi Novi: Hence my use of the qualifier “ongoing.” :-)

kingbobb: This wasn't an accidental coincidence, it was a deliberate usurpation of another's likeness.
Luigi Novi: Likeness? You’re saying the comic book Twist looked like the hockey player too? (Forgive me, I don’t know what the hockey player looks like.)

Fred at December 20, 2004 09:53 PM

Thanks to you too, Luigi Novi, for filling in some blanks. I too would love a copy of the debate transcript, if one exits.

Fred, any time. :-)

Elf, thanks a million. I had no idea CBG printed it. Now I know. :-)

Thanks to you too, TC. :-)

So Peter, any idea in which issue of CBG that debate transcript ran?

Luigi, I tried to pull up an image on the web of McFarlane's Twist, and in the process found a couple of statements that indicated that his Twist indeed looked like the real Twist, although much bigger. I did find the real Twist's home page, and do vaguely remember someone looking like him in a Spawn book, although I've no idea if the few issues of Spawn I own actually contained him.

And apparantly Todd himself stated in a letter that his Twist was based on the real Twist.

Since this was in print, it pretty much ruined Todd's chances of getting this tossed out on the coincidence argument.

Kingbob said:
"However, there's a significant distinction: NYT v Sullivan involved a libel suit by a public official against the NYT for comments printed in an editorital ad."

True, but NYT v. Sullivan was just the first case in a long line of cases that chipped further and further away at the right to sue for defamation. While Sullivan was concerned with "public officials," later cases have expanded the doctrine to include "public figures," a far more amorphous group that might, arguably, includes professional hockey player Tony Twist. Even then, though, defamation cases can go forward, they're just held to a higher standard than are defamation cases regarding plaintiffs who aren't "public figures."

Note, too, that I wasn't citing NYT v. Sullivan for the proposition that McFarlane's speech is protected by the First Amendment, merely for the proposition that defamatory speech can be protected by the First Amendment.

So why was Todd's use of this hockey player so bad, while Dave Sim parodied tons of people in Cerebus (some of them pretty nastily) and that seems to be okay? Or is it just that no one bothered to sue Sim?

"So why was Todd's use of this hockey player so bad, while Dave Sim parodied tons of people in Cerebus (some of them pretty nastily) and that seems to be okay? Or is it just that no one bothered to sue Sim?"

Well, a couple of reasons.

First, Dave usually changes the names.

Second, "Cerebus" is seen by thousands of readers. "Spawn" is read by tens of thousands, and the TV show which featured "Tony Twist" was seen by millions.

Third, you can be pretty darned nasty in parodying someone and the First Amendment will protect you. However, the FA will NOT protect you if you openly paint someone as a criminal or actively performing criminal acts. That's libel. If Todd had portrayed Twist as a nutball hockey player, he likely wouldn't have had a problem. Instead, he depicted Tony Twist as--you guessed it--a criminal.

Fourth, you have to prove damages. Certainly the dead people, such as Groucho, whom Dave parodied couldn't be damaged. Nor was anyone from Mick Jagger to Todd himself hurt in any financial way by being ribbed in Cerebus. But Tony Twist produced witnesses that said he'd lost potential endorsement deals by being depicted as a criminal. Personally, I think the amount the jury awarded was beyond ludicrous, and the amount should unquestionably be marked down. But no one asked me.

PAD

I think the amount the jury awarded was beyond ludicrous, and the amount should unquestionably be marked down. But no one asked me.

So Peter, how much do you think the jury should have awarded Tony?

"So Peter, how much do you think the jury should have awarded Tony?"

Well, I didn't hear all the evidence. Based on what I did hear, combining the lost income from the alleged blown endorsement, plus punitive damages...half a million, I guess.

PAD

Luigi (and others)

I've done a little more research on the case, and Spawn's Twist does not look like the real Twist. The connection was made because of Mr. Twist's "enforcer" status in the NHL (he was apparantly regarded as the best enforcer at the time) and the Spawn Twist's mafia enforcer status. Although I think the fact that Todd stated that his character was based on Twist, and Wizard mag ran an article showing the Spawn Twist next to a Twist Hockey trading card, with a quote from McFarlane saying how it was easier to use the names of real people than to create unique and original names.

KingBobb::

>Although I think the fact that Todd stated that his character was based on Twist, and Wizard mag ran an article showing the Spawn Twist next to a Twist Hockey trading card, with a quote from McFarlane saying how it was easier to use the names of real people than to create unique and original names.

If this trulywas said, it shows the true depth of energy and creative juices that McFarlane utilizes when writing and certainly explains alot. *ugh*

Aye, Fred, that's what I thought. And, since I'm a lawyer, and I can't help thinking this way, my next thought was "who else is going to wait till this bankruptcy thing passes and sue Todd for name misappropriation?"

And do they need representation?

Just kidding on that last bit...I'm currently "inactive," (kinda like injured reserve, still a part of the team, but not able to play right now) since my current position doesn't require me to hand out legal advice.

I was subscribed to CBG at the time and while I don't remember a lot of things about the debate or the ongoing controversy, I do remember the general gist of the times and why Image was so ill recieved and why its creators were seen as a bunch of hypocrits.

Just some rememberance, ramblings about what was an interesting time.

1. Eric Larson writes into CBG that most of the writing they see is crap, that artists are more important than writers, and that artists could write the very same drivel that writers write. His statement was that Artists didn't need Writers.

2. Image is formed with the hot new artists/ rock stars of the day.

3. The comics that come out of Image are just what you would expect from hot artists. Huge pin up pages, no storyline, lots of senseless action and characters no one was given a reason to care about. Basically, Horrible writing with very good art.

4. Inside of 6 months, many of Image's "We don't need Writers" are now the writers of the company and a bunch of unkown artists are penciling their books. So, the art isn't as good, and the stories still suck.

5. Dozens of missed deadlines and the fact that their "Creator owned company" has now turned into "The original guys who formed the company own most rights" turns Image into a new Marvel/DC only with worse writing, forgettable characters, and a sketchy release schedule pissing off retailers.

6. Image brings in REAL writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman who actually write something noteworthy and Image becomes less of a joke, but still a joke.

[b]6. Image brings in REAL writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman who actually write something noteworthy and Image becomes less of a joke, but still a joke.[/b]

7. Neil Gaiman turns around and sues Todd McFarlane because he won't give Neil Gaiman rights to characters he created for Image.

All I know about bankruptcy is that it allows certain fiscal protections of corporations and companies so the employees, innocents, and generally honest folk get paid and hopefully their jobs may be preserved.

I have no love for Todd MacFarlane, but I have nothing against the existence of any of his companies... after all: companies employ people. As long as the company isn't chaining the employees to tables I'm certainly not opposed to its operation.

So yeah, bankruptcy is just for the rich, because God knows that only people who get six figures and above work for a company.

As it is, some bankruptcies erase and/or void debts and some bankruptcies manage funds and fiscal assets so everyone gets paid off, debts get paid off, and debts are kept payable.

That's right. An outside agency manages private capital for the purposes of honoring all parties. Some bankruptcies limit the earnings and benefits of the "Bankrupt" party so the debted get theirs.

Which isn't to say that Neil Gaiman, Angel Medina, Tony Twist and many others will get theirs, but since I don't know the specifics, it may be a possibility.

no no no no no

some slight quibbles that I think matter

Todd McFarlane, to a great deal of fanfare, said that since the writing of the Image books was being criticized, he would bring in 3 (Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman), maybe 4 (I can't remember who that would be - PAD, do you recall?) of the best writers each for one issue of Spawn. Creator's rights were much in discussion at the time as well, and Todd promised publicly that all of the writers would share in ownership of any new characters etc that they came up with for those issues. IF I remember correctly, at least one of the writers donated his paycheck for his issue to the CBLDF.

As a sales gimmick it worked. Spawn sales jumped substantially for those issues. Only ones I've ever bought.

Neil and Todd later made a deal that Todd would gain all rights to Angela and Cogliostro and the other characters that Neil created for that issue and the Angela mini series. In exchange, Todd would relinquish to Neil any ownership/claim that he had to the Miracleman character. Todd reneged. He even went on to offer and sell Angela trade paperbacks with Neil's name removed from the credits.

Neil later sued because it appeared to be the only way to make Todd keep his promises.

cal

cal,
The fourth writer/artist McFarlane brought in was Dave Sim.

Jerome,

That was my suspicion later. I just couldn't dredge it up at the time.
thanks,
cal

Why and how did TM come into possession of the Miracleman copyright? (Miracleman was undenyably my favorite trade paperbacks... so, of course, what box disappeared in my move cross-country? Yup. And my run of Hulk comics. I have zero luck hanging onto anything written by Peter David. I'm fairly confident that at some point my Favorites link to this website will dissappear...)

TM claims it got the rights to MIRACLEMAN when it snapped up Eclipse Publishing during a bankruptcy sale. Life is funny sometimes, isn't it.

Too make it complicated, MIRACLEMAN was originally called MARVELMAN in the U.K. It was created when Fawcett stopped publishing new CAPTAIN MARVEL comics. The guy who "created" MARVELMAN was Mick Angelo. As far as I know, he never sold the rights to ECLIPSE. The question is did EVEN he own the rights. It is pretty murky. You can even argue that DC might have the rights as I think it owns CAPTAIN MARVEL.

So who owns the rights? Everybody and no body.

Neil and Todd later made a deal that Todd would gain all rights to Angela and Cogliostro and the other characters that Neil created

That's not quite the way Neil has described it; he's repeatedly said that Angela was not included in the deal.

Does anyone know if there's something up between Todd and Dave Sim, while we're on the subject? I remember when the Spawn collections started coming out about five years ago or so, and Dave Sim's issue wasn't in there. The introduction to the collection was enthusiastically going on about how his issue's absence was proof of how the creator-owned system works, but I wasn't really sure how being screwed out of part of the story arc was supposed to be a bonus for me.

Re: trivia -

Marvel did announce the release of a "lost" McFarlane issue of G.I. Joe, at the end of the series' run; but this was the second McFarlane issue. Marvel did publish the actual, original G.I. Joe #60 with his pencils (inks by Andy Mushynsky; I dug up the comic) - I remember Mile High Comics used to make special note that McFarlane drew this issue. (I think the "lost" art was for issue #61; why those pencils weren't used originally, I don't know.)

And, Michael Golden did draw at least one Joe story, the main feature in G.I. Joe Yearbook #2.

"Now you know!" "And knowing is half the battle!" ... ;)

Just a couple of thoughts:
Firstly, the incentive for creating Image Comics was both creative freedom and financial freedom, the latter moreso than the former. If you recall, several creators, Todd included, were very unhappy about what they felt to be the pittance they collected when at that time books they worked on sold multi-millions of copies.
Unfortunately, Image has not continued to perform as predicted, and I suspect it's largely due to the individual personalities involved. Too many chiefs and all with too many agendas....
Jim Lee was very smart to do the deal with DC. Paul Levitz was brilliant in doing the deal with Jim because at the time if you will recall, Image was making a serious dent in the market's percentage sales figures. Paul correctly determined that by winning Jim's piece of the Image "pie", he would not only substantially stabilize DC's market share, but also deal what would amount to a slow but steady deathblow to the third largest forve in the industry. That slow and steady decline has been on track, until today most Image titles do not do the numbers of many independent titles. Over time since this deal was consummated we saw DDP and Dreamwave depart, and only Top Cow seems to remain as any major force with the rest of the company becing a collage of various lesser independents under the one umbrella. And just to clarify, I speak of those "lesser independents" not in terms of creativity or quality but in terms of market acceptance. Largely Image as cooked the goose of many of its creatores because of its inability to delivery product on time, a problem that has only exacerbated itself seince the time Lee sold to DC.

Secondly, it's usual that when you sue a corporation, you also sue the director or directors of that corporation. Assuming that both Tony and Neil had good legal counsel, I am sure that they did this. The best source of that info would be to talk directly to them. Regardless, depending on how Todd's umbrella or inter-company relations are set up, he may or may not be deemed to be personally liable. Remember that one of the creditors listed for TMP is another Todd company which is listed as being owed almost $686,000. In fact, next to the two lawsuits, that's the next biggest debt, so guess what might happen there.....

Thirdly, it's very sad to see this come to pass because like him or hate him, the whole situation is not good for the overall marketplace. The average layman sees this and thinks the whole market is going to pieces....just another nail in the coffin. Furthermore, if Todd's endeavours are lost for any length of time it would be a shame from a creative standpoint, and especially from the standpoint of the wonderful action figures which he is responsible for. So despite how me may or may not feel, this is NOT good news for anyone.

And that's about as objective as I can get on the whole deal.....

And I apologize for the horrendous spelling errors in the first section above. I am typing at 500 mph and my keyboard just doesn't keep up sometimes. Sorry.

More apologies. Did not see the posting from CAL above when I first wrote my stuff, and as we see from Neil's correspondance, he did in fact sue Todd personally. So that's that.
Peter, the problem with the Twist settlement is that it likely was composed of two parts, a literal component encompassing possible lost income and a punitive component. The former was probably about $1 million goive or take. It's the latter where things go screwy and juries or judges get carried away. Although if I was Tony, I'd be seeing the settlement as absolutely fair and just and I'd be as thrilled as I'm sure he was. Shades of grey, always shades of grey and perspectives to muddle the soup.....

As Nat pointed out, I misremembered slightly. From the ICV2 report at the time of the first judgement (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1883.html):

1.Gaiman has a copyright interest in Medieval Spawn, Cagliostro, and Angela, the three characters he created in his script for Spawn #9.

2.A reasonable person would not have deduced from the copyright notices in the books that McFarlane was claiming copyright ownership in the characters and the scripts (meaning that the statue of limitations had not expired on the copyright claims).

3.There was a contract in 1992 (when McFarlane promised that he would treat Gaiman "better than the big guys").

4.McFarlane breached the 1992 contract.

5.There was a contract in 1997 (this was the rights swap of Gaiman's interests in Medieval Spawn and Cagliostro for McFarlane's interest in Miracleman, plus setting royalty percentages for all uses of Angela and allowing "one-off" projects using the characters).

6.Image's failure to identify Gaiman as a writer on some of the books in question caused damage.

7.Image had no right to use Gaiman's name and biography without his permission on its recent reprint of the Angela series in trade paperback format.

In the archives of Neil's Journal (http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004_02_22_archive.asp) on tuesday 2/24/04 and wednesday 2/25/04 you can read lenghthy discussion from Neil on the goings on in answer to some questions he was sent.

Nat is correct - Angela wasn't part of the trade. But Todd's actions eventually came to look like he tried to conceal Neil's share of creative credit and ownership.

My apologies for muddying the facts.
cal

Quick Q: I read in an ST article that Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy) had a short cameo. Is he related to Todd?

Does anyone know if there's something up between Todd and Dave Sim, while we're on the subject? I remember when the Spawn collections started coming out about five years ago or so, and Dave Sim's issue wasn't in there. The introduction to the collection was enthusiastically going on about how his issue's absence was proof of how the creator-owned system works, but I wasn't really sure how being screwed out of part of the story arc was supposed to be a bonus for me.

The story behind that is that Dave Sim allowed T.M. to use the Cerebus character in the one issue on a handshake deal. A one off. He used the Spawn Logo on a skateboard on the cover of Cerebus 0 under much the same premise. There was also some problems with the reprinting of the Ninja Turtles book featuring Cerebus too, so they are very much rarities.

It's actually a good story about artist's selling their rights away but not too integral to the continuity.

Hot damn. I didn't know he'd been a poohead to PAD as well.
Nor most of the other people mentioned. Geeeeez.
When I first read about this whole Twist bit, tho, I remember there was a quoted article where Todd freely admitted to using Twist's name for the character, there in plain, undeniable text...didn't seem that big a deal to me, seemd pretty accurate thing to be pissed about.
That was before the multiple millions were showing up though. I don't particularly care anymore about that, even, because I've developed a pretty strong distaste for Toddles...never liked his art, either.

Todd McFarlane Rocks, and if you guys dont think Spawn has a good storyline to it, and is only a well drawn comic need to take the superman/spiderman/whatever action figures out of your rectum.