Alan Moore takes ‘Watchmen’ movie money to sue DC for print rights reversion
on April 1st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The clock has reached midnight. The unthinkable has happened, and soon, so will the worst case scenario.
In what may go down as the biggest sucker-punch to hit DC Comics since the Superboy lawsuit, Alan Moore has reversed his position on taking money from the film version of Watchmen. The reason is elegant and ironic; he’s using the money to fund a lawsuit against DC, with the intent of forcing a reversion of rights to the print edition of Watchmen
.
Watchmen has been the all-time best selling graphic novel for the two decades since its collected release, and has enjoyed a major surge in the last few months with anticipation from the movie, topping bestseller lists and becoming the #1 book sold on Amazon in early March.
It’s unclear, at this point in time, what this will do to DC’s backlist sales, which revolve around the mega-seller. Further complicating the issue is that Moore has filed an injunction against both DC and Diamond preventing the further sale of any additional copies of Watchmen from their inventory. An American judge is expected to rule on the motion later today; a ruling has already come down in England in Alan’s favor, which has caused the suspension of all UK sales. Stores are apparently scrambling for back issues and used copies over there, as it’s the only thing they can legally sell.
Stay tuned, we’ll have more as it develops. We anticipate an announcement from DC as soon as people get into the offices.
DC Comics April 2012 Solicitations
PREVIEW: “Jim Henson’s Tale Of Sand”
DC Comics March 2012 Solicitations
Preview: “Darkwing Duck” #18 — Like A Fenton From The Ashes!
Preview: “Daredevil” #6
Preview: Betrayal Of The Planet Of The Apes #1
MARTHA THOMASES: George Lucas, Black History, and African-American Comics
Dennis O’Neil – Sick, Sick, Sick
MIKE GOLD: Stupid Logo Tricks
MICHAEL DAVIS Is Bringing Sexy Back
MINDY NEWELL: “Superman? He Must Be Jewish!”
JOHN OSTRANDER: Ch-ch-choices
MARC ALAN FISHMAN: Trades vs. Monthlies – An Unpopular Stance
Primeval Volume Three, by Robert Greenberger
Busting, by Robert Greenberger
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Robert Greenberger
Transformers: Dark of the Moon, by Robert Greenberger
Star Trek: The Next Generation – The Next Level, by Robert Greenberger
Pandemonium, by Robert Greenberger
Real Steel, by Robert Greenberger
REVIEW: “Dark Victory” (Lady Lazurus #2), by Alexandra Honigsberg
REVIEW: Kamala Sankaram’s “Miranda”, by Alexandra Honigsberg
MIKE GOLD: The Batman Family Feud, by Mike Gold
April Fools!
Oh, you bastards. I fell for that one.
A lot of interesting stories hitting the internet today… on April 1st.
Not since Gardner Fox successfully sued for the rights to Mopee the Elf has there been a more groundbreaking story.
Now this was a nice one. Very, very believable.
BAD KITTY!
Who Sues the Lawyers?
Y'know. He actually should.
Well, so far as i can tell, he has no grounds, if he *did* want to sue in reality.The most likely reason i can think of for reversion would be if DC had allowed the work to go out of print.
If this wasn't a April Fools Day joke, all in honestly, something like this would have been a LONG time coming.And it would sooooo be well deserved too.
It would be well deserved?Moore did it as work for hire for DC. He never owned the rights to the story to begin with, so there's no "reversion" to be had, the original owners already have the rights.Also, Moore doesn't even have moral high ground. He was going to use the characters from Charlton comics (owned by that point by DC) for Watchmen and before that his original idea was to use the heroes from MLJ. So Moore had no problem whatsoever playing with other people's toys, but someone it's morally reprehensible when someone plays with his?Sorry, but no. If this really did happen, it wouldn't be well deserved at all.
Was it work-made-for-hire? Or is he getting royalties?If he *is* getting royalties, and *if* they let it go out of print, he *might* have a case for reverson.
Allegedly, they DO revert to him when the book goes out of print. It never has, and with the recent sales, odds are it never will. This is not underhanded on DC's part – if it still sells, there's no reason to stop printing it.But he still gets his royalty checks for the book, as he has all along. It's all the other stuff connected to the book DC did (those damn buttons) that cause the problems.
Baen is pretty careful to keep my brother's stuff in print. I think he has a reversion clause.
I'm pretty sure this is a 'contract job'.The contract would spell everything out.
http://thefishshow.com/Archive/WATCHMEN%20UNMASKE…Unfortunately, Snyder and Hayter seem to have largely misunderstood the book.Without the Squid, you have no hope of recognising the image necessary to decrypt the hidden Third Narrative.If the above link doesn't work, try Googling WATCHMEN UNMASKED for details.
The link above is out of context with this article. That makes it pretty much SPAM. That said, the link is to a very strange site, very well researched (a little paranoid, a little conspiracy theory-esque) that does have some interesting insights and speculation on the meanings of "Watchmen." I learned stuff that I did not know about the story. And I've been to other "Watchmen Revealed" sites.
I was debating whether to remove it as spam or not, but the link was odd enough for me.
I agree. And it's not a porn site or trying to sell something. Odd and interesting. A little strange, but OK.