Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:41AM19 comments ›
Wed Apr 1, 2009 — by Glenn Hauman
Alan Moore takes 'Watchmen' movie money to sue DC for print rights reversion
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
Watchmen
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
Stay tuned, we'll have more as it develops. We anticipate an announcement from DC as soon as people get into the offices.
Jump to comments (19) 
More News from ComicMix
- Review: 'Smallville Season 9'4 hours ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Bone: Tall Tales"1 day ago, 1 comment
- The Point Radio: A DC History Lesson From Len Wein3 days ago, 0 comments
- Cleveland is Krypton-- The True Birthplace of Superman3 days ago, 0 comments
- What did Mark Waid REALLY say at the Harvey Awards? Listen for yourself!3 days ago, 0 comments
- Mark Waid's speech and the Napsterization of comics4 days ago, 6 comments
- The Snark Files: The Flash in a Marathon4 days ago, 1 comment
- Baltimore Comic-Con 2010 summed up in three pictures5 days ago, 1 comment
- Lost 'Dial M for Monkey' Cartoon Surfaces!5 days ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Amulet Book Three: The Cloud Searchers'5 days ago, 0 comments
Comments (19)
Jon M (9:22 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
Oh, you bastards. I fell for that one.
Michael A. Burstein (10:48 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
Now this was a nice one. Very, very believable.
Rick Taylor (11:17 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
BAD KITTY!
Russ Rogers (1:31 PM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
Who Sues the Lawyers?
Vinnie Bartilucci (9:23 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
Not since Gardner Fox successfully sued for the rights to Mopee the Elf has there been a more groundbreaking story.
Anonymous (9:23 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
A lot of interesting stories hitting the internet today... on April 1st.
Anonymous (9:13 AM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
April Fools!
Sean D. Martin (2:57 PM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
Y'know. He actually should.
mike weber (5:04 PM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
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.
Tom Fitzpatrick (5:52 PM on Wed Apr 1, 2009)
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.
Jason M. Bryant (1:58 AM on Thu Apr 2, 2009)
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.
mike weber (9:20 AM on Thu Apr 2, 2009)
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.
Vinnie Bartilucci (9:57 AM on Thu Apr 2, 2009)
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.
mike weber (10:12 AM on Thu Apr 2, 2009)
Baen is pretty careful to keep my brother's stuff in print. I think he has a reversion clause.
Rick Taylor (10:08 AM on Thu Apr 2, 2009)
I'm pretty sure this is a 'contract job'.
The contract would spell everything out.
Avenging World (2:07 AM on Sat Apr 4, 2009)
http://thefishshow.com/Archive/WATCHMEN%20UNMASKED.htm
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.
Russ Rogers (10:05 AM on Sat Apr 4, 2009)
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.
Glenn Hauman (9:40 PM on Sun Apr 5, 2009)
I was debating whether to remove it as spam or not, but the link was odd enough for me.
Russ Rogers (9:52 PM on Sun Apr 5, 2009)
I agree. And it's not a porn site or trying to sell something. Odd and interesting. A little strange, but OK.