Alan Moore takes ‘Watchmen’ movie money to sue DC for print rights reversion

Glenn Hauman

Glenn is VP of Production at ComicMix. He has written Star Trek and X-Men stories and worked for DC Comics, Simon & Schuster, Random House, arrogant/MGMS and Apple Comics. He's also what happens when a Young Turk of publishing gets old.

You may also like...

19 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    April Fools!

  2. Jon M says:

    Oh, you bastards. I fell for that one.

  3. Anonymous says:

    A lot of interesting stories hitting the internet today… on April 1st.

  4. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    Not since Gardner Fox successfully sued for the rights to Mopee the Elf has there been a more groundbreaking story.

  5. Michael A. Burstein says:

    Now this was a nice one. Very, very believable.

  6. Rick Taylor says:


  7. Russ Rogers says:

    Who Sues the Lawyers?

  8. Sean D. Martin says:

    Y'know. He actually should.

    • mike weber says:

      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.

  9. Tom Fitzpatrick says:

    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 says:

      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.

  10. mike weber says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        Baen is pretty careful to keep my brother's stuff in print. I think he has a reversion clause.

    • Rick Taylor says:

      I'm pretty sure this is a 'contract job'.The contract would spell everything out.

  11. Avenging World says:…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 says:

      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 says:

        I was debating whether to remove it as spam or not, but the link was odd enough for me.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          I agree. And it's not a porn site or trying to sell something. Odd and interesting. A little strange, but OK.