GeekGround Pretty much my thoughts on all things Watchmen

Edited: 9/21/20 3:50 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 48895

that aren't the original graphic novel.

"To be clear: you sell your work on work-for-hire, you know what to expect," Campbell continued. "But Watchmen *wasn't* work for hire. The reversion clause *clearly* implies that the work remained Moore & Gibbons' copyright, and that DC licensed it under specific circumstances. THIS. IS. THEFT."

 

 

9/21/20 3:51 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 48896

The above from 

Jim Campbell on Unauthorized Watchmen Sequel: "F*** Tom King"

9/22/20 4:18 PM
3/7/05
Posts: 32673
As long as it is in print DC owns it I am afraid. Alan cannot unring that bell.
9/23/20 10:59 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 48901
BigWilliam - As long as it is in print DC owns it I am afraid. Alan cannot unring that bell.

There might be a difference between being leagally correct and morally correct. 

 

9/23/20 12:17 PM
3/7/05
Posts: 32675
Business is business to me. DC is not keeping it in print to spite Alan, they are doing it because it still sells.
9/23/20 12:33 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 48902
BigWilliam - Business is business to me. DC is not keeping it in print to spite Alan, they are doing it because it still sells.

That might be true, I don't know if I would say that with 100% certainty. For example, iirc, DC offered Moore $$$ for his "blessing" on the new Watchmen titles that dC has done in the past. Moore told DC to go pound sand. 

My point is that DC may have kept Watchmen in print so they would continue to own the characters that they were planning on using in future comics (and now film and tv). I believe film and tv revenue far exceeds any comic book revenue, so taking a short term loss by keeping a comic in print in order to get tv and film revenue is a financially prudent decision.