>>96795468>And where did DC lie? They've said that when Watchmen is out of print they get the charcaters back, and Watchmen has been in print ever since.According to Alan both he and Gibbons were verbally told that they would own those characters. I understand that Gibbons corroborated this. This was a common tactic at DC and Marvel at the time: Telling creators one thing verbally, and then writing an entirely different contract.
Honestly, it sounds like we agree. We both believe that Alan should have those Watchmen characters, and that Alan cannot change or defy this contract. I don't think Alan would disagree with you about that.
But this isn't only about Alan and DC comics. It's about history, and how we came to have the creator's rights of today.
I believe it's very important for everyone to understand this part of comics history. Not only so we can prevent ourselves from becoming victims of this behavior, but so that we are truthful of history, including its context. It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have signed" in hindsight. Certainly, many of /co/s users (and let me be clear, this isn't a jab at you) love to self-insert themselves as Alan Moore in that office, imaging themselves as a genius comics writer, telling DC that they won't sign, but this was a busy guy. This was a guy depending on others while he's writing, and they knew that, and they exploited him the same way they exploited others throughout DC history.
We should hold them accountable for that, because this is a wrong that they can correct. Every day that passes, they can reneg and give Alan what they promised to Alan. But they don't, because they're bad people, and because comic book readers don't hold them accountable.
