Jump to content
Spin Attaxx

The Lara-Su Chronicles and Ken Penders topic - READ PAGE 164, POST 4096

Recommended Posts

Well, this credit thing seems pretty interesting. It's sad when the order is this hard to understand. I can't help but feel this "Penders first" is going to become something akin to "& Knuckles". I can understand Archie trying to be cautious and all, but this is a bit of overreacting from where I stand at least. All I can say to them is...

Quote

"Say after me/
It’s no better to be safe than sorry"

... Yes, I just quoted A-ha ("Take on Me" to be precise) but honestly that was the first thing that came to my mind when reading about that crediting stuff from here. Sorry if you feel disturbed after reading this post. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2016 at 6:28 AM, Tylinos said:
(Can't get rid of quote box cause I'm on phone... -_-)
Anyway, yeah this has something to do with the law suit. That must be why his name appears first on things which had only one story on or something...
But yeah still a bit peeved. Flynn's name should be first, along with several other artists who penciled those stories. 
It's kinda... Peculiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat unsurprised at this (given the Encyclopedia), but I'm rather baffled by this particular instance of crediting.

"...For a Friend" is Pen's last official contribution to the book, but for him to get top billing for ink and letter work on one story? This is just ridiculous and overcautious. I love that Archie actively acknowledges the work of their inkers, sometimes their colorists and other creators, on the covers for their books. It's a wonderful thing seeing Jim Amash get equal billing right next to Flynn and Yardley. And the reason those names are the main highlights on those covers is because they're the primary contributors on the stories. The rest of the creators, be they other pencilers, inkers, writers, etc. are credited within the book and their pages are practically unaltered.

This is why Penders getting, often times undeserved, top billing always bothers the hell out of me. It's not only misleading, but his name, and the obvious baggage it now carries, serves to overshadow the work of the other creators, and this is beyond fair representation/accreditation to me. I've said it before, but while I don't like that Flynn was credited as a creator in the Knuckles Archives (though never on the cover), the reverse is not better. I know Archie doesn't want another lawsuit (and are basically in the midst of another already), but a tiny bit of common sense on who gets to be on the cover credits would be nice (and obviously clear acknowledgement within the books themselves). Hell, I see nothing wrong with his name being on the cover of the Best of Sonic, but then it makes the exclusion of Gallagher's name all the more glaring and it makes Archie look like they don't care and they're trying to appease the one guy who won't go away even after getting what he wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horridus said:

Man I wish I could be bothered to slither through his site to actually find the post that contained this along with the rest of it.

http://www.kenpenders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2554

Here you go.  This is also the post with the "Plot lines are not copyrightable" quote from Mr. Briganti, which Ken apparently has forgotten in the years since, given some of his tweets in the past year or two.

Also, here's the original Class is in Session topic, in case anyone was wondering: http://www.kenpenders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2552

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much obliged. And ouch, that explanation for why he totally owns Evil Sonic and Robo-Robotnik and how they are totally different characters and robble robble robble. I think I lost braincells, reading that. How the hell can he invoke things like Medieval Spawn when it's explicitly clear that Medieval Spawn isn't an iteration of Spawn or an alternate universe duplicate, but is literally another person who has the Spawn title and powers as established in the fact that there are many *different* Spawns?? 

Sorry, old news by this point, waay old news, but it amazes me that a person honestly wrote this down and abjectly refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Penders had anything resembling... I don't know if "ethics" is the right term, but if he had any moral fiber, he'd ask/tell Archie to remove his top billing from the inking job. At least it would be keeping consistent with what he's said about how he views the practice.

Won't happen, of course, because he's a perfect little snowflake for which no rules apply, including his own arbitrary ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That WOULD explain why he would take his sweet time with his 'masterpiece' storyline despite evidently operating under the assumption that the comic would be cancelled at 'any minute', though I take that one with a grain of salt (along with the rest of his statements about exactly why the Knuckles series was cancelled). 

What I don't get though is why he would think this would work out for him, nor why he doesn't seem to consider SEGA part of the equation given that it's their franchise and their characters. I've never heard of anyone trying to pursue something like this, and the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Which is par the course for Penders, but still. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so Penders was backing himself up even financially for his comic projects. Why I feel like I have a new theory how he had any chances at all in the courtroom... But yeah, his attitude can be explained pretty much with the assumption creative staff back then was always on the edge about comics discontinuing. Actually, it brings my mind how nowadays some television series get only one episode aired before discontinuing because there wasn't enough people watching... 

...

And then back to the credits, sorry. I hope I'm not jinxing anything with this post, but I sure feel like if Archie is keeping up this credit-giving, there will be Penders' name on Saga series 3 in no time since it was ultimately his idea to make that one couple get married... I feel it's so stupid sounding it could actually happen, but I'm hoping it's not going to. But yeah, I enjoy my SU volume 2 best without interesting crediting system. :)  And is it just me or has Archie app now credits even in some of those earlier archives (Penders first) that didn't have any in the first place when considering physical copies? I'm certain some of my Archives don't have them in the cover, like volume 11 for example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish he would stop touting the "there was no contract" line when people, as is happening currently, mention him working for Archie, the case and his current use of characters that were removed from the comic and now used in this new work of his etc. Yes it's an unresolved issue in the court case, and yes it wasn't taken as evidence due to being a copy, but as they say where there is smoke, there is fire, or in this case was fire.

If Archie has a copy, and has records that work for hire contracts were accidentally disposed of, be it in a fire as originally reported, or by an ignorant inturn as mentioned in court documents, then clearly at one point there was an original contract, logically speaking. Penders however refutes its authenticity, of course, I mean come on, of course he does, if he didn't his whole case would have fallen apart.

It's just frustrating seeing him carry on like he never had one, when he even mentioned restrictions based on working on a licenced book and agreements he was under etc in early interviews about working on the book. Which when brought up now he brushes off saying he "thought" he was under contract but he has "since found out he wasnt". It's all just so..I don't know...transparently full of holes yet he basically got away with it when it mattered most in court. Still baffles me how to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KingScoopaKoopa said:

I'm starting to think maybe "His World" was written with Penders in mind.

Oh boy, that was just so spot-on what you did there. I think that was maybe one of the best theories overall I've heard today. But I suppose Archie changed their lawyers (didn't they change them at some point) due to the fact that was around the time they noticed the connection too... B) Sadly it seems it was too late. Now, I'm actually growing curious what would've happened if comics were really put down, Penders had somehow got the license and by some miracle had decided to continue making new stuff even after 25YL would've been ready? Considering his pace would allow something like that, I suppose.

Really, for Penders, now would be quite good "time for a chance of pace" if you know what I mean? He has made some progress but is really taking his sweet time with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tenko said:

It's just frustrating seeing him carry on like he never had one, when he even mentioned restrictions based on working on a licenced book and agreements he was under etc in early interviews about working on the book. Which when brought up now he brushes off saying he "thought" he was under contract but he has "since found out he wasnt". It's all just so..I don't know...transparently full of holes yet he basically got away with it when it mattered most in court. Still baffles me how to this day.

Because it was a 'he said, they said', with nothing that could be conclusively proven or disproven, and so the judge just let them sort things out. 

Frankly, I've never really believed his claim that there was never a contract, or more specifically that there never was and he just happened to realize he spent a decade working without a contract without any kind of issue, despite talking about being under contract in the past and mentioning how Sega and Archie owned everything, as you said. I have an incredibly difficult amount of time believing anybody could possibly be THAT ignorant or stupid about working for comic book company, or spend a huge portion of their life as part of one and somehow never once bringing it up or questioning it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to Ken here, the person who brought all this up on Twitter was being pretty antagonistic and ignored established facts just to make a point. (Namely, insisting Ken sued Archie to get his characters, and claiming Archie would own things even without a contract.) It's understandable that Ken got frustrated and insisted there was no contract again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tylinos said:

In fairness to Ken here, the person who brought all this up on Twitter was being pretty antagonistic and ignored established facts just to make a point. (Namely, insisting Ken sued Archie to get his characters, and claiming Archie would own things even without a contract.) It's understandable that Ken got frustrated and insisted there was no contract again.

While this is so, this does not justify that Ken neglects to mention that the reason Archie sued him was in response to *him* suing Sega, nor the fact that he is continuing to push the notion that it's 'All in Sega and Archie's Hands' without getting into the fact that his specific demands to be made into a secondary copyright holder on the book would fly in the face of Archie's contract with SEGA and result in the lisense being taken away if they did, and *especially* not the fact that those court records he invokes spell out ARchie's position that he DID have a contract and that it was lost, in tandem with his own past statements regarding the nature of his employment and where his creations stood in the grand scheme of things. 

Being confronted by an ignorant twit doesn't absolve him of his own myriad omissions regarding the facts, nor does he get to trumpet himself as being 'about the facts' when it is blatantly clear that he doesn't care for such things when they clash with the narrative he's established for himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

I could make another trite comment complaining about the fact that he's selling merchandise before actually releasing the book, blah blah blah, ground we've all gone over a million times, but instead I think I'll just point out that a tiny sliver of the "logo" (aka really plain and ugly text) is cut off by the hole for the Apple logo...

Yay for quality control

The sad part is, this would be a really easy layout for him to fix by putting the LSC logo below the characters and just making the copyright info smaller (you know, like most people), but, no, he needs his name to be as big as his property's logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the cut off logo to be particularly bad because he could have fixed that literally just by moving the title up. Really. It would have fit. And if he needed a template to make sure everything is in the right place, it isn't hard to find pictures of the back of an iPhone online and use it as a base.

Though I'd like to point out that the second most prominent thing on the case is the Ken Penders's copyright and trademark disclosure. I find it weird that he put both on a bottom text in such a prominent way. Most companies will just put "©[name]" in fine print, so its visible but not prominent. While its not necessarily wrong to include trademark in the bottom text, trademarks only apply to logos and names so usually the trademark symbol is just placed near the logo, again in fine print so its visible but not prominent-- and companies generally go out of their way to say that its just the logo and name that are trademarked if they do choose to disclose it alongside the copyright statement. And if Ken had used a smaller font, he could have fit details like that into his statement on the case, which he would probably really like. But nope-- gotta make sure everybody in the vicinity of the person (note the singular noun) who buys this case knows that this contains the copyright AND trademark of Penders. What a clumsy disclosure...

And the art is terrible, but its reused so we already know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mad Convoy said:

I find the cut off logo to be particularly bad because he could have fixed that literally just by moving the title up. Really. It would have fit. And if he needed a template to make sure everything is in the right place, it isn't hard to find pictures of the back of an iPhone online and use it as a base.

"In his world, compromise does not exist." That's how he wanted it, that's how it's going to be.

Quote

Though I'd like to point out that the second most prominent thing on the case is the Ken Penders's copyright and trademark disclosure. I find it weird that he put both on a bottom text in such a prominent way. Most companies will just put "©[name]" in fine print, so its visible but not prominent. While its not necessarily wrong to include trademark in the bottom text, trademarks only apply to logos and names so usually the trademark symbol is just placed near the logo, again in fine print so its visible but not prominent-- and companies generally go out of their way to say that its just the logo and name that are trademarked if they do choose to disclose it alongside the copyright statement. And if Ken had used a smaller font, he could have fit details like that into his statement on the case, which he would probably really like. But nope-- gotta make sure everybody in the vicinity of the person (note the singular noun) who buys this case knows that this contains the copyright AND trademark of Penders. What a clumsy disclosure...

I noticed this as well.

But as far as the singular noun, hasn't he failed to sell a single case yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.