Time for more Ken Time: I haven't read the whole thing myself yet, because my mind is still stuck on one particular part: His response to my comment on his ridiculous "Nothing here is copyright of Archie" bit. Despite what he said, I never said Ian claimed he had a work-for-hire contract. I was using him as an example through work-for-hire to disprove his rather silly claim. Another case of Penders really missing the point. EDIT: For anyone who cares, I posted a response over at his forum, and plugged a link to this topic as people suggested.
You know, I remember having an account over on Ken's message board, but I can't remember if that was before or after the wipeout. Of course if there was a link to the Members List present, that would help. Of course it's a moot point regardless since he is currently preventing people from joining. Gee I wonder why that is. :v:
You have to be logged in to view the members' list there. I checked under A in that list (Assuming your account was the same as here), and you weren't there. Sorry.
It's all good - it could have been any letter actually way back then. Somehow I don't think my opinion would be much wanted by the pro-Ken crowd if I were to say something there anyway. :v:
If they were created before the Knuckles comic book and adapted for the universe, he lost them once they were adapted to the book. Does he have any concept art of them as anything other than enchidnas predating the Knuckles comic book?
This was the fastest the transfer went. Average was around 40 kb/sec, Serving 10 meg images at 44 kb/sec... right. WHY
Penders posted another response in which he ignored nearly everything posted by myself and a few others to focus on two points. Whether this was him deliberately avoiding the point or him just being too busy to reply to everything I'm not sure on. If he's just too busy, fine, but ehh. ...Does he even know how work-for-hire works? If it falls under the specific work-for-hire guidelines, which aren't even all that complicated, it's copyright of Archie. I don't even know if I want to respond at this point. His lack of response to nearly every point, with the one signifigant response showing lack of knowledge on a subject relevant to his case, is just depressing. It makes me feel like I'm spending time responding to his points for nothing. EDIT: Okay, I did post a short response about the work-for-hire part. That was just absurd, since giving the publisher the rights is the entire point of it. It's one thing to argue you aren't work-for-hire, but another thing to try and say work-for-hire doesn't give the publisher the rights when that's exactly what it does.
I suggest a fancy dress party with live entertainment. EDIT: ...Crap. I read that as "if he loses". Honestly, I have no idea. Hope Archie files an appeal? We can still have the fancy dress party, though.
No, it doesn't because apart from the first paragraph (which is him repeating what I just said myself but in more detail) I fail to see what this has to do with anything that was even brought up. Is there anyone here who can fill me in on the line of logic here? Am I just missing something painfully obvious, or are Penders and I talking about two completely different subjects here? EDIT: Wait, I think I figured it out. Is he just saying in a much more complicated way than needed that Sega owns the copyrights? If so... What's the problem, again? EDIT 2: Okay, I get it now. The entire problem is he worded his original post really badly to make it sound like only Sonic game characters would be copyright of Sega, and non-game characters from the comics, even when created through work-for-hire, would still be copyright of the writers even if they had a proper work-for-hire agreement. And it's not just me misreading by accident; Everyone else interpretted it the same way, so it was bad wording on his part. Still, problem solved, I guess. EDIT 3: Yeah, it was just bad wording. Though he's still avoiding the other things people brought up. Whatever.
You know, when he ignores points, you should probably just repost the ignored points over and over again. Obviously he's skipping shit, but there's only so much he can skip. Ok, he can skip everything, but still. He's not going to respond if you just shrug and continue when he ignores a point. Also, can someone explain to me why this idiot thinks proving Archie doesn't own the characters means anything? I think everyone realizes Archie doesn't own them. Sega does. He has to prove that Sega doesn't have something that overrides everything in their deal with Archie. Not being a lawyer I don't know if that's possible, but Sega may have a contract with Archie that explicitly states that they own everything, or at least characters and concepts. An overarcing "cover our ass" deal, that Ken pretty much agreed to when he started working there purely on the fact that he worked there. Does anyone even know when this farce of a case goes to court? We keep hearing him talk about his lawyers and shit, but I haven't seen anything regarding where we are in the legal proceedings. I wanna know when to get the popcorn ready.
Hate to burst the bubble on the whole second killing spree thing, but unless he does it in a way like "OH NO EGGMAN KILLED THAT ONE GUY!" without showing it or naming the characters, he probably wouldn't even be able to do it. Even if they tried something like paying royalties to Ken for an issue just to kill characters off without having to do it like that, Ken would probably say no because, you know, he wouldn't be pleased at more of his characters being killed. On another note, one of Ken's fans is posting Ken quotes to imply that Ken won't be replying to any of the stuff he ignored earlier because of the trial. Despite most of these things being continuations of things Ken discussed just fine a day or two ago, such as the "What do the Echidnas count as?" thing.
Isn't it about time to show more character "art"? I had a bad day at work today and need a good laugh.
"Note: The Echidnas died on the way back to their home planet." Speaking of which, I'd actually find it kind of hillarious if a judge ended up ruling that neither Archie/Sega nor Ken could use any of the Echidnas in particular by saying Ken was right with the copyrights but Sega was right that they're directly related to Sega properties and infringe on Sega's own rights. Ken will have won his precious copyrights, be he'd be unable to do anything with them.
