don't click here

THE KEN PENDERS CHRONICLES: a man you Ken DePenders on

Discussion in 'General Sonic Discussion' started by The KKM, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. Penders did file a lawsuit, originally. Archie filed a counter-suit, which is a normal, legal response for a company to make in this situation.

    It's still rather childish that he's emphasizing it, instead of just saying that he's "engrossed in a legal battle" or something. (Eh, not pompous enough, but it'll suffice.) He's trying to point out Archie as the bad guy, when they're just a company protecting the material they hired him to produce for them. No company's perfect, but Archie's actions here are perfectly logical, even to those who have little to no legal or business experience.
     
  2. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    The Logic of Ken Penders:

    Don't ever dare trample on the creators' rights of him or other writers by using their material in either new work or reprints. But Sega? Sure, using their properties (Angel/Floating Island, Master Emerald) in reprints is perfectly fine!


    Another moment brought to you by the insanity of Ken Penders.

    (Note: Ken Penders is ©, ™, ?, ® of Ken Penders.)
     
  3. ICEknight

    ICEknight

    Researcher Researcher
    Damn, I thought that last pic was a joke made by some other Sonic fan... until I scrolled down and read the text.
     
  4. Lanzer

    Lanzer

    The saber calls for its master... Member
    6,845
    3
    18
    Glendale, AZ
    Living life.
    God I just saw this. As someone said on SSMB Why is he picking up a television signal in his eyes?!
     
  5. SteelBrush

    SteelBrush

    603e Member
    1,194
    0
    0
    the home of spotted dick, Devon
    Tramadol, Tamazepam and finding a reason to exist.
    It looks like Penders was going to add Metal Sonic style red pupils but then thought better of it.
     
  6. Dark Sonic

    Dark Sonic

    Member
    14,631
    1,610
    93
    Working on my art!
    Oh awesome, he get Futurama on those eyes? I need to catch up on a few episodes.
     
  7. Will he be demanding our clothes, our boots and our motorcycles?
     
  8. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    Today's "What the Hell Am I Reading" moment from Ken Penders:
    There were also very big names on the other side of the argument, such as Viacom and Disney. SOPA failed because a ton of people came together and agreed that it's a terrible bill. The large companies helped in that effort, but large companies on the SOPA support side helped just as much for their side of the argument. In the end, SOPA didn't pass because the people being so much against it actually outweighed lobbying by major companies. And anyone who knows the slightest about lobbying knows why that's such a big deal.

    In short: Ken is ignoring the facts again as a way to try and make a point by using only half of the facts. This seems to be becoming a running theme here.
     
  9. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    Sorry for the double-post, but this is a bit of a long one. The other day in #comics on the IRC, there was a bit of talk about how there isn't a list of all the stories Ken wrote for the book, and I offered to go through every issue up to #160 and make one. Every story is listed by issue and story number because I was too lazy to type out every story title.

    "Co" means he only co-wrote the story.

    "KNUX" means Knuckles appears, or is a Chaotix solo story.


    #11: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 3 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #12: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #13: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    #14: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 3 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #15: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #16: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #17: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #18: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #19: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #20: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #21: Story 1
    #22: Story 1
    #24: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #27: Story 1
    #28: Story 1
    #31: Story 1, Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    #32: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    #33: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 3
    #34: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    #35: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #36: Story 1, Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    #38: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    #41: Story 1
    #42: Story 2 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
    #44: Story 1 (KNUX)
    #45: Story 3 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
    #46: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor), Story 2 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
    #47: Story 1
    #48: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor)
    #49: Story 1 (Co with Mike Gallagher, KNUX)
    #50 (And SS#6): Story 1 (Co with various, KNUX)
    #53: Story 1 (KNUX)
    #58: Story 1 (KNUX), Story 2 (Co with Clayton Emery)
    #59: Story 2
    #60: Story 2
    #61: Story 3
    #62: Story 2
    #63: Story 2
    #64: Story 2
    #65: Story 2
    #67: Story 2
    #68: Story 2
    #69: Story 2
    #71: Story "1" (The backup story, due to the reverse order of the issue.)
    #72: Story 2
    #73: Story 2
    #74: Story 2
    #76: Story 2
    #77: Story 2
    #78: Story 2
    #79: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3
    #80: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3
    #81: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #84: Story 1 (KNUX)
    #89: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #90: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #91: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #92: Story 2
    #93: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #94: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #95: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #96: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #97: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #98: Story 2
    #99: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #100: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #101: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #102: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #106: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #107: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #108: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #109: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #114: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #115: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #116: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #117: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #118: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #120: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #122: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
    #123: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #124: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #131: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #132: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #133: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #134: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #135: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #136: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #137: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #138: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #139: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #140: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #141: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #142: Story 3 (KNUX)
    #143: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #144: Story 1 (KNUX)
    #145: Story 1 (LOCKE), Story 3
    #146: Story 1
    #147: Story 1
    #148: Story 1, Story 3
    #149: Story 1
    #150: Story 1 (LOCKE)
    #151: Story 1 (LOCKE)
    #152: Story 1, Story 2
    #154: Story 2
    #155: Story 1
    #156: Story 1
    #157: Story 1, Story 2
    #158: Story 1
    #159: Story 1 (KNUX), Story 2

    In Your Face!: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    Sonic & Knuckles: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
    Triple Trouble: Story 3 (KNUX)
    Chaotix: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
    Super Sonic vs. Hyper Knuckles: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
    Sonic Live!: Story 1

    Battle Royal: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
    Brave New World: Story 1
    Image Crossover: Story 1 (KNUX)
    Girls Rule: All 5 Stories (Semi-KNUX for the Julie-Su one)
    Turnabout Heroes: Story 1 (Co with Karl Bollers, KNUX)
    Sonic Adventure: Story 1 (Co with Karl Bollers, KNUX)
    Sonic Stew: Story 2 (KNUX)
    Naugus Games: Story 1

    Sally Mini-Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Mike Kanterovich)

    KNUX Mini-Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
    KNUX Main Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Kent Taylor)
    KNUX Main Series #4 to #32: All




    NO CREDITS LISTED, MAY HAVE BEEN KEN:
    #11: Story 2
    #82: Story 2 (KNUX)
    #88: Story 2 (KNUX)
    (If anyone can find the credits for these, feel free to post them.)



    STORIES FEATURING KNUCKLES WHICH WERE NOT WRITTEN BY KEN:
    #39: Story 1
    #42: Story 1
    #56: Story 1
    #83: Story 1
    #130: Story 1
    #131: Story 1
    #132: Story 1
    #133: Story 1
    #134: Story 1
    #136: Story 3
    #138: Story 1
    #139: Story 1
    #140: Story 1
    #141: Story 1
    #153: Story 1
    (Anything from #160 onwards)

    Triple Trouble: Story 1
    Super Sonic vs. Hyper Knuckles: Story 1
    Mecha Madness: Story 1, Story 2 (Story 2 is Chaotix only, but I'm counting it.)
    Sonic Live!: Story 3
     
  10. Lambda

    Lambda

    Member
    That's a LOT of KNUX from #75 - #144. I'm glad I picked up the comic right when Ken was hitting the road...
     
  11. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    Remember Penders' lawsuit against Sega and EA over Chronicles? A judge just dismissed the case. Basically, the judge said that the claim to this in the first place depends on the outcome of the main case over his copyrights, as Ken's ownership of the copyrights is in question, and he can re-file when that one's over. So much for that annoying "The US Government agrees I own these copyrights," claim he constantly throws around in posts. He might ignore when other posters point out why it's silly to claim the government agrees with that, but perhaps he won't ignore a judge pointing it out.

    Oh, and another part of the dismissal that I got a kick from:
    [quotename='Judge Otis Wright']Moreover, in filing the present action, Plaintiff neglected to file a Notice of Related Case. Such procedural maneuvering is not well taken, nor will it be tolerated.[/quote]
    Ken likes to claim he knows a lot about the law despite that also being untrue.
     
  12. TheKazeblade

    TheKazeblade

    "Our Life is More than a Side-Effect" Member
    I get the feeling he knows good and well that he should have filed that notice, but neglected to purposefully in order to try and have a back-up should the primary case be in danger. Or, maybe that was his plan all along, in which case, he is screwed. I'll be curious how he responds if someone brings it up. After all, by his own admission, now that that particular case is over, he can speak freely about it, right?
     
  13. Somehow, I'm really not surprised. Actually, I'm more surprised that this didn't happen sooner. Ah, well, baby steps, I guess. The legal system is a slow-moving beast, after all.

    How many times have I said that the U.S. Copyright Office throws copyright out like candy at a parade. It doesn't mean anything until they've been tested in court. (I guess I haven't said this much, have I?) Which is exactly what's happening here, as this judge is proving. But, we all know that Penders won't accept this or believe that it was his legal incompetency that caused it. He'll likely just say "the judge doesn't understand" or just yell "statue of limitations" or something. (though, if he'd shown any evidence that he has ANY real understanding of US law, then I'd accept the latter. But...)

    I love this. I can just feel the Judge's irritation at all this.
     
  14. Glaber

    Glaber

    Has Beaten Sonic Genesis for GBA Oldbie
    I wonder if ken will be stupid enough to be held in contempt of court?
     
  15. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    Funny you should say that...


    First off, he says "Nothing was circumvented. No chicanery or tricks were played." Except for the parts where he immediately re-filed when the Judge said what he should have done was challenged the ruling or waited for the end of the Archie case, and how he never filed a Notice of Related Case, which as was pointed out, he would have only done if he either don't understand the way the legal system works, or specifically ignored it because filing it would have hurt his case for obvious reasons.

    And then he goes and outright admits to doing this as a play to get around statute of limitations law. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like circumventing and playing tricks to me.

    Oh, and the end there implies that he may possibly re-file before the Archie case ends even though he was basically just told to not do that.


    There's more to his post, but I don't feel like reposting it or copy/pasting more of my response to it. If anyone's interested, it's at the usual place in his forum. Some highlights include an example that could be turned on its head and applied to his own arguments, a strawman in disguise, and either being incredibly forgetful or libelous toward Ian.
     
  16. Kampfer

    Kampfer

    Member
    1,609
    5
    18
    Just curious, is there a link to the legal decision? I looked online and could only find the defense motion to dismiss, but not the judge's decision.
     
  17. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    Yes, but the link is somewhere that can't really be linked here.
     
  18. TheKazeblade

    TheKazeblade

    "Our Life is More than a Side-Effect" Member
    So... apparently, Penders' plan is to exploit the fact comics aren't overtly mentioned as one of the 9 forms of work-for-hire in the Copyright Act of 1976.

    Does this mean his entire plan consists of slipping through a loophole? I have a hard time believing such a major industry such as comics wouldn't be included in such an act, even if not overtly stated. I know nothing about law, and very little about this bill. Can anyone shed light on whether this is even in the least bit possible?
     
  19. Kampfer

    Kampfer

    Member
    1,609
    5
    18
    I doubt it. I looked at the copyright statute, and it appears straightforward (unfortunately in my property class at law school we didn't spend more than a day on IP law).

    The problem with Pender's argument is the statute is disjunctive. That means if he meets either subpart 1 or subpart 2 of the section 101, it is a work for hire. The easiest argument Archie could make is that he was (a) an employee for Archie and (b) he made his drawings under the scope of his employment of Archie. Archie does not need to go into those nine established categories in subpart (b). Thus, once it is a work for hire, then under Section 201, it would be Archie's, and not his. Just at my cursory reading of the statute, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

    Lawyered
     
  20. Tylinos

    Tylinos

    Member
    914
    0
    16
    So, parts of Penders opposition to Archie's motion for summary judgement are in public records, and there's something of potential interest in them in a part from Penders' attorney Michael Lovitz, regarding something said by Archie's former VP of Finance, Ed Spallone:
    Some of you may recall something else about fall 1996 and contracts. Namely, the alleged contract copy produced by Archie they said was signed by Penders is from late 1996, and specifically the end of fall. There are two things this brings up, one good and one bad. The bad is it means that Archie may have some new legal trouble if it lost contracts from prior to late 1996. The good is that it actually lends quite a bit of credibility to the supposed 1996 contract: The timing of its signing fits perfectly for a new contract made shortly after the discovery that the old contracts were missing. Either this contract is real, or it's fake and Archie Comics is simultaneously the stupidest and most clever company out there (Because in that case it would mean they were stupid enough to lose original contracts, but clever enough to have the fake be dated at the most sensible time even though they wouldn't have known that would need to be brought up.)