![Latest Claims Made on Original Mini-Series, Issue #50 We said last month that a single copyright claim made by former Archie Sonic comic staffer Scott Shaw accepted into the US […]](http://www.tssznews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/archie_comics_generic_header.jpg "More Archie Sonic Copyright Claims Filed by Scott Shaw Uncovered")
Latest Claims Made on Original Mini-Series, Issue #50
We said last month that a single copyright claim made by former Archie Sonic comic staffer Scott Shaw accepted into the US Copyright Office likely would not be the last, and we were right. TSSZ has uncovered five more claims Shaw made with the office concerning work he produced early on in the series, all of which have been accepted by the office.
It is the latest wrinkle in an unraveling scenario involving the earlier Archie Sonic era and the employment status of many of the era’s players. Ken Penders was the first to lay claim to his series contributions via numerous accepted filings with the Copyright Office. He is presently in the middle of a civil suit in federal court where Archie has challenged the legitimacy of those claims.
Shaw’s registered works this time around involve “2D artwork” he created for the original 1993 Archie Sonic mini-series issues 0 through 3, and the main Sonic issue #50. Shaw lays a co-authorship claim to interior art inside the original 1993 Sonic comic #0, #1 and #2, co-authorship on cover art to the entire mini-series, and “the parody pin-up art” featured in 1997’s Sonic #50. The first claim we found pertained to the Sonic In Your Face! special from 1995.
In all the claims, Shaw is careful not to claim anything pre-existing, including “characters owned and trademarked by Sega, or any editorial or advertising material published within the pages of the same magazine.” In all but one of the newly discovered claims, either ex-Sonic comic staffer Michael Gallagher, Daryl Edelman, or both are listed with Shaw on the notice.
As before, TSSZ has elected not to publish the details of the claims verbatim, as they contain personally sensitive information.
Shaw has stated in an affidavit in the ongoing Archie v. Penders dispute that he and several others, like Penders, were not bound to a work-for-hire agreement during their time on the comics. If nothing else, this may mean that even if the case with Penders is resolved soon, Archie’s legal troubles could be far from over.
We will continue to afford more developments on these and related matters as warranted.
Loading ...
@TLSonic Oh, I get it. This isn’t about fairness or even creator’s rights. This is some personal thing you have against Ken Penders. Why else would you link to one comic book he autographed as if a signature on a book is anywhere near the same as theft of an entire body of work. What a stretch.
This makes you sound very self-serving and less and less credible. Try this: I’ve got a Sports Illustrated that’s autographed by Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens. Problem is Lewis is no where to be found on the cover and there’s no article about him inside. Is he guilty of fraud? Or is it simply a case of an available magazine and pen coupled with a football player happy to please a fan? Had Penders not autographed the book, someone would probably be complaining that his ego was too big or something. It’s certainly no evidence of anything else.
Is the Lost Ones even finished? I thought it was still under development? This post is like comparing a shiny grape to a Mack truck. I don’t see anywhere on that website where Penders claims ownership of the music he uses. I don’t see him promoting it, selling it, or even claiming it is anything more than a placeholder for new, original music down the road. He’s certainly not marketing it as a finished product, shipping it to stores and selling it to millions of people for profit.
I still say Archie needs to own up, ‘fess up and ante up to all the writers and artists — including Penders — who, over the years, have contributed to the success of comics like Sonic and Knuckles, but haven’t been fully recognized for their contributions or fairly compensated for reissue of their work…success Archie doesn’t seem to have any problem cashing in on.
Tatiana, Al parecer no hubo contrato entre Archie, SEGA, o Ken en el primer lugar. Sin un contrato para delinear adecuadamente la propiedad, entonces el creador (Ken en este caso) es el único propietario de la obra, o copropietario si otro autor como Mike K o Karl ayudó. Este es el resultado de un cambio en la ley de Derechos de Autor en la década de 1970 a mediados de asegurar creadores recibir un trato justo.
truebluesonicfan: A similar event happened to me not that long ago. During a convention, voice actor and all-round nice guy Garry Chalk was happy to sign my copy of Sonic Super Special #10, despite having no role in the book’s production.
Does no one have any concept what-so-ever of what a derivative concept is.
Here’s my thoughts on the whole Derivative vs. Original Character argument:
While the names, personalities, and backgrounds of Ken’s character are indeed original, their actual designs are not.
Under copyright law they could be considered derivatives, but under trademark law they could be considered infringing on Sega’s design for Knuckles.
So basically, in order for Ken to use his characters outside of the Archie comics, he would have to change their designs entirely.
Now, regarding the whether Ken actually signed a work for hire contract, there’s been too much here-say and “mud slinging” from both sides. So, as a fan, it’s hard to tell what the real truth of the matter is. That’s why I’m waiting to see what the court decides instead.
I appreciate all of the enthusiastic discourse here, both pro AND con. But I’ve gotta point out that, despite Internet rumors, “AnInterestedParty” is definitely NOT Ken Penders, nor myself. Carry on, Sonic fans!
And along with Scott Shaw!, I will state it’s not I, either. I don’t need to hide behind a pseudonym to post my thoughts. I always sign in. Thank you very much.
@Dee
Yes, we do. The question is, do you? More precisely, are you sure what you think represents derivative is indeed the definition of derivative?
@SEGA_Queen
Once again let me point out that you can not copyright a character design. Designs and styles are not copyrightable and will be rejected. You can only copyright a work (story, song, picture, etc.) You can trademark a design. In that case, you trademark the exact design and no one but you or those you authorize can use that exact design. Reference case: Apple Music vs. Apple Computers.
Let me point out that the Copyright Office does not award copyrights. Under U.S. law (and most international laws) copyright is automatically granted to the creator of any new work. The creator already HAS the copyright. All the Copyright Office does is register the copyright of the work for public display and inspection. They do indeed take great strides to ensure copyright registration is granted to the proper creator(s). However, they are not the final arbiters of whether a particular copyright registration is valid. That is the courts, which is where this case is now winding its way through. The copyrights must be registered with the Copyright Office before any legal action can be taken, however.
@TLSonic and @Trez
Yes, Ken did sign that book. Ken also remembers the buyer asking him to sign it, and that he pointed out that he had nothing in that particular book. The buyer wanted him to sign it anyway. Should Ken refuse a direct request from someone who just bought merchandise from him? So what you have here is someone trying to acquire their little 15 minutes of fame for whatever reason.
@ BobR
Thanks for the detailed explanation. That’s clarified a few things.
However, what I find interesting is this statement by you:
“All the Copyright Office does is register the copyright of the work for public display and inspection. They do indeed take great strides to ensure copyright registration is granted to the proper creator(s). However, they are not the final arbiters of whether a particular copyright registration is valid. That is the courts, which is where this case is now winding its way through.”
If this is true, then Ken’s copyrights aren’t technically 100% valid until the courts confirm it. And yet, on his forums, Ken is claiming that they are already valid. At least, that’s what he’s implying in his posts.
So like I had Roger Craig Smith signed a few comics due to the presence of the Sonic Generations back story. I just wished I had the Sonic Generations variation cover <__<
@SEGA_Queen
You left out the two sentences just before your quotation: “Under U.S. law (and most international laws) copyright is automatically granted to the creator of any new work. The creator already HAS the copyright.” There is no argument that Ken is indeed the creator of the works in question, so yes, Ken’s copyrights are indeed valid. The legal question that’s being determined is whether he must assign those copyrights unconditionally to Archie.
Archie is claiming work-for-hire based on a copy of a contract Ken claims he never signed. They have not produced an original version of the contract with original signature, nor have they, to my knowledge, explained where they found this so-called copy which is also incomplete with numerous unmarked multiple-choice cross-outs and blanks that should have been filled in. (If I had been asked to sign such a contract with so many omissions, I certainly would not have done so.) The fact that Archie can’t produce contracts for the other creatives who worked on the Sonic book during the same time frame (and those creatives also claiming they never signed a contract) raises a mountain of questions concerning the authenticity and validity of this so-called copy.
So the status is: Ken currently holds valid copyrights. If the court, through jury trial, finds the copy of the contract enforceable, then Ken has to assign those copyrights to Archie. If the jury says that copy is trash, then Ken keeps the copyrights. With the amount of evidence Ken has in support of his position versus what Archie can garner in support of theirs, I really can’t see a jury finding anything other than in Ken’s favor. But, and I’ll admit this, it’s not a 100% guaranteed win. That’s what the trial is for.
@BobR
The reason I was confused was because the part I quoted, and the part you just quoted seemed to contradict eachother.
But I think I get it now.
Didn’t realize my identity may have been the subject of “Internet rumors.” I’m definitely not Ken Penders or Scott Shaw! I’m just an interested party