Slashdot Mirror


Gaiman v. McFarlane Decision Handed Down

aronc writes "In a case of speedy justice a jury today ruled that Neil Gaiman was in the right on all 9 counts in the case he brought against Todd McFarlane. More details at ComiCon Pulse and ICv2. This case revolved around ownership stakes for Medieval Spawn, Angela, Cagliostro, and further contracts involving the rights to Miracle Man."

104 comments

  1. Miracleman returns - outstanding news by iapetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of the best news I've heard in a long time. This legal wrangling has kept Miracleman out of print for far too long, and it's about time we saw reprints of the earlier trade paperbacks and the continuation of the story.

    Perfect timing, of course - just after I spent £28.50 on the second TPB of the series on eBay. :)

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    1. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by aronc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of the best news I've heard in a long time. This legal wrangling has kept Miracleman out of print for far too long, and it's about time we saw reprints of the earlier trade paperbacks and the continuation of the story.


      This is possible, but not certain. Late yesterday and today will be the penalty phase wherein Gaiman and the courts will decide what xactly happens now that they say he was right. In all probability he will simply enforce the 1997 agreement the two of them had, which gives Todd control over the Spawn characters and Neil MiracleMan. Given that McF defaulted on that contract, however, Gaiman could chose to persue a different set of terms. We shall see later today or tomorrow.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    2. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by iapetus · · Score: 2

      True - I'm also told that there may be other issues affecting reprints of the earlier (Alan Moore) works. Still, any result that gives Gaiman the right to continue the Miracleman story is good for me, whether it's an enforcement of the '97 contract or something more punitive.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    3. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by aronc · · Score: 5, Informative

      True - I'm also told that there may be other issues affecting reprints of the earlier (Alan Moore) works. Still, any result that gives Gaiman the right to continue the Miracleman story is good for me, whether it's an enforcement of the '97 contract or something more punitive.

      Yes, there are still some other legal hassels involved. It seems there is some question as to whether the person who sold the MM rights to Eclipse back in the day actually had them to sell. If he didn't that would of course void all the Elipse owndership and all the subsequent transfers from there on.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    4. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by Augie+De+Blieck+Jr. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real worrisome part of the ruling, to me, are the counts against Image Comics, itself. Image Comics doesn't not function as DC or Marvel does. It's not a traditional publishing house. Image is a collective to bring together a series of creators to pool their resources and share space in PREVIEWS and administrative costs and whatnot. Each creator pays a flat fee to Image Central for the paperwork, basically, of getting a comic printed and shipped. Image doesn't own any characters, nor design any comics.

      Image has no say as to the editorial content of any of the Founding Fathers' (McFarlane, Larsen, Valentino, Silvestri at this point) titles. So if the jury is ruling against Image Comics because they did or didn't put Neil Gaiman's bio on the back cover of an ANGELA trade, then that count should be overturned. It's factually incorrect. That's Todd McFarlane Productions' problem. Not Image's.

      Other than those two counts, I'm happy with the ruling. I think now Todd should just exchange MarvelMan/MiracleMan to Neil for full rights to Angela (dead as of SPAWN #100), Medievil Spawn, and Cogliostro, and everyone call the deal done.

      THEN those lawsuits over who owns what can begin. =)

      -Augie

    5. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Informative
      I assume you've read Kimota! (a book of interviews with the creators and editors of Marvelman/Miracleman) on the subject?

      The most likely guess is that when Dez Skinn revived Marvelman/Miracleman in 1981, the rights had lapsed into the public domain. However, after having published the character for a while, he had then created interest in it. And, name and costume aside, the Alan Moore Marvelman/Miracleman was quite different to the Mick Anglo Marvelman.

      Kimota! gives the impression that Gaiman would like the series to continue. Moore wouldn't mind seeing it in print again either. Gaiman could FINISH THE DAMN STORY ...

      (I just bought Kimota! last Saturday, and was despairing of ever getting hold of the originals again ...)

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    6. Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news by reptilicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember that Gaiman is now doing the mysterious "1602" series for Marvel. The $ from this are meant to pay Gaiman's legal expenses in the case, and many assume that this means that once Gaiman clears the rights to Miracleman, it will be published by Marvel (which could also mean a return to the original "Marvelman").

  2. I think you'll find it's "MarvelMan" by nagora · · Score: 2
    But then, sometimes the court cases you'd really like to see are the ones that never happen!

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  3. McFarlane's woes by Heynow21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think after this, being married to a Penthouse Pet, and his buying of that McGwire homerun ball for a few million dollars more than it was worth Todd McFarlane has officially qualified for an E! True Hollywood story.

    1. Re:McFarlane's woes by Augie+De+Blieck+Jr. · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking of Kevin Eastman, who married Julie Strain? I don't think Wanda was ever a Penthouse Pet. I never heard anything like that before. Last I heard, they were just college (or high school) sweethearts.

      -Augie

    2. Re:McFarlane's woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think after this, being married to a Penthouse Pet, and his buying of that McGwire homerun ball for a few million dollars more than it was worth Todd McFarlane has officially qualified for an E! True Hollywood story.

      Is McFarlane married to a Penthouse Pet? Kevin Eastman -- another of that rare breed, the comics millionaire -- is married to Julie Strain. Maybe that's who you're thinking of.

  4. More depth? by NBarnes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't suppose any legal eagle sites out there have a more in-depth look at this one? Legal and/or copyright sluts (myself included) want to know if this decision means anything other than a bunch of fanboys (myself towards the front of the line) finally get to buy the Miracleman trade paperbacks we've been coveting.

    1. Re:More depth? by aronc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't suppose any legal eagle sites out there have a more in-depth look at this one? Legal and/or copyright sluts (myself included) want to know if this decision means anything other than a bunch of fanboys (myself towards the front of the line) finally get to buy the Miracleman trade paperbacks we've been coveting.


      Honestly, this isn't a copyright issue. Copyrights are at stake, but the judicial decisions are all contract law. The two big points were basically if McF & Gaiman had 'contracts' based on agreements they made when Neil originaly wrote the Spawn issue and in 1997 when they supposedly settled this issue (which Todd later reneged on).

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    2. Re:More depth? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      The two big points were basically if McF & Gaiman had 'contracts' based on agreements they made when Neil originaly wrote the Spawn issue and in 1997 when they supposedly settled this issue (which Todd later reneged on).

      9 counts??? I'd say that the question is whether or not Tod McF is a sociopathic A*hole who has no respect for the agreements he makes with people once he has what he wants.

      If the story of what he did to the Mexican convention is even close to accurate, I'd say that there's a pattern here that points to the answer being a resounding "yes".

      If he was as blatent about his disregard for agreements as he appears to have been in Mexico, then I'd say there's a good possibility that the jury would make a sizable punitive award. (as in: slap him on the wrist -- with a two-by-four)

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  5. That's all fine but... by dhardman · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I think Journey's Steve Perry still owns the rights to Todd McFarlane's haircut.

    1. Re:That's all fine but... by jesse.k · · Score: 1

      heh, i think you mean Steve Perry owns Neil Gaiman's haircut, he's the shaggy looking guy in black. McFarlane is the hockey player looking guy with the short hair.

    2. Re:That's all fine but... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Please God tell me it's a file photo...

      ...cause these jokes are cracking me up! :-D

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  6. It's about time... by pfurlong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that Todd MacFarlane learned that his money can't buy him everything.

    Even though it's nice to see a fellow Canadian's success, his "I've got the world by the balls" attitude has finally been proved to be incorrect.

    I've heard plenty about MarvelMan/MiracleMan, and I look forward to seeing and reading more of him.

  7. Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) by jukal · · Score: 3, Redundant
    From here:
    3.There was a contract in 1992 (when McFarlane promised that he would treat Gaiman "better than the big guys").
    4.McFarlane breached the 1992 contract.
    5.There was a contract in 1997 (this was the rights swap of Gaiman's interests in Medieval Spawn and Cagliostro for McFarlane's interest in Miracleman, plus setting royalty percentages for all uses of Angela and allowing "one-off" projects using the characters).

    If he treats the "big guys" worse than he treated Gaiman... we might see a couple of another cases enter court as well.

    1. Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) by iapetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um. Perhaps I'm gibbering, but I read that as meaning that McFarlane would treat Gaiman better than the big guys would treat him - ie he would get a better deal from McFarlane than he would from Marvel or DC.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    2. Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) by pacc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McFarlane is one of the big guys,

      he is way beyound "independent". Maybe he could have saved his face by ending his stories a few times per year, but that's not the way everyone else does it.

    3. Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) by lopati · · Score: 1

      maybe mcfarlane should go back and read spawn #10. and maybe dave sim could reprise the story/allegory to miracleman if and when it ever starts a new run! (i'm thinking a revolutionary-cum-dictator story arc - with some essays on feminism, homosexuality and animal rights sprinkled in, keke :)

    4. Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) by TrentC · · Score: 2

      McFarlane is one of the big guys,

      He wasn't at the time he hired Gaiman to write SPAWN #9 for him...

      Jay (=

  8. Some background here? by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could someone provide some background on this matter... The slashdot article, and the two links it provides all speak in a manner that can only be deciphered by someone who is familiar with the case... I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what went on... Something about little guy writing something, big guy using it, little guy suing... All existing in the comic book world (hmmm, does this really fit in the legal category?)

    So could someone give me a run up on who the players are? (i.e. "Gaiman" "McFarlane" "Image" "Medieval Spawn" "Cagliostro" "Miracle Man")

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:Some background here? by CoolVibe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Comic jargon... Now you know how those poor "computer-illiterate" people feel when they suffer the onslaught of sysadmin war stories :)

      AFAICD (can decypher) it's about two comic artists fussing about comic characters.... But hey, since I haven't read a decent comic for more than 5 or 6 years, I'm totally out of it. I used to be a rabid Spiderman fan, but I've lost touch :(

    2. Re:Some background here? by samael · · Score: 5, Informative

      From http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq7.htm

      The rights to MIRACLEMAN are a tangled mess.

      The story begins with CAPTAIN MARVEL. In 1953, DC managed to finally stop
      Fawcett from publishing CAPTAIN MARVEL. After a drawn-out legal battle, the
      courts held CAPTAIN MARVEL to violate DC's SUPERMAN copyright. At this
      point, Fawcett decided that continuing the appeals process was not
      worthwhile and settled with DC (see section 5-25).

      British publisher L. Miller & Sons had been publishing black and white
      reprints of CAPTAIN MARVEL. With Fawcett out of the CAPTAIN MARVEL
      business, L. Miller & Sons was left without anything to reprint. So they
      decided to make their own hero, and approached artist Mick Anglo to create
      one. What Anglo came up with was MARVELMAN. Anglo's CAPTAIN MARVEL "clone"
      was quite successful; MARVELMAN ran until 1963.

      When MARVELMAN was revived and revamped in the 1982 (by Alan Moore and Gary
      Leach), as a feature in Dez Skinn's WARRIOR, the rights to the character
      apparently came to be held jointly by Skinn, Moore, and Leach (each holding
      a third). When Alan Davis took over from Gary Leach, Leach's share of the
      rights was apparently transferred to Davis.

      However, there is a complication. Depending upon who is telling the story,
      Dez Skinn either:
      (a) believed that MARVELMAN was in public domain when WARRIOR revived the
      character,
      (b) bought the rights to MARVELMAN from Mick Anglo (and shared them with
      Moore and Leach), or
      (c) promised to buy the rights from Anglo, but never paid him for them.

      If (a) or (b) is correct-and MARVELMAN was in the public domain when it was
      revived for WARRIOR-then the rights were shared equally by Skinn, Moore,
      and Davis. However, if (c) is correct, then Anglo may have a claim on
      some-if not all-of the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN rights. catherine yronwode
      (former editor-in-chief of Eclipse) has said that Dez Skinn represented (b)
      being true when Eclipse was negotiating the purchase of Skinn's portion of
      the rights.

      Assuming that MARVELMAN/MIRCALEMAN rights really were held jointly by
      Moore, Davis, and Skinn (which most of the principles involved apparently
      believed), then here's what happened:

      Moore's MARVELMAN story was never completed in WARRIOR. In 1985, Eclipse
      and Alan Moore, revived the WARRIOR revival as MIRACLEMAN. The change from
      MARVELMAN to MIRACLEMAN was made in deference to Marvel Comics, because
      both publishers involved felt that a superhero named "MARVELMAN" might
      infringe on Marvel's US trademark.

      Marvel had first objected to the use of "MARVELMAN" as a comic book title
      back when Skinn had published "MARVELMAN SPECIAL" in 1983.

      Eclipse Comics bought Dez Skinn's 1/3 share of the MARVELMAN rights. Then,
      some time later, Eclipse bought Alan Davis' 1/3 share (at the time, Davis
      and Moore were embroiled in a dispute over whether to allow Marvel to
      reprint Moore and Davis' run on CAPTAIN BRITAN, and Davis wanted as little
      to do with Moore as possible). This left Eclipse with 2/3 of the rights,
      and Moore with 1/3.

      When Moore finished his MIRACLEMAN story (at issue 16), and chose Neil
      Gaiman to replace him, he transferred his part ownership of the characters
      to Gaiman (or to Gaiman and his collaborator, Mark Buckingham). When
      Eclipse went bankrupt in 1994, the series ended in mid-story with issue 24.
      However, issue 25 of MIRACLEMAN existed in nearly complete form. As Eclipse
      was going under, yronwode mailed the finished art for MIRACLEMAN #25 to
      Gaiman. Presumably, he still has it.

      According to catherine yronwode, Gaiman had approved a spin-off series
      called MIRACLEMAN TRIUMPHANT that took place in the time period between the
      end of Gaiman's first storyline and the beginning of his second. MIRACLEMAN
      TRIUMPHANT was written by Fred Burke and illustrated by Mike Deodato Jr.
      (who shared the rights to this project with Eclipse and Gaiman). Two issues
      were scripted, and one issue was finished, but never released. The artwork
      is still in possession of yronwode, and she has stated that she intends to
      mail it to Fred Burke whenever someone finally untangles the MIRACLEMAN
      copyright problems, and agrees to publish MIRACLEMAN TRIUMPHANT.

      At the time of the Eclipse bankruptcy, Eclipse held with two-thirds of the
      rights to MIRACLEMAN, and Gaiman held one-third of the rights (either on
      his own, or jointly with Buckingham). Then in 1996, Todd McFarlane
      Productions purchased all of Eclipse's assets at a bankruptcy auction for
      $40,000. These assets included whatever share of MIRACLEMAN that Eclipse
      owned, along with other Eclipse-owned characters like as Airboy, the Heap,
      Valkyrie, Sky Wolf, etc.

      Rumor has it that McFarlane thought he was getting all rights to MIRACLEMAN
      (other than those rights held by Gaiman--or Gaiman and Buckingham).
      However, since then, Dez Skinn has reportedly claimed that some or all of
      the MIRACLEMAN rights have reverted to him. To further complicate matters,
      Anglo has claimed that he owns ALL rights to MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN. Finally,
      McFarlane and Gaiman are involved in a dispute over Gaiman's rights to
      Angela (which he co-created in SPAWN #9 on a handshake deal), and are not
      currently on very friendly terms.

      Although there have been numerous second-hand reports that McFarlane has
      offered to trade whatever rights he holds to MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN to Gaiman
      in return for Gaiman dropping any claims on Angela, the rights to the two
      characters are in no way linked.

      Interestingly enough, in October 1997, Todd McFarlane Productions filed for
      a US registered trademark on "MIRACLEMAN" under classes 016 (printed
      matter, namely, comic books and posters), 025 (clothing, namely, shirts,
      athletic shirts, T-shirts, caps and jackets), and 028 (toys, namely, action
      figures and accessories therefore). The proposed trademarks were published
      for opposition on 06/02/1998, and according to the US PTO's online database
      (http://trademarks.uspto.gov/access/sear ch-mark.ht ml), are still pending.

      So who owns MIRACLEMAN? Nobody knows...

    3. Re:Some background here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree -- this article is completely obscure in its subject matter to anyone except the hardest core fan of whatever "Medieval Spawn" is (which in this group could be a) a comic book, b) a fantasy role playing game, c) a pet name that CowboyNeal uses for CmdrTaco.) Let's work on getting better summaries, and not include significantly obscure and less-than-relevant articles like this on the front page of Slashdot.

    4. Re:Some background here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much anything with the word Vertigo on the label is worth the money.

    5. Re:Some background here? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      I haven't bought a comic in five or six years, but I'm at least semi-familiar with these guys :

      Spawn is one of the top 3 selling comics in the world, and has been for years. They also made a summer action movie based on the character several years ago. McFarland was the illustrator of Spiderman a decade or so ago, when the character became really popular again.

      Gaiman's work has been featured on slashdot many times (he is a best-selling fantasy novelist as well as a comic writer). He co-wrote a book with Terry Pratchett, Good Omens.

      This isn't that obsure.

    6. Re:Some background here? by aronc · · Score: 3, Informative

      The long MiracleMan faq posted below is good for the miracle man side of things. Here's a link to a fairly short summery of what lead to the case itself. I apologize for not putting one in the initial submission.. I could have sworn /. had posted some news about this when the case was first filed.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    7. Re:Some background here? by Murdock037 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here we go-- this is as I understand it, and trimmed down considerably.

      The background:

      -Todd McFarlane is a comic writer and artist. He and six others left Marvel Comics in 1992 and cofounded a company called Image Comics, based on creative rights and ownership and whatnot. (He's the creator of "Spawn," if you're familiar with the comic, movie, or cartoon.)

      -Neil Gaiman is a writer. He's worked mostly for DC Comics, and created the wildly popular "Sandman" series. He's since left comics, mostly, and these days writes novels that win lots of awards.

      -Miracleman is an old character published by some of the big companies. In the 80s two writers took a swing at him-- Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman-- and created some very, very good work out of it, stories whose reputations have only grown in time. It was work for hire, though, and so reprint rights remained with DC Comics. Reprint rights since then have been shuffled about here and there for whatever reasons, and eventually landed in Todd McFarlane's lap.

      The History:

      -In 1992 Gaiman wrote an issue of "Spawn" for McFarlane. In doing this, he created several characters for the series that grew very popular. The characters continued to appear in "Spawn" and were even given their own series. McFarlane promised Gaiman a cut of the profits, but never wrote the check.

      -In 1995 McFarlane and Gaiman reached an agreement (the "Oakland agreement"). Gaiman would give up most of his interests in the "Spawn" characters he created (except for a small percentage of profit), and in exchange, McFarlane would hand over his rights to Miracleman (which Gaiman wanted so that he could allow somebody to reprint the old stories). Again, McFarlane never bothered to cut a check, and apparently denies the agreement was made altogether.

      -And so Gaiman filed suit. And he won yesterday. Apparently the punishment will be handed down next. From the sound of things, he's going to be basically asking that the terms of the Oakland agreement are held up. What Gaiman has wanted from the beginning has been reprint rights to some of his old stories.

      So there you have it, basically. You can follow the links in the original story for updates. If you're interested, Gaiman keeps a very pleasant online journal.

      If I may throw in my two cents-- McFarlane here has been greedy and hypocritical. He co-founded Image Comics as a creator's haven, and then proceeded to do to exactly what he'd always complained about during his time at Marvel. At least Marvel is up-front about their contracts.

      It's not like McFarlane doesn't have the money. He dropped something like two million bucks for Mark McGwire's historic home run ball way back when. He runs a little publishing mini-empire, fueled by "Spawn's" success.

      To the poster that called Gaiman the "little guy," that's a little distorted. Gaiman is about as big a name is comics as they come-- but he's also a reasonable fellow, and wished it wouldn't have come to this.

      So that's that. Most of the comics industry these days thinks of McFarlane as a bloated, success-spoiled asshole, because of things like this. Yesterday, he got what's coming to him.

    8. Re:Some background here? by Wavicle · · Score: 2

      Thank you!

      That is exactly the background I was looking for. (not that the long miracleman background story was bad, but I wasn't able to figure out the McFarlane/Gaiman relationship from it) Now why isn't this post modded +5 yet?

      To the poster that called Gaiman the "little guy," that's a little distorted. Gaiman is about as big a name is comics as they come-- but he's also a reasonable fellow, and wished it wouldn't have come to this.

      I think that was me. It wasn't so much that I was characterizing or criticizing Gaiman, I just had no idea who any of the players were. In extrapolating from the information I did have it resembled a David vs. Goliath copyright battle, so I thought Gaiman was the David and McFarlane was the Goliath.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    9. Re:Some background here? by David+Gerard · · Score: 2
      "-Miracleman is an old character published by some of the big companies. In the 80s two writers took a swing at him-- Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman-- and created some very, very good work out of it, stories whose reputations have only grown in time. It was work for hire, though, and so reprint rights remained with DC Comics."

      Not with DC. It's much more complicated than that. Check the book Kimota! - covers the entire saga.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  9. care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could care less who wins this...just a two huge egos fighting over something any two normal people would have fixed with a 20 min conversation...anyway I own issue #9 of spawn...the issue that caused all this...is it worth anything?..I got laid off from my dotcom job like 2 years ago and in desperate need of cash.

    hook

    1. Re:care less by aronc · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could care less who wins this...just a two huge egos fighting over something any two normal people would have fixed with a 20 min conversation...anyway I own issue #9 of spawn...the issue that caused all this...is it worth anything?..I got laid off from my dotcom job like 2 years ago and in desperate need of cash.

      If you would actually read the links you would understand why this happened. One reasonable man (Gaiman) and one huge ego (McFarlane) did work this out in a meeting in 1997. Then last year McFarlane decided he didn't like that deal anymore and started acting as if it never happened. Thus, he got taken to court.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    2. Re:care less by unDiWahn · · Score: 4, Funny

      I could care less who wins

      Ok... so you could care less -- which means you do care... so how much do you care? That's a very vague statement.

      Unless, of course, you meant you couldn't care less, meaning you don't care at all...

    3. Re:care less by ForsakenRegex · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I think the comment put the story in
      perspective. This issue is no different from
      many that occur day-to-day for everyone. People
      are often dishonest and egotistical. The only
      worthwhile news here is that the decision was
      made. Who was right/wrong? Why does anyone
      care?

      --
      "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
    4. Re:care less by aronc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gaiman's books are reviewed here, his new comics are mentioned, and his film projects are as well. All those go on the front page. Given that, it seemed newsworthy. Ad the editors seem to agree.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    5. Re:care less by Moofie · · Score: 1

      /I/ care, because I think Gaiman's work is uniformly superb, and McFarlane's is spotty. Gaiman has the (public) persona of an affable, relatively humble, artist, while McFarlane's public persona is one of an egotistical PT Barnum-style cheater.

      Way to go, Mr. Gaiman. Keep up the good work.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:care less by drivers · · Score: 2

      The expression "I could care less" is sarcasm, which pedants are immune to.

  10. Miracle Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had never heard of that character until just now. Unfortunately, all I can think about is those scam preachers who slap you on the forehead and call it a miracle. "Sir, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ tells me you have a problem with your ears? You've been using hearing aids for the last 10 years, is that right? Well NO MORE! Let Jesus unclog those ears for you! *SLAP* IT'S A MIRACLE!"

  11. Argh by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It pains me to see two parties, I so much admire, going to court. Hopefully there will be no hard feelings, or what poses for them will pass.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Argh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You stupid little shit. There will be hard feelings. We can only hope that MacFarlane is reduced to pauperism by the court. He is a nasty person and deserves no less. Yeah, I actually know this shit. I do try to distance myself from him as best I can.

      Sorry, son, had to be said. Your mother sends
      her regards.

  12. A nightmare.....?? by curtisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bwahahahahahahahaha!
    Ok now that thats out of my system.....
    McFarlane is a businessman first and has been for a long time, once he was a great illustrator (probably still is...when he does draw....) and his high horse attitude just makes stories like this and situations like this very amusing.
    I was actually shocked when I read this headline, as I have not followed comics seriously in many years....but those two are big boys in the industry....and I'm glad for Gaiman
    I can almost see McFarlane standing there before trial in his best brooding glare (ala the intro to the Spawn animated series) saying "....you cannot hope to win against Lord McFarlane, you cannot hope...ahh screw it....would you care for a limited edition gold-plated Malebolgia figure and we'll call it even?"

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    1. Re:A nightmare.....?? by lost_n_mad · · Score: 1

      Too Funny. I can see McFarlane doing that as well. I'm sure he was a little more verbose than that, but yeah. It does amaze me though that Gaiman who has dealt with some of the best independent business men in the field (Sim and Campbell come to mind) and always walked away with agreements that benifet the both of them would get taken by McFarlane.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
  13. What about Angela??? by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 4, Interesting


    What about Angela?

    I was pissed off when McFarlane killed her in Spawn #100 (she was the coolest Spawn character and we never got enough of her), saying that he would never bring her back, but now if Gaiman had some right on her that McFarlane disputed I wonder if he killed her just to piss Gaiman off.

    And now that Gaiman's right on her are affirmed, what will he do with her, sell it to McFarlane so he can keep her dead or find some way to ressuscite her???

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    1. Re:What about Angela??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lose the hardon, fanboy. You need to realize that Angela is a fictional entity and that, even if you didn't weigh 437 pounds and smell like haddock, you will never be able to have sex with her.

    2. Re:What about Angela??? by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, a nice flamebait just for me. I think I will bite.

      I do realise that she is fictional, but then again, when I buy comic books its to read about fictional characters, not real ones.

      Also, your reply seem to imply that I only liked her because of her looks**, when I liked her for the combination of her looks (Angela being big, fat, and ugly just wouldn't be the same) AND her badass temper* (one can wonder how she ever became an Angel and not a Demon).

      As for never being able to have sex with her, don't worry, there are plenty of women I will never be able to have sex with and I don't feel any worse for it

      *feel free to say that me liking her temper only makes me a SM lover wanting to be dominated if you want.

      **Hey, if I liked her only for the undressed aspect, there are plenty of porn flicks to choose from, and guess what, in a porn movie, the images actually MOVE and are from REAL WOMEN, and no ,all of the actress in porn movies are not ugly and stupid (at least not all of them). Check Sylvia Saint or Eva Roberts for really beautiful women and Asia Carrera for a beautiful girl that is also more intelligent than you (she is part of MENSA, can you claim the same? No? Me neither).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    3. Re:What about Angela??? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      Why would McFarland buy the rights to a character that he is never going to use her again? I'd expect that the Jury would award Gaiman royalties for the use of the character over this time, and now Gaimen is able to do whatever he wants with the character.

      Pretty much end of story (if you'll excuse the pun).

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    4. Re:What about Angela??? by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "Why would McFarland buy the rights to a character that he is never going to use her again?"

      Because he reeatedly said in the issues prior to 100 that in #100 he would kill one of the female character and that we wouldn't see her again, not in dreams, not in flashback, not because they need money and the fans loved her, not ever. He gave me the impression that he was playing that as a statement that he wasn't commercializing Spawn like other comics are (look, we deliberately killed a popular character, if we were overcommercializing we would have brought her back to life).

      Now, if Gaiman has the rights to Angela, or at least enough right to it to take her and do more stories with her in it ( either as the lead character or as a sidekick), like with the Angela/Aria crossover (I hope I have this right, its starting to be 2/3 years now) then it kind of make the point mood.

      Even worse, if Gaiman makes more story it can give him a bad rep (worse? apparently!): "Look, he killed another guy's character, the bastard".

      Of course, all this lies on the assumption that her death was some kind of metamessage, as I interpreted it, if it isn't (which is quite possible, English isn't my native language) my point is totally moot.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    5. Re:What about Angela??? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      My read of this is that killing Angela was some combination of scorched earth / damage control. I think he knew that he was going to lose this lawsuit and it's pretty unlikely, under the circumstances, that Gaimen is going to let him continue to use her.

      Rather than have to explain to fans why she suddenly disappeared, he simply bitchslapped the character -- making it look like it was done out of the non-commercial graciousness of his heart (yeah, right!). Now, after the lawsuit, he's going to be giving Gaimen back some seriously damaged (dead) goods.

      Nice guy, hunh?

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  14. Eh? by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 5, Funny

    (From Comicon Pulse Article)
    they found that McFarlane and Gaiman had entered into agreements in 1992 and 1997 and that McFarlane had breeched both agreements

    It's a rough world when you can't put pants on an agreement.

    Spellcheckers. Gotta love 'em, gotta hate 'em.

  15. How about the fact he ripped off Spawn? by glrotate · · Score: 1

    From the SpiderMan suit that came back from the Secret Wars series.

  16. Did anyone happen to see the jury makeup? by helfon1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I noticed in one of the links that the jury was made up of all women. Now I know it's a stereotype that girls don't like comics as much as boys but Mcfarlane's lawyer couldn't have been happy about that.

    Then they are quoting comic books during the trial :)

    In his closing statement, Gaimans' attorney said the case was about "keeping promises, being fair... and telling the truth."
    McFarlane's lawyer's closing argument referred again to Gaiman's statement in the script to SPAWN #9: "It's your playground; I'm in for an afternoon on the swings."


    Seemed funny to me.

    1. Re:Did anyone happen to see the jury makeup? by tbarrie · · Score: 1
      I noticed in one of the links that the jury was made up of all women. Now I know it's a stereotype that girls don't like comics as much as boys but Mcfarlane's lawyer couldn't have been happy about that.

      I don't follow you. Why would a jury which disliked comics hurt his chances in a suit between two prominent comics creators over ownership of various comics characters? If anything, I'd think McFarlane would want to avoid comic fans; Gaiman is one of the most respected creators in the industry. McFarlane is commercially successful but far from respected.

      Then they are quoting comic books during the trial :)

      In his closing statement, Gaimans' attorney said the case was about "keeping promises, being fair... and telling the truth." McFarlane's lawyer's closing argument referred again to Gaiman's statement in the script to SPAWN #9: "It's your playground; I'm in for an afternoon on the swings."

      That's not a quote from a comic, it's a comment Gaiman made to McFarlane in the script.

    2. Re:Did anyone happen to see the jury makeup? by redtuxxx · · Score: 0

      No - the women probably just liked storys with a plot!!

  17. Err...Wrong by JohnnySkidmarks · · Score: 1

    The Toddler- prick that he is - is also very creative, and could be said to have saved the industry, AND He created the Spidey's-black-suit = symbiote = Venom waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy back in Amazing Spiderman 299-301. So this being a forum dedicated to all things open source, he had every right to snake back his creation

    --

    I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank

    1. Re:Err...Wrong by Tikiman · · Score: 1
      The Toddler- prick that he is - is also very creative, and could be said to have saved the industry, AND He created the Spidey's-black-suit = symbiote = Venom waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy back in Amazing Spiderman 299-301. So this being a forum dedicated to all things open source, he had every right to snake back his creation

      The black suit appeared in Secret Wars #8, published around 84, and was a Jim Shooter story. Amazing Spider-Man #299 (April 88) had the first full appearance of Venom on the last page, but the costume was determined to be a symbiote back in #258.

    2. Re:Err...Wrong by JohnnySkidmarks · · Score: 1

      The black Suit Prior to Todd's work on it was just that a lifeless (with the exception of the issue you mentioned where it sort of slithers around like a 2D empty costume-type thing). Todd breathed life into it and CREATED Venom. That's what we are talking about in this thread, not the black suit, which on it's own bears fuck nothing of a resemblence to Spawn. Venom on the other hand is at least one of Spidey's coolest Villians if not THE Coolest, and also bears little resemblance to Spawn except that Spawn's suit is also a symbiote (although from Hell instead of Outer Space)

      --

      I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank

    3. Re:Err...Wrong by Ian+Pointer · · Score: 1

      And David Micheline (who wrote the first appearences of Venom) had nothing to do with it at all, right? Incidentally, Todd was the one who made Spider-Man lose the black suit, as he wanted to draw the "classic" costume...

    4. Re:Err...Wrong by alphaseven · · Score: 2
      There was a big debate in Wizard magazine years ago about wether McFarlane was a co-creator of Venom or not. Erik Larsen wrote them that the original character for venom was really dumb (some illogic in the motivations for the reporter who became Venom), and the only reason he was so popular was that McFarlane came up with the teeth and slime and tongue and all that.

      Personally I don't think that counts as "creating", I would say McFarlane's design help "popularize" Venom.

  18. You should check out Amazing Spiderman... by Thag · · Score: 2

    It's actually worth reading now.

    They've got J. Michael Straczynski (of Babylon 5 fame) writing the book now, and it's pretty good.

    I had thought I would never read a Marvel comic again, but I'm happy to read ASM now.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  19. Mr Gaiman's journal by ghmh · · Score: 3, Interesting
    mentions it briefly. I think he just wants to get on with the things he's interested in...

    Joan, who had the 4.00pm in the office sweep, collected. A mad rush to get down to the courtroom -- I left books, glasses, pens and my phone behind in the lawyers' office, and zoomed.

    The jury ruled in our favour. I appreciate their work, and the incredibly hard work of the legal team, enormously. I regret that it needed to happen.

    Tomorrow, with any luck, I get my phone back.

    (and earlier....)

    Lots of requests for interviews about the trial, which I'm saying no to. Win, lose, or win some counts and lose others, I think my position's going to be the same on that. As I explained to one journalist, it's not wrestling.

  20. McFarlane is a Diva and deserves to be spanked! by Abreu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thats nothing... I know several people in the Comic/Anime/Etc community here in Mexico and when a local Comic Convention wanted to have McFarlane come here to sign autographs and do a conference, the guy demanded (aside from his pay) that he and his family be "awarded" a one week vacation in Ixtapa Zihuatanejo, with all expenses paid.

    The Convention guys agreed, bought them the air tickets, booked the hotel... everything. So McFarlane comes to the opening of the Convention, signs 2 hours of autographs, and then leaves the friggin place!

    Turns out that once he had the tickets, he called the airline and the hotel and changed the dates on his reservation! The guy just ignored his contract (Which required him to stay 3 days at the convention and do a conference) and took the vacation and the money! The Convention organizers tried to sue, but of course, this involves international law and treaties and it would have been far too expensive... So they decided to just drop matters...

    Of course, the year after that, they invited Will Eisner, and he was absolutely great... He spent more than 3 hours talking about his work and answering questions... he even showcased work by local aspiring artists and gave them some good natured advice, and pointed out to the audience what he liked and disliked about the pieces.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
    1. Re:McFarlane is a Diva and deserves to be spanked! by Dirtside · · Score: 2
      Airport codes:
      WIN: Winton Australia
      LNX: Smolensk Russia
      BSD: Baoshan China
      OSX: Kosciusko MS USA
      Not sure if you have room in your sig, but OGG is the airport code for Lahaina airport, on Maui. If you don't have room, you might be able to abbreviate the country names (Australia = AU, Russia = RU, China = CN). Of course it's not an OS abbreviation like the rest, but imagine my surprise when I booked the flight for my honeymoon and saw OGG. :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:McFarlane is a Diva and deserves to be spanked! by zonker · · Score: 0

      hey i was just in maui a couple of weeks ago. the lahaina airport has to be the smallest airport with large airlines going through it i have ever seen. the cool thing about it is that it, like many places in maui, is an open-air airport. make sure you go to hana, and also go see the sunrise at the volcano. you won't regret it.

  21. Why do artists like Spawn? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over my career I've worked with a number of people I'll unhelpfully lump together as artists. Graphic artists, web designers, would-be comic book artists, 3-D modellers and animators, 2-d artists. Great people, generally very sane. Of these artists, a significant number have owned and decorated their offices with McFarlane's Spawn figurines. And never just plain old Spawn. Spawn the Bloodaxe, Alien Spawn, Pirate Spawn, Raven Spawn, She Spawn, Wings of Redemption Spawn, Spawn VII, Dark Ages Spawn - Samurai Wars, Techno Spawn, or Spawn the Bloodaxe and Thunderhoof. Each and every one more EXTREME than the last. There have been 22 different series of figurines. By my back of the envelope calculation, there are approximately seventy billion distinct Spawn variants.

    What's the point? The character is alien and pointless. A friend at one point suggested that the Spawn comic books were for teenagers who found Batman not gritty enough and too realistic. Grade school kids who need something more EXTREME to try and shock their parents. The figurines may be very distinct, but they certainly are all EXTREME. Multiple layers of billowing clothing, draped in chains, with random pipes and hoses stuck in various unlikely places. Sure, they're detailed, but they're just random. The effect isn't cool, just busy. They certainly never approach the real creepiness of a master like H.R. Giger. They're not shocking, just childish. What exactly is the appeal of Spawn?

    McFarlane really bothers me, his work (assuming the things coming out with his name all over them are his work) is disassociated with reality. Spawn is inane. McFarlane can even taint unrelated works. http://trigunner.giborama.com/trigunner/merchandis e/mcvash.html">McFarlane's interpretation of Vash from Trigun was needlessly draped in chains, just like Vash never was in the series, turning Vash into some bizarre bondage version of himself.

    So what exactly is the draw of McFarlane and his work, especially Spawn? I certainly don't see it.

    1. Re:Why do artists like Spawn? by drivers · · Score: 2

      And all the above is, of course, your humble opinion.

    2. Re:Why do artists like Spawn? by nomadic · · Score: 2

      What do you expect? Illustrators aren't writers; I think it was fairly common a few years ago to allow 'leet artists to make up their own characters and storylines, and unsurprisingly they were usually as bland as Spawn. Kind of like when coders are allowed to design the games as well *coughIdcough*

    3. Re:Why do artists like Spawn? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      I don't know abaout artists, but I'll tell you a fan's perspective.

      Like The Bat, he's a tragic character. He was betrayed and murdered by people he trusted, forced to do the bidding of a Demon in return for the promise of seeing the woman he loved. When he did see the woman he loved, he was unrecognizable to her, so seeing her was pointless (betrayed again). Because of that, he rebelled against the wishes of the Demon and instead fights the Demon.

      The draw is it's dark, gloomy and disturbing. But it's mixed with an exploration of things like honour and truth. The costumes, at least in the comics, have 'personality' and are almost alive with a will of their own. Very interesting!

      Gaiman was a fitting artist to work on Spawn, as his series 'Sandman" had many similar qualities.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:Why do artists like Spawn? by ProfessorPuke · · Score: 2
      I'm embarrassed to nitpick, but never say never. Vash was draped in chains in the Trigun episode where Monev The Gale was introduced. Since Monev was the figure that best tied into the McFarlane Toys style (I think the action figure is popular amoung people who knew/cared nothing of Trigun), its understandable they'd focus on a Vash from the same time.


      And you could argue that Trigun isn't exactly an unrelated work. The very first manga volume featured a sketch of Spawn, and a hunky face shot of Todd himself. You can add Yasuhiro Nightow to the list of artists with Spawn figures gracing his office. Those toys were likely an inspiration for Trigun's creation.

    5. Re:Why do artists like Spawn? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      I suppose it is a statement of how much I'm not an artist. One of my favorite anime series appears to have been inspired by one of my least favorite comics. I'm still failing to understand the appeal. Ah well. Thanks for the info.

  22. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... by arthurh3535 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That was sarcasm, if you didn't catch it. McFarlene is a bit sue happy. Paladium had a fairly neat post-apocolyptic gothic horror world called "Nightspawn". Other than the fact that it had the name "Spawn" in it, it was totally different conceptually other than "horror".

    But if you are tight for money, it doesn't pay to fight a legal battle. So now Nightspawn doesn't exit and it's been renamed to Nightbane.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    1. Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... by daemon23 · · Score: 1

      I gotta chuckle about this, really... Siembieda vs. McFarlane: who has the bigger ego?

    2. Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      This too is why I came to hate Todd McFarlane. There is absolutely nothing alike between the game and the comic book, but Palladium had to knuckle under because a gaming shop like them didn't have the money to take on the 800-pound gorilla that is the Spawn francise. I'm absolutely positive that they would've won in court had they taken it to trial.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  23. Re:care less (why am I saying this?) by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
    I think that the original phrase was "I couldn't care less" -- but someone was lazy in either their listening or their speaking -- and the mangled english became famous.

    Either that, or "I could care less, (but it would take some work)".

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  24. "Sarcasm" != "stupidity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you capable of explaining how it qualifies as "sarcasm"? Hello? Anybody in there? *knock*, *knock*.

    Nope, empty. Go figure.

  25. You ADMIRE Todd McFarlane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's so sad. For you. So, what other ethically-challenged slimeballs do you "admire"?

    1. Re:You ADMIRE Todd McFarlane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I admire his work. Anything which interfers with it, i.e. litigation, takes time and resources away from it.

      Same goes for the intrusion of schedule for Gaiman.

  26. I think you mean, "Why do artists like Todd?" by mactari · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you recall, pre-Spawn Todd M. was working for Marvel. Believe me, nobody could touch his artwork in The Amazing Spider-Man (I believe there were other titles that came before). Before long, Todd was pencilling and inking, and understandably grew tired of his "new 9-to-5 box" (suggesting not his hours so much as the stagnation of his job).

    Btw, and totally off-topic, even here Todd had webs flying like crazy around Spidey, especially when he was hanging upside-down, etc. The precursor to the chains...

    His art was popular enough Marvel did their best to keep him, and gave him his own mag, "Spider-Man", sans prefix. I believe Todd got to write a few of these as well. But he didn't like the fact that his creative whims with Spidey were still kept in check by Marvel, and, iirc, Marvel was having a hard time paying him what he was worth.

    *POOF* Todd goes solo and creates Spawn. What artist doesn't dream of a title where they have complete control, cradle to grave? It was several issues before Todd even let someone else do some artwork in the mag. I remember being surprised the first time I saw two names signed to a cover -- How could Todd let someone else control his "baby"?

    Anyhow, heck, who in any field doesn't dream of being able to have final say-so on what happens at their job? If you want it done right [and have nobody to blame but you], do it yourself.

    I would agree that Spawn's plot was often fairly juvenille (I haven't read in years, I'm afraid), but that's hardly the point. Todd can draw and dream up some pretty cool looking beasts, Spawn and Spidey being his two most popular. And this ability is so strong his success has bled right into other markets.

    McFarlane is the Michael Jordan (or insert ball player of your generation) of comics, and what roundball player doesn't have a few inspirational pics of [a younger] Jordan tacked up on the wall?

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
    1. Re:I think you mean, "Why do artists like Todd?" by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Not quite. Jordan was/is an all around player, and capable of being on a team (at least a team of two, with Pippen being his backup). McFarlane, even by your generous discription, lacks these abilities. His work in ASM was incredible and groundbreaking at the time. His storytelling was... not up to the quality of his artwork.

      He's probably more like Shaq than Jordan.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  27. Dollar Value is the Tell-All of a Char's Pop Value by JohnnySkidmarks · · Score: 1

    Take the First Issue with the Black Costume (secretwars #8) value = $8-10 dollars. Then look at Todds run on the Amazing Issues with Venom's Introduction = $80-$140 Nuff said!

    --

    I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank

  28. Spawn: a good idea, disastrously executed by hyacinthus · · Score: 2

    Somewhere in the conception of Spawn was a good idea--a disbeliever in any conception of God or the hereafter dies violently and, without any real understanding of what he is doing, makes a deal with infernal powers, and returns, not knowing exactly what happened or what he should do next. A good writer could have made a fascinating story from such a character. But it didn't take me more than a few books to realize that McFarlane was not that writer. There is a special frustration one gets from seeing a good idea botched--I remember feeling this frustration with many Batman comics--and I gave up on Spawn before Neil Gaiman ever showed up. I could track the issue down, I suppose, but why?

    As for Spawn's appearance, I thought his initial garb was striking, although I could have done without the chains. It must be said though that Spawn looks vaguely like a lot of comic-book characters--McFarlane didn't really conceive anything new. I take it that Spawn's costumes grew more and more elaborate as the comic progressed, and McFarlane learned that money could be made in toys. He's Barbie for straight males. As for why people like that sort of thing, I ask, why do so many people go in for cartoonish depictions of Hell, with their Etrigan-style monsters, colorful sets and backgrounds, and an overabundance of red and black costumes?

    hyacinthus.

  29. If you want an amusing take on this... by zonker · · Score: 0

    Read this article at my fave comic site...

    Miracleman: Frequently Unanswered Questions

  30. Re:care less (why am I saying this?) by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
    I think that the original phrase was "I couldn't care less" -- but someone was lazy in either their listening or their speaking -- and the mangled english became famous.

    I'm pretty sure that the original version was common until the late 1980s, when, like all irritating things with perfectly reasonable alternatives, the "lazy" version began to take over.

    Or perhaps I was just oblivious until then.

  31. Re: My sig by Abreu · · Score: 2

    Actually I have been receiving many suggestion to extend my sig...

    MPG -> Makini, Papua New Guinea,
    OGG -> Maui HI,
    SQL -> San Carlos CA,

    Basically the ammount of airports in the world is such that you can find -almost- any three letter code in the IATA directory

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  32. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Various documentation updates and bugfixes (the best way to know that a
    stable kernel is approaching is to notice that somebody starts to
    spellcheck the kernel - it has so far never failed)
    -- Linus Torvalds in the annoucement for pre-2.1.99-3

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...