The Lara-Su Chronicles

[Judau Ashta]

Fair enough, not a bad attitude to take.

[BobR]

This is a joke, right?... My friends on DeviantArt wanted me to find out if Ken Penders stole these characters or created them when it comes to the Archie comics over 13 years ago. Also, my friends are accusing this likely "innocent" guy of stealing the characters and doing all sorts of things to them and matching with new styles. Since when was Lara-Su pink?

I'm not sure what you're referring to as a joke, SS. You say "these characters" but do not specify which characters. Perhaps you can be a little more specific, or check out either Bleeding Cool or TSSZNews under "Ken Penders lawsuit." There was no stealing involved...those characters that were the basis of the lawsuit are rightfully owned and copyrighted by Ken. What you're probably dealing with on DeviantArt are people who only know what they've learned from the public myths about copyright and are ignorant of the actual laws.

[Turbotailz]

This is a joke, right?... My friends on DeviantArt wanted me to find out if Ken Penders stole these characters or created them when it comes to the Archie comics over 13 years ago. Also, my friends are accusing this likely "innocent" guy of stealing the characters and doing all sorts of things to them and matching with new styles. Since when was Lara-Su pink?

If your friends knew about the Archie Sonic comics then they should know which writer created certain characters in the series. I'm guessing your friends made a assumption on whatever characters were created in the Archie Sonic comics was righteously theirs. I can say from what I know and I could be wrong on this statement.....In a sense if not copyrighted by the artist / writer then it belongs to Archie / Sega. The character you see in the series that Ken Penders is creating are his characters. He just won the copyrights to them because they was his to begin with from the start and now he can move forward into making his series that he wanted to do.

Off topic:
The only part I am confused about is Fiona Fox. I heard she is a shared copyright character between Ken's and Gallagher's regardless of her being brought back. However it goes down to who created her and from my understanding she was introduce in Mike Gallagher's stories that was the beginning of the Tails mini series. So technically it's his character and then was borrowed by Ken later into the series, but as a flesh and bones. Reminds me of the Scourge / Evil Sonic case, but due to Scourge being a new name and different color. I can see who owns who.

[BobR]

I can say from what I know and I could be wrong on this statement.....In a sense if not copyrighted by the artist / writer then it belongs to Archie / Sega. The character you see in the series that Ken Penders is creating are his characters.

Not quite, TT, but you're close. Copyright ALWAYS vests in the CREATOR of the work. The key becomes the definition of the work's creator. There are three definitions that people have a hard time telling apart. To determine which definition applies takes two tests. The first test is whether the artist is working for himself or working for a company. If the artist is working for a company as an employee (gets a paycheck, has taxes withheld, receives a W2 at the end of the year), then the creator of any work they produce is the company they work for and the company holds the copyright. Now, if the artist is NOT working for a company (in other words, they're self-employed: they receive payments by the piece, responsible for their own taxes, gets a 1099 form at the end of the year), we need to perform the second test. The second test depends on whether there was an agreement in place before any work was performed identifying the work as work-for-hire. The copyright law is quite clear on this point...the agreement has to be in place before any work is performed. If the work is contracted as a work-for-hire, than the entity (person, company, etc.) that requested the work is the copyright holder. If there is no agreement, such as when the artist creates the work on their own accord, then the artist is the creator.

Now that controls who gets the initial copyright. Copyrights can be transferred using an instrument of conveyance, which can be as simple as a signed statement on a napkin showing what work was transferred and the rights being granted (which can be limited to full.) Trust me, many an artist have found to their dismay they just gave away the rights to their story after having lunch with a shady producer.

[Mavrickindigo]

@Judau Ashta:

My point, and I was probably more than a bit obtuse expressing it, is that I know going in everyone will have an opinion, and there's no way I can please everyone, so the first person I have to please is myself, as I have to live with the consequences of every artistic decision. I know based on the reactions I've seen that those that don't like something are the most vocal - goes with the territory - but there are those who also make it known when they do. If I can achieve a balance, that's the best I can hope for.

I can't claim to know how things work from a professional point of view, but from what I understand, when you're dealing with entertainment, the first thing that should be important is figuring out who your audience is and what they want, am I right?

[BobR]

I can't claim to know how things work from a professional point of view, but from what I understand, when you're dealing with entertainment, the first thing that should be important is figuring out who your audience is and what they want, am I right?

Yep. And that perfectly explains Sharknado...

[Tylinos]

And that perfectly explains Sharknado...

It's a shark, and it's a tornado! What more could anyone ask for?

[Turbotailz]

And that perfectly explains Sharknado...

It's a shark, and it's a tornado! What more could anyone ask for?

another horrific bad Sci-fi movie /shudders. Not a fan of Sci-fi movies lol

[Mavrickindigo]

I can't claim to know how things work from a professional point of view, but from what I understand, when you're dealing with entertainment, the first thing that should be important is figuring out who your audience is and what they want, am I right?

Yep. And that perfectly explains Sharknado...

"The Asylum" garners a certain type of morbid curiosity.

Is that what you are saying is Ken's target audience? People who are so morbidly curious they HAVE to buy to see what happens next?

[Tylinos]

To be fair here, guys, Sharknado's one of those movies where the people making it are completely aware of how stupid the idea is. It's a silly idea to have some nonsense fun with. The Asylum seems to know of their reputation and does some purposefully silly stuff sometimes because of it for kicks. (Like their movie where Sherlock Holmes fights Iron Man and dinosaurs.)

[Turbotailz]

I can say from what I know and I could be wrong on this statement.....In a sense if not copyrighted by the artist / writer then it belongs to Archie / Sega. The character you see in the series that Ken Penders is creating are his characters.

Not quite, TT, but you're close. Copyright ALWAYS vests in the CREATOR of the work. The key becomes the definition of the work's creator. There are three definitions that people have a hard time telling apart. To determine which definition applies takes two tests. The first test is whether the artist is working for himself or working for a company. If the artist is working for a company as an employee (gets a paycheck, has taxes withheld, receives a W2 at the end of the year), then the creator of any work they produce is the company they work for and the company holds the copyright. Now, if the artist is NOT working for a company (in other words, they're self-employed: they receive payments by the piece, responsible for their own taxes, gets a 1099 form at the end of the year), we need to perform the second test. The second test depends on whether there was an agreement in place before any work was performed identifying the work as work-for-hire. The copyright law is quite clear on this point...the agreement has to be in place before any work is performed. If the work is contracted as a work-for-hire, than the entity (person, company, etc.) that requested the work is the copyright holder. If there is no agreement, such as when the artist creates the work on their own accord, then the artist is the creator.

Now that controls who gets the initial copyright. Copyrights can be transferred using an instrument of conveyance, which can be as simple as a signed statement on a napkin showing what work was transferred and the rights being granted (which can be limited to full.) Trust me, many an artist have found to their dismay they just gave away the rights to their story after having lunch with a shady producer.

Ahh okay thanks for the info I got a better understanding of it now.

[TakaraL]

The only part I am confused about is Fiona Fox. I heard she is a shared copyright character between Ken's and Gallagher's regardless of her being brought back. However it goes down to who created her and from my understanding she was introduce in Mike Gallagher's stories that was the beginning of the Tails mini series. So technically it's his character and then was borrowed by Ken later into the series, but as a flesh and bones. Reminds me of the Scourge / Evil Sonic case, but due to Scourge being a new name and different color. I can see who owns who.

Fiona is still Fiona though. Just because she was an android thing in her initial appearance doesn't make her any less of the character she is. Ken reintroduced her into the series later but that doesn't make her his character, she's still Fiona Fox. Auto-Fiona was based on Fiona, Auto-Fiona wouldn't of existed if Mike Gallagher hadn't initially came up with an organic Fiona.

[Mavrickindigo]

The only part I am confused about is Fiona Fox. I heard she is a shared copyright character between Ken's and Gallagher's regardless of her being brought back. However it goes down to who created her and from my understanding she was introduce in Mike Gallagher's stories that was the beginning of the Tails mini series. So technically it's his character and then was borrowed by Ken later into the series, but as a flesh and bones. Reminds me of the Scourge / Evil Sonic case, but due to Scourge being a new name and different color. I can see who owns who.

Fiona is still Fiona though. Just because she was an android thing in her initial appearance doesn't make her any less of the character she is. Ken reintroduced into the series later but that doesn't make her his character, she's still Fiona Fox. Auto-Fiona was based on Fiona, Auto-Fiona wouldn't of existed if Mike Gallagher hadn't initially came up with and organic Fiona.

From what I recall, back in those days, you didn't need a real person to make one of those robots. It wasn't until Ken introduced the real Fiona that that concept was introduced.

I mean, Archie can get around this REALLY easily by revealing that "real" Fiona was Auto-Fiona all along.

[Turbotailz]

The only part I am confused about is Fiona Fox. I heard she is a shared copyright character between Ken's and Gallagher's regardless of her being brought back. However it goes down to who created her and from my understanding she was introduce in Mike Gallagher's stories that was the beginning of the Tails mini series. So technically it's his character and then was borrowed by Ken later into the series, but as a flesh and bones. Reminds me of the Scourge / Evil Sonic case, but due to Scourge being a new name and different color. I can see who owns who.

Fiona is still Fiona though. Just because she was an android thing in her initial appearance doesn't make her any less of the character she is. Ken reintroduced into the series later but that doesn't make her his character, she's still Fiona Fox. Auto-Fiona was based on Fiona, Auto-Fiona wouldn't of existed if Mike Gallagher hadn't initially came up with and organic Fiona.

From what I recall, back in those days, you didn't need a real person to make one of those robots. It wasn't until Ken introduced the real Fiona that that concept was introduced.

I mean, Archie can get around this REALLY easily by revealing that "real" Fiona was Auto-Fiona all along.

I don't think they need to because what we probably discussing right now about Fiona already been handled in court. It all goes back to the roots where the character began under that name.

[Darkfox]

Why are we talking about Fiona? She's not a Penders character. The only thing that Penders did is create a backstory for her.

[Mavrickindigo]

Why are we talking about Fiona? She's not a Penders character. The only thing that Penders did is create a backstory for her.

Not true. Gallagher created the concept of robots that looked like Mobians, then he created Fiona Fox, the robot fox Tails fell in love with.

Then Penders came along, said that all those robots were based on living, breathing mobians, and invented a "real" Fiona for the original Fiona to be based on.

[Darkfox]

Not true. Gallagher created the concept of robots that looked like Mobians, then he created Fiona Fox, the robot fox Tails fell in love with.

Then Penders came along, said that all those robots were based on living, breathing mobians, and invented a "real" Fiona for the original Fiona to be based on.

But the "Real" Fiona is based off of a preexisting character so all Penders did was explain that there was a real Fiona who was a template for the robot Fiona.

[Mavrickindigo]

Not true. Gallagher created the concept of robots that looked like Mobians, then he created Fiona Fox, the robot fox Tails fell in love with.

Then Penders came along, said that all those robots were based on living, breathing mobians, and invented a "real" Fiona for the original Fiona to be based on.

But the "Real" Fiona is based off of a preexisting character so all Penders did was explain that there was a real Fiona who was a template for the robot Fiona.

Right, so he owns Fiona as much as he owns Evil Sonic and Robo Robotnik

[Turbotailz]

Not true. Gallagher created the concept of robots that looked like Mobians, then he created Fiona Fox, the robot fox Tails fell in love with.

Then Penders came along, said that all those robots were based on living, breathing mobians, and invented a "real" Fiona for the original Fiona to be based on.

But the "Real" Fiona is based off of a preexisting character so all Penders did was explain that there was a real Fiona who was a template for the robot Fiona.

Right, so he owns Fiona as much as he owns Evil Sonic and Robo Robotnik

If anything from what I am seeing it was both their characters,but more towards Gallagher who came up with the concept regardless of any info that came after that. Then she was reintroduce in the early stories to give her character development. I think it was done by Ken that gave her character development when Nic the weasel came into the picture. That's no different then what Ian was doing with Ken Penders characters.

Fiona is a shared copyright character between Gallagher and Penders, but Gallagher was the one who introduce her regardless if she was robot or not. So that makes him having more rights over her. It's a bit confusing, but I think that's how it goes.

Sorry in advance for derailing the thread a bit because it's not related to TLSC.

[Ken Penders]

Last word about Fiona Fox.

Unlike Evil Sonic and Robo-Robotnik, I never considered her mine. I didn't create the name, nor was I responsible for the visual, neither of which was changed or altered in any manner whatsoever whether she was a robot or the lifeform she was based on. One was an EXACT doppelganger of the other.

Nor is Athair mine. He belongs to Mike Gallagher. If I needed to use the character, I would make arrangements with Mike and they would be so publicly acknowledged. (This would also apply if I had reason to use Fiona, but I've already enough to deal with without adding on that complication.)

So hopefully I've cleared that point up and we're all on the same page.

[Luger]

Sorry to revive this topic, but I just noticed something while looking at Dimitri's Data File from StH #105 (which I presume Ken wrote):
"Upon his re-emergence into the world, he donned the warrior uniform of ancient echidna generals and called himself Enerjak."

Given this entry, it does seem odd that Archimedes would refer to DImitri as the "great evil of legend" if in fact Dimitri had just begun calling himself Enerjak at that moment. Then again, from time to time the Data Files (the ones featured in the actual issues, not the encyclopedia ones) have been known to make mistakes (i.e. Julie-Su's data file refers to Kragok and Lien-Da as her step-siblings, not half-siblings).

While I'm posting in this thread, I'd also like to respond quickly to something Ken said.

4) One of the reasons I didn't get into the full backstory of Enerjak back then because the full story of his reign was a tale left for telling later, as it involved details yet-to-be revealed about why the Echidnas never went to the stars when clearly they had the technological capability to do so

I'm guessing you meant the Echidnaopolis echidnas never went to the stars, since KtE #30 mentioned the echidna astronaut Dave toured the Solar System on his spaceship, the Monolith. I'm curious as to see why it is that the Echidnaopolis echidnas never attempted the same exploration; I assume it would have something to do with the ban on excess technology imposed after Dimitri was defeated.

[Ken Penders]

@Luger:

Given this entry, it does seem odd that Archimedes would refer to DImitri as the "great evil of legend" if in fact Dimitri had just begun calling himself Enerjak at that moment. Then again, from time to time the Data Files (the ones featured in the actual issues, not the encyclopedia ones) have been known to make mistakes (i.e. Julie-Su's data file refers to Kragok and Lien-Da as her step-siblings, not half-siblings).

Yes, I wrote that Data File, and given the deadlines at the time, it's no surprise if I slipped up now and then for the sake of meeting said deadline. However, and this is something that will be covered along the way in THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES, like any developing society, the Echidnas had their warlike period, and the greatest - or most vile, if you prefer - Warlord (another word I should have used in place of General) wore a uniform that was pretty much like Enerjak's with some flourishes that would be more appropriate for a Shogun. Thus, the imagery of the suit is associated with the greatest evil known to their civilization and thus the stuff of legend, in much the same way as Genghis Khan is.

That Dimitri would use imagery akin to someone utilizing swastika armbands and other Nazi paraphernalia would thus evoke a reaction in Archimedes similar to how most people most people in today's world react to reminders of Adolf Hitler and the horrors he unleashed. And that's more or less what I was trying to convey.

I'm guessing you meant the Echidnaopolis echidnas never went to the stars, since KtE #30 mentioned the echidna astronaut Dave toured the Solar System on his spaceship, the Monolith. I'm curious as to see why it is that the Echidnaopolis echidnas never attempted the same exploration; I assume it would have something to do with the ban on excess technology imposed after Dimitri was defeated.

I was trying to come up with a reason why they would go to the stars, as our motivation to do so was because we were fearful of the Soviets gaining control of outer space to our detriment. When I floated that bit in KNUCKLES #30, I was taking baby steps to establish whether or not Knuckles' kind had actually gone to the stars and what the circumstances were. The issue of technology has always been a constant debate between myself and I over just how advanced the Echidnas actually were. Did they have warp drive techology? Or deal with problems involving matter and anti-matter? Were they capable of transporting matter over long distances? Did they even have the internet or something similar? How about the equivalent of cellphones?

I wrestled with these questions when working on the Sonic stories as well, as it never seemed plausible to me that Sonic and Sally couldn't at least text each other while on a mission.

To say they never went to the stars because of the ban on technology seemed too simplistic and required a more detailed explanation. Thus, you have my long-winded way of saying that while working out the story beats for THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES, I discovered I had to fully define the perimeters of Echidna technology throughout the timeline, explain the history, which then allowed me to pull various elements together into a tighter narrative structure.

Part of the reason had nothing to do with the ban on technology, but rather the discovery of the Twilight Zone, which is all that I'll say at this time, as it plays a very critical part throughout the storyline.

[Mavrickindigo]

I know Ian took that typo to mean there were more Enerjaks before Dimitri and that Dimitri was merely the newest re-emergence of the name.

I mean, there's still no way "Enerjak" could have been an "ancient evil of legend" given the timeframe presented in the comic. Was this ancient warlord also named "Enerjak?" Because that's the only way Archemedes would even know the word, considering what you're telling us here.

[Ken Penders]

@Mavrickindigo:

I mean, there's still no way "Enerjak" could have been an "ancient evil of legend" given the timeframe presented in the comic.

Let's see if I got this straight... Archimedes is in the present time talking about an evil legend that began something like 400-plus years in the past before Knuckles was even born, and you don't consider that ancient?!

When I hear twenty-somethings talk about anything pre-mid-1980's, you'd think they were referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls when discussing all we had back in the day was three or four TV channels and only AM radio listen to.

The term ancient is relative, and at the time I wrote those early stories, I had a skeletal framework in place that included a number of characters, including exactly how many generations of Guardians as well as the Dark Legion worked out, the part the Twilight Zone played in establishing why the history of both sides was so different and so on.

What I did not have worked out at the time was all the details spelled out, so as to have room to allow for the changes of plan that always occur when writing an ongoing series. Sometimes a better idea does come along later that is too good to throw out, so you want to leave room to explore those ideas when opportunity presents itself.

Dimitri as Enerjak was a bane to his people more than was shown, but due to the limitations of page count at the time and everything else that needed to be set in motion, only so much could be shown.
In recounting the history, Archimedes told what he knew from his perspective, as Knuckles learned the history of his people from Locke, which was yet another perspective.

Go into any court room where a case is being tried and you can hear multiple versions of the same event depending on the witnesses. It's the same thing here.

Another character can come up to Archimedes and tell him he got most of the story right, and then hear, to quote Paul Harvey, "the rest of the story." And no, that's not a cheat, as I'm always discovering new aspects of historical events I thought I was familiar with, only to find out newly discovered evidence that places those events in a different light. A good case in point is Scott Shaw! relating how this artist who is known for creating the look of the Jetsons was actually the first artist approached by Jerry Siegel to draw Superman. What a different history the character would have had had that actually happened. The main point about this story, however, is that I had always heard Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster had grown up together and had come up with Superman as a team. Scott's new information changes the dynamic of what I've always believed to now Jerry created the basis of the character and recruited Joe as an afterthought to bring the character to visual life. You essentially end up with the same end result - namely Jerry and Joe created Superman - but the journey is now different.

Dimitri still is Enerjak, he was a terror long before Knuckles existed, but we don't have all the details of his reign of terror... yet. So stay tuned.

[Mavrickindigo]

@Mavrickindigo:

I mean, there's still no way "Enerjak" could have been an "ancient evil of legend" given the timeframe presented in the comic.

Let's see if I got this straight... Archimedes is in the present time talking about an evil legend that began something like 400-plus years in the past before Knuckles was even born, and you don't consider that ancient?!

When I hear twenty-somethings talk about anything pre-mid-1980's, you'd think they were referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls when discussing all we had back in the day was three or four TV channels and only AM radio listen to.

Oh and here I thought Archimedes was supposed to be the wise mentor character, who had a mentality beyond that of a twenty year old, because he had already taught another guardian prior to Knuckles.

And no, I don't consider 400 years ancient. When half of the brotherhood is old enough to basically remember hanging out with some of the founding members because of how absurdly long lived they are, something that happened a few generations ago shouldn't be considered ancient. Is Hitler Ancient? Is the Civil War? No, that's all relatively recent history. Rome is ancient, I mean look at the definition

of or in time long past, especially before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476: ancient history.

We're looking at a time period before the current civilization. To Echidnas, Ancient would have been when the island was still a part of Downunda, not during the early years of Echidnopolis.

So I guess we're just going to have to assume that Archimedes, the guy who is supposed to be teaching Knuckles things, has no idea what the word "ancient" means because he has the maturity of a college student, but not the vocabulary, apparently

(no wonder Locke screwed up being a Guardian, if he had such a bad teacher)