Ken and copyright

[Miko]

Discuss the latest development in the Ken Penders Saga (I'll be providing the link or if BobR can edit this before I do it he can I guess, lol).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=133

My thoughts? Well..

In the words of herbal essence:

YES YES YES

Go Peeeeeeeeeenders!

Watching him and Archie is like watching a pokemon battle. "Ken summons, copyright attorney. Attorney uses cease and desist!" I haven't liked how Ian has been handling the DL. The Dark Egg Legion? Oh my God... I'd want to reclaim my rights too just reading that.

[SynjoDeonecros]

There's already a thread about this on the "Ask Ken" board. Just so you know.

[Miko]

D'oh! Can someone just merge my stuff there then? I'm so sorry I had no idea.

I didn't think to check because this was more of a statement and discussion about whether it was good/bad/right/wrong/legal/etc, not a topic concerning as much questions to Ken.

[Mavrickindigo]

I have a feeling SEGA won't be too happy about this. They aren't a mega corporation or anything, but I assume they have a legal team that will blow Penders away.

that or Ken successfully killed the Archie comic. Good job, Mr. Penders, you made a lot of people hate you because you HATE FUN!

[Miko]

I don't think it's fair to say Penders hates fun, simply because he doesn't consider certain fans. If you read his blog he seems to feel he has a comparable fanbase of his work to consider.

[Mavrickindigo]

I don't think it's fair to say Penders hates fun, simply because he doesn't consider certain fans. If you read his blog he seems to feel he has a comparable fanbase of his work to consider.

that's all well and good, I suppose, but these Sonic characters he created have no context or point outside of the world they were created in. Ken has created a significant amount of the world that many fans, such as myself, have come to love over the years. it's not fair that he rips out a large chunk of that world and leave the comic an empty husk. Penders' work in the comic is the majority of the universe, and we're talking the end of the current continuity if he successfully bars the use of his creations. The only way to fix this outside of a complete reboot or cancellation of the series would be a very ham-fisted and stupid retcon event that pretty much would make the series essentially rebooted anyway.

Penders doesn't care about the fans. If he did, he wouldn't kill the comic like he's doing.

thumb my nose at you, Mr. Penders. You may have built the world and characters I've come to love, but you are now working to destroy them.

[Miko]

I don't think it's fair to say Penders hates fun, simply because he doesn't consider certain fans. If you read his blog he seems to feel he has a comparable fanbase of his work to consider.

that's all well and good, I suppose, but these Sonic characters he created have no context or point outside of the world they were created in.

However the Knuckles mythos was built intentionally to be very independent from the Sonic mythos.

Ken has created a significant amount of the world that many fans, such as myself, have come to love over the years. it's not fair that he rips out a large chunk of that world and leave the comic an empty husk.

With the exception of canon fodder DEL, replaceable council members, the only characters that'd left that may raise an eyebrow at this point are Julie-su and Elias.

Penders' work in the comic is the majority of the universe, and we're talking the end of the current continuity if he successfully bars the use of his creations.

Actually we're talking not refferencing too many issues in the past. and not repeatedly delving into the backstory that made things what they are. At "worst" (if its even really bad) the comics would require an episodic format that doesn't require heavy continuity and knowing about things long since out of print to be especially into the series.

Penders doesn't care about the fans. If he did, he wouldn't kill the comic like he's doing.

Penders at worst may not care about Archie's present fanbase. But in his mind, he has a comparable fanbase to consider it'd seem.

[Mavrickindigo]

Penders at worst may not care about Archie's present fanbase. But in his mind, he has a comparable fanbase to consider it'd seem.

Yeah except there are many more sonic fans then their are Penders fans. I did not subscribe to "KEN PENDERS WRITES A BUNCH OF OLD MEN DOING THINGS!" the comic, my whole life. I subscribed to "Sonic the Hedgehog." And what he's doing is killing "Sonic the Hedgehog." He may have built a lot of the world I have grown to love, but to rip it all out of the rug so he can continue his little fairy tale is complete and utter bull crap.

He's not thinking of his fans, he's whining because he lost the characters he put into a licensed comic book because he couldn't get the story concepts off the ground any other way.

this post may be blocked and I may be banned for saying this. Take a picture, it will last longer. I know I will.

[Miko]

Penders at worst may not care about Archie's present fanbase. But in his mind, he has a comparable fanbase to consider it'd seem.

Yeah except there are many more sonic fans then their are Penders fans. I did not subscribe to "KEN PENDERS WRITES A BUNCH OF OLD MEN DOING THINGS!" the comic, my whole life. I subscribed to "Sonic the Hedgehog."

Maybe you did, but most of the fanbase Ken is catoring to right now became fans of a world independent of Sonic, and towards a character who had virtually no backstory (Knuckles).

He may have built a lot of the world I have grown to love, but to rip it all out of the rug so he can continue his little fairy tale is complete and utter bull crap.

So he should let Archie butcher his characters and upset his fans, who he feels comparable to the comic's present fandom so that they can continut their "little fairytale?" There's more than one way to look at this.

[Antarctic Deity]

Yes. He should. This is what you do when you contribute to a serialized license comic book. After you leave, you let other people work with the ideas and concepts. By no longer working on the book, you also abandon authority on the material within and trust the next generation, FOR BETTER OR WORSE.

[Maren]

Yes. He should. This is what you do when you contribute to a serialized license comic book. After you leave, you let other people work with the ideas and concepts. By no longer working on the book, you also abandon authority on the material within and trust the next generation, FOR BETTER OR WORSE.

Woah, easy there. Miko's only trying to give a potential inside glance at Ken's side and that of his supporters. Though for all the unprofessionalism that goes on in this book, its kinda like the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to Ian's fans vs. Ken's. Ian's supporters can rag on Ken's case, and talk about how what he's doing is wrong and about how he's a bad person, but when Ian does similar things like this in the book that his fans accuse Ken of, and it inconveniences others to the point where a sizeable portion of the fanbase leaves, its all "eh, who cares?" from whomever's left reading this. Ian's fans have condoned his unprofessional activities for years now (which I won't get into here, read Ken's topic) and while I'm not going into whether or not I agree with Penders decision, I can say it nonetheless feels very hypocritical for people to lash out and judge Ken for attempting to "mess with continuity and the characters" when Ian's been doing the same thing.

[Antarctic Deity]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please. You don't have to like it, but you do need to acknowledge that they are completely capable of doing this. It's in fact, it's what I just said a past writer HAS TO PUT UP WITH when they leave a book. It is in OTHER PEOPLES' hands now, and whether they do a good or bad job with it, that does not change the fact that it is NOT HIS TO CONTROL anymore.

[Miko]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please.

Legally, yes, ethically? No. And for the exact same reasons you've been complaining now. Even if Ken goes through with it and has the legal momentum to do so you wouldn't be ok with it. However, when Archie allows the characters to be OOC, or allows the logic of the storyline to contort on itself, that rips the foundations of the story for many of us fans too. I'm tired of people swarming in here complaining about how Ken's a bad person because he'd be "ripping apart" the foundations of the comic they loved but had "eh" if anything to say when Archie was already doing that, when butchering continuity and characterization, or when other fans complained about not feeling considered as this was happening. This post isn't meant to bash anybody on staff in particular. It's asking fans to be consistent. Some of the fans coming here and berating on Ken are just pots calling the kettles black.

[Maren]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please. You don't have to like it, but you do need to acknowledge that they are completely capable of doing this.

Not saying that I don't acknowledge Archie's capabilities. What I am saying though, is that its mighty hypocritical of some people to get only on Ken's case because he isn't being "mindful of their feelings", but on the same coin won't give a crap if Archie continues to discard continuity or the sizeable amount of fans who've voiced disagreements with ideas and have left the book because of it, simply because they like it.

[Antarctic Deity]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please.

Legally, yes, ethically? No.

Ethically? YES. It is part of the reason comic books like this are serialized and passed on to different writers instead of just being another character owned piece. No matter how you feel about how well the later writers do their jobs on a book, it is completely within their right to mess with the characters and continuity as they please. No, wait, it's not a right, it's a REQUIREMENT. The world and canon is set up to be expanded upon and revisited, not thrown aside and ignored just because some other writer worked on it before. This is not Joe the Barbarian, or Sandman. You do not claim that Denny O'Neil should take back everything he wrote for Batman because you don't like how Ra's al Ghul is portrayed in the latest issue.

[Miko]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please.

Legally, yes, ethically? No.

Ethically? YES. It is part of the reason comic books like this are serialized and passed on to different writers instead of just being another character owned piece. No matter how you feel about how well the later writers do their jobs on a book, it is completely within their right to mess with the characters and continuity as they please. No, wait, it's not a right, it's a REQUIREMENT.

Ethically no. It is not required of them to do absolutely whatever they please. Yes, they need to build off the old stuff and characters within their own material. That doesn't mean they should butcher/ignore prior continuity and characterization in the process simply because they have the authority to do so. You're mad at Ken in part because you feel he will destroy continuity if he succeeds. However, you've no problems with the present staff doing this already. You're not being fair to Ken. Again, pot calling the kettle black.

[Antarctic Deity]

Butcher/ignore is only a statement of the quality of what they're doing, not a statement on what they're doing. I'm mad because he's trying to control something that is not his to control, and profit off of something that is not his to profit off of. Were he still the writer, even if I were to dislike his changes or writing, I would not claim that Michael Gallagher needs to take back the book and force it to a halt so he could have a piece of the money pie and protect the book he created.

Ethically yes. There is NO ethical problem with handling the continuity however they please. It's common courtesy to give the past some respect, which it does (watch this statement get pulled into a page-long diatribe about how much Ian hates and lies) but there is no ethical obligation for them to pander to every single issue, character and event that happened in the past. You're comparing this petty selfish attack on the book to a RETCON. NEVER SAW THOSE BEFORE IN COMIC BOOKS, HOW HORRIBLE.

[Miko]

Butcher/ignore is only a statement of the quality of what they're doing, not a statement on what they're doing

Ignore is a statement on what they're doing. Like you allege Ken would be doing by removing elements of the continuity to suit his own purposes, the comic has been essentially doing the same thing by ignoring whatever characterization and continuity that stands as an obstacle to the "grand vision". If ethically making plotholes and OOCness in characters was generally considered a good thing, it wouldn't be frowned upon in most fandoms.

You're comparing this petty selfish attack on the book to a RETCON. NEVER SAW THOSE BEFORE IN COMIC BOOKS, HOW HORRIBLE.

Retcon=/= plothole. Knuckles learning he had secret society of ancestors and a hidden zone of echidnopolis, retcons the idea he was the last echidna while explaining those concepts in the relationship to the prior continuity. A plothole is when you just rip apart the continuity and don't explain how in the hell that was at all plausible. Same applies with OOCness.

[Antarctic Deity]

Only that's something YOU CAN DO IF YOU'RE A STAFF WRITER. I am not angry at Penders for ignoring the run before his, I'm angry for him forcing control on the book years after he's left. "Making plotholes and OoCs" isn't something any person looks forward to (because his run is so universally reviled, hyuck hyuck) but it's something the staff CAN DO. That happens because they're not doing their job well, but they're not doing anything they're ethically or legally obligated not to. NOT REMOTELY THE SAME.

If you really think this action is the same as a writer ignoring or retconning things from past runs (something VERY common in comics,) I do not know how to possibly argue against it. Because I cannot comprehend what sane logic would come to that conclusion.

[Miko]

Only that's something YOU CAN DO IF YOU'RE A STAFF WRITER.

Yes, you can do that if you're part of staff but it doesn't make it ethical. Legality =/= ethics.

I am not angry at Penders for ignoring the run before his, I'm angry for him forcing control on the book years after he's left.

You've been complaining about all the changes Archie would have to do in light of Ken actually winning and how that would remove the history from the book. You ARE in part mad at Penders forcing his hand because the effects will mean the book is deprived of previous history and characters. Meanwhile the book's already been having it's history removed and overlooked by the folks at Archie or destroying characterization that defined the characters before all this even happened. In principle, they've been doing the same thing you allege and will affect the book similarly. No time to choke now.

Retconning =/= plotholes or OOCness. Read my edited post above.

[BobR]

Only that's something YOU CAN DO IF YOU'RE A STAFF WRITER.

There are no staff writers on the Sonic comic at Archie today. As far as I know, there has only been
one creative on staff that ever worked on the book, and he was an artist, not a writer. Every
other creative on that book has been freelance.

[Antarctic Deity]

Fine, if you're a current writer or editor. My point still stands.

Miko, I don't think any amount of explaining will get what I'm saying through to you, so I'm just dropping it at this: retconning is what makes plot holes and OoC. The official writers and staff get to do that, ethically as well as legally. It's one of the basic parts of writing a comic book that isn't creator owned.

[Miko]

retconning is what makes plot holes

Even if you're going to argue that, you'd have us to believe that simply because retconning that expands on narrative is accepted within serial franchises, that "retcons" which destroy continuity and characterization for no given reason in continuity are equally accepted. They are not. One destroys the logic of the world, continuity, and characterization. The other changes how we've previously viewed the world, but writes the changes in a way that has a relationship to what we previously understood. Knuckles learning about secret societies, a hidden city and more are examples of changing what the character and viewer thought to be true, but in a way that works with what we previously understood. Knux is no longer the last echidna but the story explains WHY he thought he was the last echidna all this time while all these other echidnas existed. They didn't just pop up for no given explanation and start roaming around the island as if they'd always been among Knuckles.

[Mavrickindigo]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please.

Legally, yes, ethically? No. And for the exact same reasons you've been complaining now. Even if Ken goes through with it and has the legal momentum to do so you wouldn't be ok with it. However, when Archie allows the characters to be OOC, or allows the logic of the storyline to contort on itself, that rips the foundations of the story for many of us fans too. I'm tired of people swarming in here complaining about how Ken's a bad person because he'd be "ripping apart" the foundations of the comic they loved but had "eh" if anything to say when Archie was already doing that, when butchering continuity and characterization, or when other fans complained about not feeling considered as this was happening. This post isn't meant to bash anybody on staff in particular. It's asking fans to be consistent. Some of the fans coming here and berating on Ken are just pots calling the kettles black.

Why are you so adamant about this when it happens to KEN PENDERS, but can't seem to care when it happens every day when every other comic book in existence switches writers?

This isn't something new people, comics switch writers all the time. New writers bring new interpretations of the characters, some good and some bad. If the next writer likes what happened, they'll keep it, if they don't, they'll change it.

DEAL WITH IT

[Miko]

It is the right of the current staff to "mess with" continuity and characters as they please.

Legally, yes, ethically? No. And for the exact same reasons you've been complaining now. Even if Ken goes through with it and has the legal momentum to do so you wouldn't be ok with it. However, when Archie allows the characters to be OOC, or allows the logic of the storyline to contort on itself, that rips the foundations of the story for many of us fans too. I'm tired of people swarming in here complaining about how Ken's a bad person because he'd be "ripping apart" the foundations of the comic they loved but had "eh" if anything to say when Archie was already doing that, when butchering continuity and characterization, or when other fans complained about not feeling considered as this was happening. This post isn't meant to bash anybody on staff in particular. It's asking fans to be consistent. Some of the fans coming here and berating on Ken are just pots calling the kettles black.

Why are you so adamant about this when it happens to KEN PENDERS, but can't seem to care when it happens every day when every other comic book in existence switches writers?

I'm not responding to Artic because it was KEN PENDERS who got switched, or for the simple principle that a writer switched. A writer switching doesn't demand OOCness and plotholes to automatically come and if they do, it's not looked at as ethically good among most readerships, regardless of franchise.

This isn't something new people, comics switch writers all the time. New writers bring new interpretations of the characters, some good and some bad. If the next writer likes what happened, they'll keep it, if they don't, they'll change it.

Again please read what I said. I have no problem with retcons that change things while explaining those changes to give the new status quo a relationship to the continuity everyone had been reading up untl that point. Some things go far beyond "interpretation" and is just plain warping what was very clear about the characters for the sake of persuing wish fulfillment. How the hell did Sally magically get over her trauma. It was triggered when Sonic got hurt because it reawakened fears within Sally that she could lose him again. But Sally's back on Sonic like white on rice, while never having actually addressed the very fears that trigger her trauma and broke her up with Sonic in the first place. Hell, she didn't even think of these things when dating Khan, and he's far more susceptible to dying by his nemesis than Sonic is with Eggman.

Or how about Fiona? There are holes even within what recent staff have allowed to be written about her. Oh really so Fiona Fox loves Scourge and hates Sonic? She still hasn't forgiven Sonic and has an abandonment complex ? Oh gee for someone with an abandonment complex she certainly has no problem trusting and falling in love with Scourge who holds no virtues, handles women like hot potatoes, treats his team like crap. Real trustworthy huh Fiona, and you're supposed to be very sensitive to these things. Archie would now have us believe she wants a "bad boy" like Scourge but why would she want Sonic to be that way? Why would she go out with Sonic to see if he's a selfish jerk, when she still hasn't forgiven him for being a selfish jerk?

Ok so, she's mad at him for being a selfish jerk and abandoning her, but she hates him for being a "virtuous hero." Now something doesn't sound right. If you still think he's was the kind of guy who'd deliberately leave you behind and you can't let go of that view of him why's that sound to you like he's "bent up on the virtous hero thing?" Wouldn't you still love him for being a selfish prick? Why finally leave for Scourge when Sonic Prime is, as you'd hoped, the jerk you always wanted Fi? I mean yeah the other writers showed Fiona chastizing Sonic when she thought he was selfish, further making this interpretation seem ridiculous but even with the recent interpretation there's no consistency in it. And that's because they didn't care at all about consistency. More like "Team" shipper Twilight crap. The VERY next issue Sonic and Sally are back to bantering and their parents lamenting the fact they were almost married as if that "thing" called Fiona never happened. Yay!

P.S: I'm not saying Ken is right whenever he should do a plothole, but the fact is this book has been running rampant with them for some time now, and it's only NOW that people want to complain about the book being "destroyed" because continuity would hypothetically have to be overlooked should Ken win.