Ken Penders wrote:You're going to have to accept that I answer what I can when I can, and can't necessarily go into all the details on any particular topic.
Ken Penders wrote:Second, when I do answer, it's from a position of knowledge of facts that haven't yet made it out to the public domain, which you can blame on sloppy, inaccurate, and lazy reporting as well as other reasons. What you read in today's article doesn't even begin to cover all the facts of the case, just what someone wants to get out to the public. There's more there than you know.
Ken Penders wrote:Which goes to the same response that people initially greeted Archie's claims against me when they released the documents for public scrutiny. Go check the lawsuit they filed and they admit those documents are nothing more than copies, yet that fact alone doesn't get anywhere near the amount of discussion that it should in comparison to how much validity people assign those documents when they first read about them. Tell those same people the documents are copies and their next question then becomes "Where are the originals?"
Ken Penders wrote:Considering we now are watching the spectacle of the owners of the company suing each other, with each side challenging the credibility of the other, how much of a stretch is it for people to see my fight have more credibility once all the facts are known?
Ken Penders wrote:@Mavrickindigo:If, for some reason, you do lose, will you provide this content in some free manner, or drop it and work on other projects?
The very fact that I'm working on THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES means I anticipate being successful in my endeavors. I don't do things halfway, as people who have watched me work on other projects such as THE REPUBLIC and THE LOST ONES are well aware.
To answer your question in a manner you would find satisfactory would be counterproductive on so many levels and interpreted by many as an acknowledgement that my case isn't as solid as I claim it is. If you were in my shoes, with the United States Government recognizing you officially own your work, and had taken the measures I had to establish the work belonged to you, you would also not be answering any other way.
It still makes you look arrogant, I'm just sayin'. Looking out for your public image here, man
Yeah, no offense to you, Ken, but I think you burned your bridge with Archie with this lawsuit pretty good, and I doubt they'll want you back even if they survive the fallout with the Co-CEO lawsuit.
Ken Penders wrote:I always took it as highly unlikely they'd ever want me back ever, but you never know how things go when it comes to business. If there's money to be made, people generally can work out a deal. Most people commenting about the likelihood of anything working out between Archie, Sega and I are basing their assumptions more from a personal perspective, not a business one. I take the position I believe something can be worked out because I'm a reasonable man. That doesn't mean I believe things can or will work out in the end because it takes all parties involved to make it happen. Hence, my going forward with THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES.
Tylinos wrote:Hang on, what? You tell me to go back and read the documents to see that the injunction was unsuccessful, I go back and read them and see they were successful, and you say...what? That the documents you told me to read aren't telling the truth because you personally believe the judge's decision is somehow invalid? Please tell me that isn't what you're saying here.
BobR wrote:Okay, I see what's going on here. Tylinos, you and Ken are looking at two different lawsuits.
BobR wrote:Unfortunately, it appears Archie's good old boys have found ways to punch Silberkleit's buttons, and it appears she's destroying her own credibility by her actions provoked by others. (Let's just say Ken has seen similar attempts at such tactics in the lawsuit against him...fortunately, he's more level-headed with a thicker skin.)
BobR wrote:But, the comic book fairs mentioned in that article became a major source of contention between Silberkleit and Goldwater. Goldwater was complaining that Silberkleit had cost the company over $100,000 with her fairs, while generating only about $10,000 in income (I'm sure he'd be singing her praises of those numbers were reversed.)
BobR wrote:He also claimed she made a deal with a play producer (another of her designated overseen areas), that basically gave away development rights of several Archie characters to the producer. He did not like that at all (and frankly, on that point, I can't blame him. But it was a novice mistake in negotiations of these types, her first.)
BobR wrote:It was then the fight started in earnest, with Goldwater demanding a role in the approval of any of her projects without subjecting any of his projects for her approval. In other words, he wants to take over control of the entire company with complete oversight and control on Silberkelit.
BobR wrote:Silberkleit said about Goldwater, “He has called me ‘stupid,’ a ‘moron,’ and ‘despicable, In the presence of others he has told me to ‘shut up’ and ‘why can’t you be sweet, nice and quiet like a lady?’ ” And having heard several other stories about Jon Goldwater from numerous sources, I believe every word of that statement. Remember, Silberkleit is a third grade teacher. She's anything but stupid or a moron, having received a teaching certificate. Goldwater comes across as a good ol' boy from way back who thinks women should stay home and make babies, or be a secretary at most. A woman in the boardroom?! Unthinkable!! Having heard all this about Goldwater, I can definitely see the source of SIlberkleit's "Penis!" shout. She was being polite, though, calling him a penis. I would've just called him a dick.
Ken Penders wrote:@Mavrickindigo:It still makes you look arrogant, I'm just sayin'. Looking out for your public image here, man
Anyone who really knows me, knows "arrogant" is not a word used to describe me. If people interpret my direct answers as coming off as such, there's nothing I can do about that. Someone asks a question, then I try to respond as best as I can. Sometimes I'd like to respond, but I can't always given the current situation, and hope people understand.
It doesn't matter if your close friends know that you're a saint, if the majority of potential buyers know you as an arrogant egoist, they won't buy your stuff.
Tylinos wrote:BobR wrote:Okay, I see what's going on here. Tylinos, you and Ken are looking at two different lawsuits.
Err, are you sure? I thought Ken already cleared it up after that post that we were talking about the same lawsuit, but just that I was talking about that it passed and he meant that it passed without its original intent.
Tylinos wrote:BobR wrote:Unfortunately, it appears Archie's good old boys have found ways to punch Silberkleit's buttons, and it appears she's destroying her own credibility by her actions provoked by others. (Let's just say Ken has seen similar attempts at such tactics in the lawsuit against him...fortunately, he's more level-headed with a thicker skin.)
Bob, I can see you're just trying to stick up for your friend here, but come on. If you're still trying to claim that Ken is losing credibility because of Archie/Sega/whoever, just think about it for a second. People already siding with Ken don't need more convincing, and people not siding with Ken have their own reasons for being against him, most of which being negative reactions to seeing Ken's words firsthand or seeing his new art and such and reacting quite poorly to it. They aren't going to have their minds changed by seeing you guys claim the same old claims of our opinions being manipulated, because there isn't even a middle ground for most of them to be manipulated by.
Or if you were talking about something completely different, then I apologize and you can ignore that.
Tylinos wrote:BobR wrote:But, the comic book fairs mentioned in that article became a major source of contention between Silberkleit and Goldwater. Goldwater was complaining that Silberkleit had cost the company over $100,000 with her fairs, while generating only about $10,000 in income (I'm sure he'd be singing her praises of those numbers were reversed.)
Well, yeah. He wouldn't have any real need to complain if the fairs were actually making them money. Complaining then would just make him look stupid even if he wanted to complain.
Tylinos wrote:But it's just that at the same time I believe he really does want to look out for the best interests of keeping the company alive as well. Just with him in full control. (Not that I'm saying he should have complete control of it, though.)
Tylinos wrote:Basically, they both called each other names. I doubt either of them are outright lying on any of the things they've claimed about each other, but that both are at times using hyperbole. (To be fair, Goldwater isn't exactly the first person to call someone an idiot when they aren't, as a way of showing annoyance at them for something they did, and not everyone who does so does it to be offensive in the way Silberkleit suggests.) But to be clear on the "PENIS" thing, didn't the reports on the matter say she interrupted the meeting and yelled that at each of the men in the room, not just Goldwater? Goldwater saying sexist comments to her may be inexcusable, but it doesn't really mean she should do similiar to him and others in return.
Ken Penders wrote:@Mavrickindigo:It doesn't matter if your close friends know that you're a saint, if the majority of potential buyers know you as an arrogant egoist, they won't buy your stuff.
That's not true at all. People buy lots of products - books, films, comics, etc. - produced by arrogant jerks with no regard for the person who created the work simply because they're interested in the product itself. Does the fact that William Shatner has been called an arrogant egotist by every one of his co-stars prevent me from enjoying STAR TREK? Not at all, because what the man does as William Shatner offscreen is of no concern of mine. That's just one example. I could go into a lot more.
It's been my experience that it's only the vocal minority - whether for or against - that express their opinions online, so while their feedback good or bad can be helpful, it's never been the basis for either going forward or the alternative with any project I've engaged in.
The very purpose of this board was to give people a venue to express themselves positive or negative about my work. I never expected people to simply say great things about it. If anything, I was and am more interested in the comments that enable me to improve on what I do.
I know what the intent of my comments are, and I don't respond in a manner that insults or belittles the other person. I simply try to give honest, direct answers to the extent I can. I can't be held responsible for how others interpret them, as misunderstandings on these forums can occur at the drop of a hat.
BobR wrote:Heh, I'll ignore that. I'm not talking about public manipulation. I'm talking about pressure brought to bear against Ken personally through various statements and threats of actions. None of those were acted upon, btw (or haven't been yet), so the only intent I could see about bringing them up was to goad Ken into taking some stupid action. Which, apparently, Silberkleit has done, unfortunately.
BobR wrote:But that's the point. Instead of taking Silberkleit by the hand and guiding the neophyte through the intricate realms of businesses, he basically throws her to the wolves and then bitches when she stumbles. He displays no leadership ability at all. Like the play negotiations, he just dumps the whole process, berates Silberkleit, and demands that he be included in all future negotiations. A true leader would've taken her in, explained the problem, offer to work with her to iron them out, let HER take the initiative to correct the situation, and offer advice for future negotiations.
BobR wrote:Agreed. it definitely sounds childish on both their parts. But I think it stems from plain arrogant and manipulative maneuvers on the part of the male Archie executives and frustration by Silberkleit.
the only two outcomes from this would be "Ken loses" or "Trial happens anyway".
Ken Penders wrote:There are innumerable details that have yet to surface to the public, and when they do, I think many people will be surprised and amazed. At the very least, if they knew what I and my attorneys do, they would agree I had no choice but to engage in the course of action I have. Even the people that disagree with me would probably change their minds if they were in my shoes.
and the official record says you are losing this case.
companies as big as Archie HAVE suppressed public knowledge about the evidence in a legal case in the past.
You get your characters back, but you'll never be able to use them because, after this incident, I can't imagine Archie or Sega would ever want to have anything to do with you or your projects, and you won't be given permission to use their world for your projects.
I get it, you want recognition for your work, but honestly, you're fighting a losing battle, here, and your attitude toward it and the fans for criticizing you over it is rubbing people the wrong way and not making you any friends.
SynjoDeonecros wrote:You'll have to change everything around, and then Sega and Archie could turn around and sue YOU for using concepts too similar to the Master Emerald et all, and you're right back in court.
Ken Penders wrote:The problem I have with statements like this is that anyone posting statements like this seems to believe they represent the majority of the fans who would be interested in what I'm doing if it weren't for the fact I'm claiming ownership of my characters, which for some reason they seem to know actually belong to Archie and Sega yet they have no proof of anything that legally entitles Archie and Sega to my characters, concepts and stories.
Ken Penders wrote:If I do end up losing in the long run, and from my perspective that's a pretty big IF, I'd rather go down swinging than walk away with regrets.
Ken Penders wrote:Really? Where does it say that? Last time I checked, I still own the Copyrights to all of my works published in the various SONIC titles. That is a fact and a check with the US Copyright Office website will verify this. There has been no legal decision made in Archie's favor that I'm aware of.
Yeah, well, that's if there's a settlement between the parties in which a gag order is agreed to. Absent that, once this case goes to trial, should it go to trial, everything becomes public knowledge. No one on either side can suppress anything at that point.
THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES doesn't require either Archie's or Sega's participation or permission to go forward. The next character will be revealed later this week, and it won't be long before I start releasing previews of the actual story.
The problem I have with statements like this is that anyone posting statements like this seems to believe they represent the majority of the fans who would be interested in what I'm doing if it weren't for the fact I'm claiming ownership of my characters, which for some reason they seem to know actually belong to Archie and Sega yet they have no proof of anything that legally entitles Archie and Sega to my characters, concepts and stories.
If I do end up losing in the long run, and from my perspective that's a pretty big IF, I'd rather go down swinging than walk away with regrets. However, this isn't a television episode, and there's a long way to go before any of this is resolved.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests