Because by saying "edited by Jack Herman! art by Jeff Dee!" in the way it was announced implies their endorsement (and I don't care about excuses here, it was worded in such as way as to use their names to promote the product), and they want it clearly known that they do NOT approve of this product.

Hopefully this explanation will prove helpful. More than likely it will just produce more snarky insults.

Allen

AlabasterKnight wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

Afraid there won't be too many more GenCon pics, I was too busy doing stuff to take pictures most of the time lol.

Quote:


I can understand the excitement from the authors, no one submits something they have written hoping it never sees print. The only issue I have is that FGU is presenting this as new material instead of stuff that has been sitting around for decades. That and Jeff and Jack's names are purposely being used to promote this in an effort that is somewhere between snake oil and used car sales techniques. It just comes off as sleazy tactics by FGU to me. I don't want to stir up the debate yet again, I am sure that it will be a fine example of the kind of stuff FGU was publishing back in the 80's. I own quite a bit of that stuff and will probably pick up more if it ever finds it's way to my FLGS's used book shelves.

Marvella wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 12:35am:


What if Byrne had lost ownership of the art and a person he was in the middle of a legal proceeding with, printed it against Byrne's wishes, and promoted it with Byrne's name? Would you still buy it? 

As a fan, you love that great early Byrne stuff.. gotta have it. But as a fan do you feel any loyalty to the creator or his wishes?
("You" meaning the generic term, not specifically you, Marvella. btw, welcome to the boards.)

The whole Kirby/Marvel issue was a painful example of publisher rights vs. creator rights.

The guys who created Superman never saw any of the money that's  sustained a comic publishing empire for decades.

Of course it was all done legally. The question is: was it right? 

If Marvel paid Byrne for art, and then I'd have no problem buying a comic that used that art even if it was 30 years later. And they sure as heck would have the right to credit him for the art. In fact, it would seem absolutely right to finally publish the art that was commissioned.

Just because I'm a fan of John Byrne's early art doesn't mean that I support everything he says today--or automatically take his word at face value.

DF, it's pretty clear you're not a lawyer, so I'm not going to speculate about it. If someone has a problem with the legal issues, their lawyers can figure it out. And enough forum writers here and elsewhere have uncovered that the exclusive trademark claims that Herman has made are far from finalized.

If a museum bought a Picasso and years later he said he didn't want them to display the art because he didn't like the museum anymore--and made legal claims that he couldn't legally support--I'd go to the museum and see his art. And buy the postcard of it as well. Because I love his art that much.

To be fair, it's quite possible that Herman honestly forgot that he edited the text. It has been a loooooooong time. He's really not the selling point to me. It's all about the lovely art of Jeff Dee! 

AlabasterKnight wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 11:31am:


Except that this is like your parents analogy, where I am more than happy to stand behind the supportive parent (MHG) who have still kept in contact and supported the kids (fan base) for years, even putting our new, good material as opposed to the absentee parent (FGU) who only show up now to try to weasel some more money.

If MHG does own the rights to the V&V name and the publishing rights to the V&V rules and universe, then FGU should stop putting out material.

I don;t know the whole story (and only Jack and Jeff and their lawyer do), but from what I've read here and in other locations (and of cousre I understand that the MHG forums will have their own bias, but that's not the only place I've followed) it appears that FGU has been sneaky about this whole thing.

No support for new V&V for decades and then suddenly, a bunch of new material just before MHG gets the rights back, and now they look like they are trying to get out as much material as possible before they get everything taken away.

It just looks like a slimy sales move to try to undermine the good V&V name and reputation.  It may not be what FGU is trying to do, but it IS how their shenanigans appear.

But, we will have to see how this whole thing ends up legally of course.

Gigglestick...
What 'shenanigans'?
What's 'sneaky'?

For the record, MHG is only claiming the rights, they have not secured them in any court anywhere, yet everyone keeps drinking the Kool-Aid and believing they were somehow wronged and now they have already reached some settlement that allowed them to break their contracts...

And who created the good name of V&V? Was it Jeff and Jack on their own? No sir, it was a great many contributors for a long time and the fans who love it. They aren't even a creative majority in the responsibility of the game you enjoyed.

Like she said, she thought Jack was dead and we all know Jeff's track record of ego, argumentativeness and angry tonguelashings... that guy releases a competitive product called Living Legends... that's not undermining at all? and how many years before that did he have to actively promote V&V but not do it...? But it was too painful?

Please.

One guy too bitter, one guy dead; perception is reality.

Sorry, in my opinion they are every bit as culpable for the disappearance of V&V as anyone else, if not more so for their 'creator-owned' property, let alone a publisher who had no responsibility whatsoever to take his own personal fortune and prop up a game that lost its steam in the 10 years after its release. Blame is ugly, but equally distributed on this one.

And remember, they cashed all their checks...

interesting...how do you know its a she?

Since when is an author who writes a work that is then published by a publishing company responsible for promoting their work? That is the job of the PUBLISHER! I'm sure Green Ronin is happy to have Steve Kenson help in promoting Mutants and Masterminds but it is the COMPANY's job to keep the game line going.

Let's see...five to seven years is the usual amount of time between editions of a game, which is the best way to reinvigorate flagging sales. That would have been 1987. What happened in 1987? Oh yeah...FGU STOPPED MAKING NEW V&V STUFF. From my understanding that is the core of the issue between the creators and FGU. The so-called "Crisis of Treachery" (to borrow a phrase from another similar event...and to Scott Bizar's credit he didn't go to his fans for a bailout...) happened in the early 90's, right? so what happened between 1987 and then?

Expecting Jeff and Jack to be the ones to promote a game that they were not benefitting from because the publisher was neglecting it is not right. And you are being disingenuous at best about this.

FGU could actually benefit from this. They could cut a deal whereby they avoid legal expenses by letting MHG have the game. They could then do just what they are doing now - releasing their old inventory of unpublished stuff, along with new stuff under the very generous FREE V&V Compatible license that MHG is offering. They would not have to spend a dime on promotion of the game AND they would receive the benefit of getting rid of all that old backstock as well. It really could be a win-win.

They have a "contract". By allowing the property to languish as they have, FGU has not held up their end of the deal, as all of us long-suffering V&V fans well know. Sure, they cashed their checks...you would, too. But how much bigger could those checks have been if FGU had actually done what they should have done? And if the game was selling that badly why set such outrageously high prices to sell the rights?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy a lot of what the FGU side is saying.

Allen

Well, a feminine name and avatar? I'm old school, I hope it's a she...
So Allen,
why are they so able to promote it by themselves now? Have you ever seen a publishing contract? The languishing you speak of wasn't part of the contract.

By the way, MHG has no legal basis to give or take away rights to or from anyone at this point; no judge has given them that power.

If you guys don't believe what I've been saying in forums:
Ask his lawyer. He won't deny these are facts.
He will also tell you that he disagrees about certain things he believes regardless whether (and he will also tell you) he doesn't have all the facts.
That's his job.

The ugly truth is so simple.
Jeff is bitter, and I can sympathize, but that doesn't make him right. Embracing his bitterness and pointing fingers absent the facts are just feeding that stray.

Marvella wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:



OK. I just fell off my chair reading that one.

I have an "Oni"........ and that will not be a topic of debate!!!

Doctor Foom wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 8:45pm:



Oh great,  I came by myself, so no innie for me.  Again...

Marvella wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:22am:


Hi. 
I didn't claim to be a lawyer. I don't think I was even debating the legalities. My point was about what's right, not what's legal. And whether the fan of an artist should feel any loyalty at all to that artist.

Marvella, you've made it clear that your love for an artist's work translates in no way to loyalty of any kind to the creator of the art you love so much.

Anyone else?
Thanks. 

Doctor Foom wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:


Jeff Dee was associated only with Living Legends until a few months ago. So I guess anyone who kept playing V&V during the last few years instead of switching to Living Legends was disloyal to Jeff Dee.

And I can see from your blog Doctor Foom that you've had a longrunning V and V campaign. Talk about loyalty. You didn't even care enough about Jeff Dee to play Living Legends.

I hope you at least bought the game, to support Jeff. That would be the least you could do.

I did.

Speaking of new releases, is Blood Ties getting converted into 2.1?

Duroon wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 11:40pm:

It's a good module. I'd highly recommend it.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:


AK, I enjoy our occasional discussions about the history of the game, but I would appreciate if our private discussions remain that way and, even more, if you choose to make our discussions public, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't misquote me.

AslanC's Public Enemies Volume 1 looks like a nice job!