Steve Bissette makes a case against creator-owned comics as he recounts the fate of 1963:
After working hard all through 2010 with former 1963 creative partner(s) to arrive at a planned (with Alan [Moore]’s permission throughout 2010) reprint edition of the original 1963 series (circa 1993) that would adhere absolutely to Alan’s demands—including that of not using or mentioning his name or affiliation with the project (yes, we found a publisher despite that)—it all ended in a heartbeat early in 2011.
Alan simply pulled the plug, and thus it was all over but the tears.
So, an end to it. And, as a result, I no longer care about mentioning or not mentioning his name. That ended with the 1963 project, save for the legal agreements I signed in 1998 concerning my share of the 1963 properties. There’s no appeasing Alan; that dance is over.
For what it’s worth and not worth, 1963 will never be legally reprinted in any language in our lifetimes.
Maybe, after we’re gone, our now-adult kids will be able to sort it all out.
As he puts it elsewhere, “We will never see a dime from any of that work again, while the quarterly royalties from the DC/Vertigo collected Swamp Thing editions (for which I wrote two book introductions in 2011, more on that in a moment) and John Constantine/Hellraiser arrive, for the most part, like clockwork.” It’s a genuinely depressing story, and another sad entry into the “Alan Moore May Be A Great Writer, But His Interpersonal Skills Might Need Work” annals.
December 30th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
As far as I’m concerned, good riddance! Does he, the uncooperative one, do anything that might be worth mentioning? I remember the guy from the past at DC and Image but beyond that, nada. It’s a personal choice, but what have we actually missed by his mainstream absence? It’s not like Paul Levitz, Roy Thomas, Marv Wolfman, John Byrne, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Chris Claremont or Doug Moench in their heyday, now that was something!
December 30th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
he’s great and i love much of his stuff, but i don’t think he’s temperamentally suited for work in a collaborative medium. which is a shame because he’s so good at it.
December 30th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@CT
Is this the case of sarcasm not being conveyed over the internet or do you genuinely believe Alan Moore hasn’t done anything worth mentioning in comics?
Or have you misread the story and believe Steve Bissette is the uncooperative one?
December 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I don’t want to be a total jerk about it but: didn’t the 1963 guys end up seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars when it was first published because of the number of copies bought? Wasn’t the money from that enough to start both Veitch and Bissette self-publishing?
I mean, I don’t think that totally invalidates Bissette’s point but when he says “All of us who worked hard on 1963 back in 1992–93 earned whatever we would or will ever earn from that work back in 1993, and that was that,” it’s worth pointing out it was a hugely substantial chunk of cash, not just a page rate and whatever they could get for the original art. And I doubt they would’ve made that if Moore hadn’t been involved in the first place.
December 30th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
It’s stories like that that make me cheer on DC over their Watchmen prequels. Moore is just such an @$$ that I just don’t care if he gives anyone permission to continue his work or not.
December 31st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
If he’s talking about U.S. law, what Bissette is saying seems strange– it was my recollection that co-owners of a copyright can each individually non-exclusively license the work without the permission of the other, as long as they account to the other co-owners. See, e.g., http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html. If that’s changed, I’d sure like to know.
I would guess he signed a contract he wished he hadn’t. As indictments of creator ownership go…
December 31st, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Alan Moore was also pissed at the way Image handled the 1963 Annual back in 1993. Jim Lee suddenly announced that he’d be the editor of it and Alan Moore literally waited years for Jim Lee to talk to him about how to proceed, only Lee dropped the ball and did nothing. Plus there’s the fact that Alan Moore is mad at Bissette over something he said about Alan in an interview, but Moore won’t tell Steve what it was that he said that alienated him as he’s sure that Steve “must know.” He doesn’t, and Moore refuses to speak to him. Steve also wanted to finally bring the 1963 Annual into existence as the first step in collecting all of the 1963 books in tpbs, but Moore turned thumbs down on that idea without ever giving a solid reason other than “No.”
December 31st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
I asked, “does he do anything that might be worth mentioning”and that was a question in my original post. Further, I stated very clearly that I acknowledged what he did in the past but the present is probably better off for his absence. Lawrence, just read the words as written man.
January 1st, 2012 at 11:11 pm
CT: we are reading your words as written, and they are dreadfully unclear and don’t seem to be making any sense. Hence the request to clarify. Who are you talking about?
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Moore.
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:12 am
The present is better off for Moore’s absence? New League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Neonomicon were two of the very best comics of the past year.
As for the rest of it, I totally sympathize with Moore’s desire to distance himself from the larger segment of the comics industry, which has treated him with contempt and ethical shenanigans for nearly as long as he’s been involved with it. I can’t blame him at all for wanting to move on. I wish the 1963 partners could have reached an accord and would have loved to see the 1963 Annual back in the days when it was supposed to be published, but those days are over, and near so far as I can tell, as disappointing as it might be to the other creators, Moore is well within his rights to say “no.” If only his rights and desires had been respected a little more often over the last 30 years or so, he might be a little more magnanimous now in what he is willing to cooperate with, or at least tolerate.
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, I don’t see that it’s relevant whether one likes Moore’s more recent work or not as to whether his rights as a creator should be respected, but I guess when the author of the article leads with such an ill-conceived headline, you’re going to get similar responses. Poor interpersonal skills or the inability to resolve old grudges does not deteriorate a person’s legal rights. I am, however, interested in what Abhay says about what would seem to have been Bissette’s and Veitch’s rights to publish the work without Moore’s approval.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Eh. Moore should just write short stories and novels and be done with comics. I think he’s had offers for such. But if that’s not his bag, then he’ll just have to seek out folk with whom he can collaborate. Folk who don’t end up pissing him off seem to be few and far between. Oh, well.
January 4th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Jesus, Graeme, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make ANY case against creator-owned comics.
Some projects won’t make it back into print. I enjoyed the 1963 series and bought it for about one dollar apiece. I adore Veitch’s stuff and like Bissette’s stuff as well.
I would like to see them create new stuff as well instead of beating their heads against the wall to resurrect a project almost twenty years old.
Bissette will have to make a decision about whether he wants to be in the comic business at all, because every interview or such, he mentions not wanting to be in comics at all. But, if he does make up his mind in this regard, his work would really be welcomed-he’s a wonderful artist.
January 4th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
FYI Bissette’s got a response to this post up at his blog, http://srbissette.com/?p=13971 — thinks the headline is misleading.
If I’m reading him correctly, he also responds to the copyright questions some of the commenters here have raised.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I think the caption of the drawing, “Steve Bissette makes a case against creator-owned comics as he recounts the fate of 1963″, makes it sound as though STEVE were making the case, which clearly he was NOT. The title and caption are a disservice to Steve.
April 16th, 2012 at 7:25 am
I have learn a few excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how so much effort you put to create such a magnificent informative site.
July 8th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Thanks, I’ve recently been looking for info approximately this topic for ages and yours is the best I have found out till now. However, what in regards to the conclusion? Are you certain concerning the supply?