Always one to pursue useless knowledge wherever he can find it in a seemingly never-ending quest to achieve the improbable and downright unlikely status of modern-day Renaissance man, Mark Bittmann has indulged his desire to never be lost in any conversation, by developing an arcane understanding of things of little consequence or import while maintaining his alleged status as a small fish in a small pond.
As long as his self-indulgent whim is catered to, he manages to sustain the facade of someone under the misperception that others care about what he thinks. With a ubiquity normally reserved for greenhouse gasses, he chases his random and inconsequential thoughts with all the tenacity of a banana peel. This is his life, his curse, and his twisted and maniacal way of impressing the ladies.
So little Toddy McFarlane finally told his side of the story regarding the behind the wrangling over the trademark an copyrights to Miracleman and got his ass handed to him in a United States court of law. Now his ill-conceived and disrespectful attempts at inserting the character into the Spawn Universe will likely never see the light of day.
Who says there isn't a God?
In receiving a judgement against his position that he is the sole owner of Angela, Medieval Spawn and Cogliostro and that he was fully within his trademark and copyrights by not sharing in profits generated by characters thought up by Neil Gaiman, Mr. "I will fight for creator's rights" has been exposed for his hypocrisy.
Who says irony is dead?
In a unanimous decision in favor of Neil Gaiman, Todd McFarlane now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of needing something from somebody. Gaiman owns a piece of the rights to profitable characters, no doubt something that doesn't sit too well with the Toddler, given his sobby-eyed testimony which stated that he created Spawn when he was 17 and how much the thought of somebody else owning any part of him distresses him. Oh, how my heart bled for him upon reading of his performance on the stand. However, I'm relatively certain Sean Penn isn't sweating him.
So, in addition to the $45,000 he must pony up for having illegally used Gaiman's picture and autobiography on a hardcover compilation without permission and the yet to be determined amount of monetary compensation he owes Gaiman for past profits relating to sales of comics and merchandise the court has decided they co-own, McFarlane will likely also have to fork over something Gaiman wants in exchange for Gaiman's stake in the creations of the Spawn universe.
We know what Gaiman wants. He wants Miracleman back in the hands he belongs in and out of the hands of the bully holding them just out of arms reach. Make no mistake about it, he's going to get them back too. It is doubtful McFarlane would choose to share rights to Spawn universe characters a day longer than need be and unlikely he would keep them off the table as a bargaining chip out of spite. Even McFarlane can see past the wisdom of such a stance. In this case, he seems to be operating on what he sees as clear principals. By all appearances, as far as he is concerned all Spawn related characters should and will belong strictly to him as long as he sees them as profitable. If the Spawn universe continues its downward spiral into comics obscurity, he may very well sell out his alleged creative ownership stance like Jim Lee did. Anyway, don't be surprised when a settlement transferring sole ownership of Miracleman to Gaiman and Co. in exchange for Gaiman's stake in the characters he co-created with McFarlane (and I use the term "co-created" loosely; McFarlane merely came up with a visual for Gaiman's idea, which is still more than he contributed to the creation of insipid Spider-Man foe Venom; he slaps some shifting eyes and an outsized, fang-toothed grin on a costume previously designed by someone else and gets a "co-creator" credit -go figure).
So what does this mean for comicdom? Considering Marvel is the financial backer of Gaiman's case in exchange for his writing the forthcoming, tentatively titled "1602" mini-series for them, they probably have already arranged for dibs on publishing future compilations of Miracleman and will probably decide upon allowing for them to be published under the character's original name: Marvelman. With all the ink spilled over the lawsuit coupled with the fact that Marvelman/Miracleman is considered to be one of the classic and ground-breaking works of the medium, as harbinger of reality based superhero tales along the lines of Watchmen and The Authority, Marvel would be crazy not to have the original title put into place, if only to be considered guilty of brilliance by association.
What does all of this mean for Neil Gaiman? He gets the satisfaction of knowing that justice has been served and that a good chunk of change will be headed for both his coffers and his pet charity: The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. His profile has been raised to a status befitting the writer of one of the finest monthly comic book publications in history and one who has time and again conducted himself with professional tact. As a result of the exposure, maybe newer fans will discover what all the fuss surrounding the Sandman is and read them for the first time, exposing them to just how literate this storytelling medium can be, that it need not be only a showcase for spandex-clad vigilantes and the resurrection of impossibly lame 1980's Saturday morning cartoons.
As for the Toddster…let's hope that his remaining fans and supporters have been paying attention and begin to see their hero for what he is, someone who hasn't a clue about or care for other creators' rights. Here's hoping they now see him as a shining example of how not to conduct oneself in business partnerships and matters of co-creativity. It's bad enough they have wasted years worshipping him for irrelevant achievements in comic storytelling because they seem to have confused an ability to draw a cool-looking Spider-Man (and only Spider-Man - his renderings of Parker, the Spidey supporting cast and the Hulk were dreadful) with grounds to purchase every half-baked "idea" published from his company or squeezed out of his plastic injection molds. Perhaps they will realize that no matter his monetary success, Spawn and all related memorabilia are as shallow as it's primary owner's promises. It could be their eyes will open to the notion that success in an art form needn't necessarily equate with monetary success and that maybe the fashion in which one conducts oneself in business and the work they are creating and the stories they are telling are what is really important in the long run. Maybe their eyes will refocus and notice that McFarlane is not only the single worst writer in the history of superhero comic books, but that Spawn was a depthless, ill-conceived character until other writers (Grant Morrison in particular - who took it upon himself to solidify the character's origin and dynamic) tackled him at McFarlane's request as response to accusations of literary ineptitude. Maybe now his fans will begin to look for literacy and relevance in their comic purchases instead of silly, passe, fart-joke level entertainment like Spawn. After all…I can dream, can't I?
The sad thing about all of this is that it even had to happen in the first place. When a creator is told by the industry's latest maverick that he will treat them better than they would be treated by the Big Two, it is now unfortunately a promise that must be taken with a grain of salt due to the now well-known acts of unprofessionalism perpetrated by one Todd McFarlane. Creators working for hire need to make extra careful of contract language, profit-sharing and rights distribution as well as flat out watching their backs. The creation of Image Comics was touted as the end of such paranoia and now one of their founding members and President has been taken to the mat for committing exactly the kind of specious business practices Image purported to bury in their creation. They have allowed their top name to engage in creator mishandling akin to that of the past and only reinforced the wariness required of anyone looking to successfully make the comic book industry a practical outlet for their creativity or career. How many talented people will now think twice about entering the comic book field or reconsider working for a particular company or decide on another creative pursuit altogether because of the negative light this case has thrown on the comic book creative community?
What makes this entire scenario especially tragic is that once upon a time McFarlane was held up as an example of the possibilities of creator ownership. Unfortunately, along the way he lost sight or stopped caring about what was important to the industry that made him what he is and decided to take the money and run. Maybe he never really did care. Maybe Gaiman was right when he stated that the only creative rights Todd McFarlane cares about are his own. All I know is that he sold out the future of creator's rights for a buck and now comic book fans have to pay for his selfishness.
