Tony Moore vs. Robert Kirman: Saving The Comic Book Industry

So, the battle for The Walking Dead between Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore continues.

In Kirkman's corner: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36949

The exact nature of Moore's role in the first six issues appears poised to become a key element of the dispute: While the artist's complaint identifies him alternately as co-creator, joint author and co-owner of the copyrights in "The Walking Dead" (and the other comics), Kirkman and his attorney Allen B. Grodsky repeatedly emphasize Moore was credited as "penciler, inker and gray tones"; Kirkman even provided The Hollywood Reporter with scans from the first few issues as further proof. The 2005 agreement spells out that Moore is to only share "created by" credit with Kirkman on "Battle Pope."

  In Moore's corner: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36950

"Robert procured our agreement by deception," Moore told CBR. "He then failed to perform the agreement. While he has paid some royalties, he has refused to provide the documents and information he is required to provide under the agreement and which are necessary to confirm that he has paid what is owed. I have tried to obtain this information by means other than a lawsuit but have been denied and stonewalled in every attempt by Robert and his sharp-elbowed handlers. His conduct is unlawful and immoral, and he ought to be held accountable. He can try to falsely minimize my contributions, but both he and I know the truth, which I believe will be revealed in the course of this lawsuit."

At the heart of the matter is this: since coming to Image (and finding success) with comics such as Invincible and The Walking Dead, Kirkman has become an evangelist for creator owned comics, regularly taking those still working for the corporate comic companies (DC and Marvel) to task. Kirkman's defense in this case seems to be that despite his work on the character designs and the first six issues of The Walking Dead, Tony Moore is not a co-creator of the book. Instead, he seems to be doing the very same thing that he talks down on for the big companies doing and that is putting creators into a work-for-hire situation.

A few years back, Kirkman did a video manifesto about creator ownership, which sadly was never put up on YouTube or a similar site. That means I cannot embed the video here in the blog post, but Comic Book Resources does host the video which means that I can link to their article about it here. Why does Kirkman do creator owned comics? "To save the entire comic book industry." Which makes you wonder if what sort of comic book industry he wants to save.

Here's Kirkman's rationalization for making this video in 2008.

I came back from San Diego supercharged with excitement for comics and so I made this video. It's a little ramble filled in places and I want to thank the fine folks at CBR for cleaning it up as much as they did. Just for clarity's sake I'd like to simplify things a little.

I think there's a way to fix comics and make everyone happy doing it. I don't claim to be right, but I think there could be something to this.

Step One:
Top creators who want to do creator-owned work band together and give it a shot. I'd certainly love for that to be at Image, but whatever, wherever -- if you want to do it, step up and do it. The more people who do it, the easier it'll be to do. Creators are very important to the current fan base, if it's done right you could bring a large portion of your audience with you provided you take the plunge and only do creator-owned work. If you give people the option of Spider-Man or your creator-owned book... they'll choose Spider-Man, that's something time-tested versus something new. New has to be the only option.

Step Two:
If that results in a mass exodus of creators leaving Marvel and DC, don't panic guys, I love their books as much as everyone else -- nobody wants to hurt them in the process. Look at it like an opportunity, that's the time for Marvel and DC to step up the plate and make their comics viable for a whole new generation. Less continuity, more accessible stories -- not made for kids, but appropriate for kids. Books that would appeal to everyone still reading comics, but would also appeal to the average 13 year old too. There are a wealth of talented creators who haven't yet reached a level where they can sell books on their own -- they can do awesome work for the companies and be happy doing it.

What that could lead to:
A comic industry where there are more original comics, so there's more new ideas, more creator-owned books by totally awesome guys that are selling a ton of books. Those books are mature and complex and appeal to our aging audience that I count myself among who are keeping this business alive. And we also have a revitalized Marvel and DC who are selling comics to a much wider audience than ever before. And that audience, as they age, may get turned on to some awesome creator-owned work eventually. So everyone is happy.

I'm not saying it would be as simple as all that, I'm just saying this "could" work and that there are enough smart people working in comics today that it could probably happen. The problem as I see it, is that Marvel and DC are currently very successful with the audience they have now, "us" and we're all happy with the comics they're producing... because they're all mostly awesome. But as we age, we die, so we're not going to be around forever and so if comics continue to age with us, they will die along with us and that's not something I think any of us want.

So, there, I hope that makes my message clear. So, uhh, fire away, I'm all ears.
-- Robert Kirkman