This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.
A Past Best Forgotten in The Return
20th Sep 2017, 8:00 AM
first Latest
A Past Best Forgotten

first Previous Next Latest
Average Rating: 0
Number of people who have voted: 0
Author Notes:
20th Sep 2017, 8:00 AM

Bomb dropped. So once upon a time Simon agreed to work, under a contract, for Weers publishing so they'd leave their table alone, and Bella.

Also before anyone else asks, YES, I get it isn't entirely realistic, even I don't entirely get how it would work or make sense legally speaking. I've even made jokes myself if you'll recall about how insane it sounds. If you wanna ask someone to make sense of it, ask Deadpan Sal...he actually said I could tell you to go ask him.

Next page is tomorrow, Thursday!

Comments:
20th Sep 2017, 8:13 AM

... oh no. Oh no! No no no no no!

20th Sep 2017, 10:13 AM

I think I meant Bella under the contract on the previous page? Well, anyway, here the implication seems to be harassing a person with Asperger's. There are laws about that but of course they're hard to enforce, and I can certainly see Simon going this route rather than the tedious and not-always-reliable harassment complaint.

Technically the campaign is still homebrew. I stand by my somewhat belated suggested on the previous page: What would make the most sense is Bella (I think that's who it was) wagering the Gems campaign against that one from the other comic (was it the Avatar setting that was lost there?). This would make everything both nice and legal (well... ignoring the wagering laws of whatever state they're in but people seldom worry about those anyway), and pretty easy to understand... though it DOES require cross-comic reading and some amount of author coordination.

20th Sep 2017, 12:57 PM

Well, we're already coordinating. I write Aangvanced and Rastaba writes this and we share notes. I try not to make people read both comics though. Hopefully both stand on their own well enough.

But regardless of your well reasoned objections to how legal stealing art is, it still happens all the time all over the internet. People on DeviantArt get their work stolen by Disney, designs get thrown on shirts, things are lightly stolen or even completely taken as a complete rip off. A great example of this is the Candy Crush Saga, which was stolen from CandySwipe. It's pretty obvious that CandySwipe predates Candy Crush, but because Candy Crush is so huge and has better resources, no one really cares. And Candy Crush Saga is even suing the creator of CandySwipe and The Banner Saga. It's terrible, it's evil, it's illegal, and it happened in the real world.

So while it might be a little silly to think that this happens to campaign ideas, there's definitely precedent for a giant corporation to steal indie content and profit from it, even in broad daylight. And it might be illegal for them to do so, it might be completely legal because of the unfair copyright laws. But even if something is illegal, when you're going up against Disney or another giant corporation, they have infinite resources to dispute you.

Another example is The Matrix. The Wachowski Brothers stole the script idea from Sophia Stewart and made the movie in 1999. She fought them until she won the lawsuit... in 2013. American copyright laws allow you to regain sales made by the thief, but they don't cover legal fees. Which means if you're going to take on a giant, you have to be able to fund the dispute. And because they have the resources to drag out the lawsuit, it may not see a court for years. So many indie designers have to just accept the loss, or settle for pennies on the dollar if they gain anything out of it at all.

So Rastaba didn't come up with Mary Weers. And I didn't come up with art thieves. These are all real things which make as little sense as you say! It shouldn't happen and shouldn't be defendable. But it happens every day!

20th Sep 2017, 10:13 AM

COMMENT on previous page. I really just gotta create an account here.

20th Sep 2017, 11:22 AM

You really do. And as I mentioned to your previous comment, I am not trying to be super realistic. I mean we are talking about a webcomic where a business utilizes the horrible business model of frightening homebrewers off with agents coming to play them for their campaigns and junk like that. Being realistic or having every plot hole cover has never really been my intention.

20th Sep 2017, 1:28 PM

Oh dear, it seems I've not been clear. Looking back that's probably my fault.

I knew some of that... incidentally, Candy Crush settled with CandySwipe: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/candy-crush-saga-settles-dispute-with-candyswipe-amicably/1100-6419093/

I assume you're talking about this for the Disney thing:
https://www.dailydot.com/society/disney-alice-fan-art-copyright/ in which case see here for a more in-depth look:

http://mayshing.tumblr.com/post/47627305546/katiewoodger-disney-have-stolen-my-artwork-i

There's plenty of bad guys out there, but Disney is probably not the worst... no real defense of CCS (trying to trademark the word 'saga'? seriously?), and I'm not familiar with the Wachowski business.

Regardless, that wasn't quite my thought process... though first I have to get into something else.

Rastaba, I'll reply to your comment on the previous page directly, but I did not mean you didn't know what you were doing!

I only meant you weren't clear on what was going on in the story yourself: it's a valid writing technique, and comes up a lot in collaborations. There's probably a name for it, but I don't know it.

That's true, it's a terrible business model, but I'm thinking on character/thematic consistency, not so much real-world business: the methods used in Aangvanced weren't quiite gelling with what was here, so I was thinking' out loud' to make things fit with what has been said.

What I ultimately suggested was, if you like, 'head-canon'. Since this is told mostly from Finn's point of view, he wouldn't necessarily know any of that, but these last two strips got me thinking, and I feel like a wager like I mentioned (depending, of course, on how ya'll are gonna work things out) would make sense. Why else would Bella even risk it?

...It is Bella, right?

Also, I'ma go make an account now, but I wanted to try and set the record straight here.

20th Sep 2017, 1:34 PM

Testing, testing, 1 2 3...

That's better. Just to emphasize, I enjoy your work and I certainly didn't mean any offense! I was mostly thinking through a suggestion. I'm really sorry if I caused any distress.

20th Sep 2017, 2:09 PM

Thank you Needling, and I understand your heart was in the right place, but in the end it wound up sounding more like just commentary on the plot holes which I have mentioned being aware of, and actually do take some pleasure in poking fun at myself.

And I don't honestly know how much is 'genuinely' only from Finn's perspective or not. Like you mentioned I kind of improvise a vast amount of this. And yes, Bella is the originator of the game within the table-verse. The reason she is 'risking' it, as far as I can honestly say that I've thought out, is that as Mary Weers bought out Janine, the playtest version Bella was working on WITH her belongs to Weers Publishing in part, with the other part still belonging to Bella as co-creator/original creator/whatever. So basically it's closer to a custody battle...mostly joking.

20th Sep 2017, 3:35 PM

...Yeah I can see how it could be read that way in retrospect. I have something of a teacher's mindset: I tend to reflexively think out how something could work/be improved (even if it's already good!), and sometimes I type it up or say it without adding necessary qualifiers. One reason I'm trying to get a teaching gig: at least there it's pretty clear that that's what you're doing. :P Anyway, thanks for understanding.

Errr, yeah, now that you say it I guess it isn't so much. I made that connection do to SU being from Steven's perspective.

Oooh, wait, was the game Janine and... Alex, after checking Aangvanced.. lost the gems campaign? If so, I completely missed that. And after an hour-long archive troll (trawl? One of those) I couldn't find it mentioned what campaign was actually supposed to be published... Regardless that would make a lot of sense, actually. I know you said you're joking but that would kinda be cool. Unless the joke was only on the custody battle comparison, but either way, sounds cool.

20th Sep 2017, 6:52 PM

It isn't entirely separate game. Janine however HAD a publishing company in competition with her mother's. And suffice to say someone's unlikely to be getting a mother's day card ever. And the custody battle thing was what I was mostly joking about, yes, hehe.

20th Sep 2017, 11:24 PM

Sorry, got a bit lost in the syntax there. The game denied publication is or is not entirely separate? Like I said, I couldn't find it indicated what game it was.

Janine is Mary's kid? Also didn't pick that up... this is what I get for skimming, but Aangvanced's archive is... intimidating.

Leave a Comment