I did wonder why things had been so quiet on the subject.
Ah well, as the winter chill begins to creep in, so must summer roses and drama both suffer ignominy.
Does Bob Repas really think that they are going to win this? Penders does not have a legel leg to stand on. Everything in the book belongs to Sega.
Actually, DF, hi btw, Cooki already posted that Penders lost. Heres her post:
Just an update:
It's over. No, really.
~ It took one phone call...~
Does Bob Repas really think that they are going to win this? Penders
does not have a legel leg to stand on. Everything in the book belongs to
Sega.
At the rate Repas is going, all that remains is for Archie to sue for libel.
I'd pay to watch that.
I wouldn't normally advocate double-posting, but... *headdesk*
Now there's a man who doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "Quit whilst you're behind". At least he's burying his career deeper the longer he drags this out.
Urgh, get off my internet and take your troll Bob with you.
Not even Phoenix Wright would win THAT case. 
Meh, it's beneath my dignity to continue to follow it. He hasn't even said anything entertaining... Oh?
Also in case anyone hasn't noticed, there was a certain publication that was scheduled for release a few weeks ago that was abruptly canceled just before it was supposed to be made available for sale, as well as another forthcoming project that was announced and recently canceled. (The writer involved confirmed the latter in an interview.) While it can't be said these events are related to the subject at hand, it also can't be discounted either.
Hehe.
Just because the matter isn't as public as some people would like doesn't imply anything one way or the other regarding its resolution.
Yeah. Now that he has been reacted to negatively, he DOESN'T want public displays like announcing it on his front page in the first place.
Viva la ambiguity.
Again, if this was a UK court, that guy'd be owing at least six figures by now.
Also in case anyone hasn't noticed, there was a certain publication that was scheduled for release a few weeks ago that was abruptly canceled just before it was supposed to be made available for sale, as well as another forthcoming project that was announced and recently canceled. (The writer involved confirmed the latter in an interview.) While it can't be said these events are related to the subject at hand, it also can't be discounted either.
Okay, now I know he's just stupid! It's been confirmed that Who's Who has been put on hiatus because Sega liked what they saw and wanted to get involved with the project, and that includes Sega of Japan no less; so Penders need to get off his high horse cuz he has no revelance in its delay! Also, I have no clue what other "project" he's talking about, the only one Ian teased before the Comic Con was the Mega Man book, and it wasn't until the Con that we learn that Archie was reviving their hero line as well as having Ian working on old property, Cosmo the Merry Martian.
Meh, it's beneath my dignity to continue to follow it. He hasn't even said anything entertaining... Oh?
Also in case anyone hasn't noticed, there was a certain publication that was scheduled for release a few weeks ago that was abruptly canceled just before it was supposed to be made available for sale, as well as another forthcoming project that was announced and recently canceled. (The writer involved confirmed the latter in an interview.) While it can't be said these events are related to the subject at hand, it also can't be discounted either.
Hehe.
"Hehe" is about right. I don't know what cancellations he's talking about. The encyclopedia has been put on hiatus, not canceled.
"SEGA really liked what they saw, and have decided to get more involved.
No word yet on what changes may come, but the Who’s Who has already
been reported as being at least an inch and a half thick."
Does that sound like "canceled because some guy actually owns all the Knuckles look-alikes" to anyone?
The fact that he has to twist words and mislead to make his position seem viable really says a lot on its own.
Or maybe he's just not in the loop anymore. Sounds like complete ignorance to me.
Loop or not, he can read articles on the net to find out what the real reason behind the delay of the encyclopedia rather than have his ego in the way-unless, he posted that before it was posted on the net.
I don't really have anything of merit to add here; rather I just wanted to chip in to note that I saw that pic of the man himself on the linked TTSZ News article and promptly thought that he resembles a dodgy 70s porn star.
Feel free to get yourselves some brain bleach. 
I hate you... so much. Now I hear bad "bow chick a wow wow" porn music. At least I don't see Penders doing a pelvic thrust to it... Oh sh--
You realize that the more you talk about it, the worse it'll get?
I mean, it's like telling someone not to imagine a rhinoceros with a teacup!
imagine a rhinoceros with a teacup
Also in case anyone hasn't noticed, there was a certain publication that
was scheduled for release a few weeks ago that was abruptly canceled
just before it was supposed to be made available for sale, as well as
another forthcoming project that was announced and recently canceled.
(The writer involved confirmed the latter in an interview.) While it
can't be said these events are related to the subject at hand, it also
can't be discounted either.
That means this case will be challenging the laws that allowed Penders to file his copyrights. This case will be done in Federal Court and can, conceivably, go all the way up to the Supreme Court should either party want to take it that far.
What the? If that is what the case is based around, I have to wonder if Penders has a stronger case than expected. They're challenging a law, not Penders' interpretation of it.
Sounds like he got some very questionable copyright claims validated through the always questionable morass of copyright law.
However, if this does lead to his characters being written away from the comic, or used rarely due to royalties, that could be an improvement IMO. The only ones that can possibly considered assets would be:
Geoffrey, who was arguably a SatAM character anyway
Scourge, who is popular only due to Ian and was nothing but biker Sonic before that, so that's another he might not be able to claim
Julie-Su
Lien-Da
Dmitri
Slightly longer than I expected, and I have to admit I like Dmitri enough that I'd want him around the most of that list.
Guess we know now why Penders still insisted on saying that there was still stuff going on in the background even if it wasn't visible. But as you said, it's not likely that even if Ken wins the case that it'll really affect things, what with a lot of the developments that Ian's done to change or remove things from the comic. After seeing this go on all summer, and now it's kicking back up a bit, it's not that terribly exciting or even dramatic IMO anymore. Only the outcome will reveal if there was anything to be worried about or not.
I hope that no one minds me bumping this thread.
http://www.tssznews.com/2011/03/02/penders...archie-lawsuit/
The attorney representing Ken Penders against a lawsuit brought by Archie Comics is attempting to have the case thrown out principally on a technicality.
Defense attorney Michael Ertel filed on February 8th the motion, arguing a lack of jurisdiction on Penders in the case. Specifically, the motion argues that because Penders never technically worked in a setting where New York jurisdiction applied (and where Archie is headquartered), he is not subject to the rules under them. Ertel also argued that because Penders filed for copyright protection of his work in California, where he currently lives, the case should be transferred to that district “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice,” according to the document.
At the heart of this case is whether Penders signed a contract with Archie. According to the motion Ertel filed, Archie Comics allegedly conceded that contract “is in dispute”.
The sole basis on which Archie may rely on personal jurisdiction is a paragraph contained in two agreements that Archie claims were signed by Penders in 1996; however, Archie acknowledges that the validity of these documents is in dispute and to date, Archie has not supplied the original of either document to allow a handwriting expert to analyze PendersÂ’s purported signature or for any other purpose.
A Declaration opposing this motion was filed yesterday. It includes an affidavit by Archie’s current president Mike Pellerito, in which he claims Archie Comics requires all independent contractors to sign an agreement with the company. Pellerito also claims in the affidavit Archie’s records date back “to at least 1988.” A spreadsheet of individuals who allegedly signed the agreement, including some current staff on the Sonic comic, was provided as a supplementary exhibit. Copies of the agreements Penders allegedly signed were reportedly submitted as a part of Archie’s original complaint against Penders filed in November, according to Pellerito’s declaration. We should note that complaint is not yet public record electronically.
Pellerito testified to the following, regard to PendersÂ’s alternative proposal to move proceedings to California. Pellerito claims Penders executed a contract while a resident of New York.
The locus of operative facts relevant to these claims is in New York because the ACP Penders Agreements which are central to this dispute were created in this District, executed in New York (while Penders was a resident of New York), performed in New York, are related to goods or services supplied by Penders to ACP in New York. PendersÂ’ current presence in California is irrelevant to this factor.
Pellerito, in his affidavit, cited Edward Spallone, who allegedly executed the agreement between Penders and Archie. Pellerito noted Spallone was absent from Penders’s planned witness list, and he called those witnesses–nearly all of whom live in California- "disingenuous at best."
All of Pellerito’s words are, in part, a response to a 14 page declaration Penders himself made in February in support of the motion to dismiss, which we’ll explore in more detail here tomorrow, as there are a ton of revelations in it. Among Penders’s claims are that, while he did live in New York state for almost 7 years–including the period when he started working for Archie Comics–he never signed a work agreement with the company.
But none of this will move very far very fast. There is a period of discovery that is necessary, and the next status conference in the case–where a decision on this motion may be made–isn’t until June 7th. There will be a lot of waiting and a lot of research up to then, but in lead-up, there has already been a lot of mudslinging.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And here's part 2:
http://www.tssznews.com/2011/03/03/penders...-comics-tenure/
The fourteen page affidavit Ken Penders submitted last month in the lawsuit Archie Comics filed against him is perhaps the most raw, meticulous, and unabridged side to his story anyone could ever see. It tells a tale of a man who, now living off unemployment and close to penniless, was making absolutely sure he was not under the heart of the whole messÂ’s matter before diving in: A work for hire agreement.
Penders claims of confiding in past co-workers who were also allegedly not bound by such an agreement, and even allegedly confirmed with ArchieÂ’s editor in chief Victor Gorelick no such agreement between him and the company existed before filing copyright claims on many of his contributions to the Sonic comics last year.
“Before undertaking these Copyright Office filings, I wanted to make absolutely certain of my position as the owner of all rights in the works I created which were published in the Sonic Comics,” Penders explains in the declaration. “I therefore telephoned Victor Gorelick, editor-in-chief of Archie Comics, in December 2008. During that conversation, I requested that Archie (i) return to me original artwork still in its possession, and (ii) provide me with copies of any agreement I may have signed with Archie Comics relating to any of the freelance work I did for them. Gorelick told me that no such documents existed.”
To be sure, Penders then claimed he followed up several times with Gorelick through telephone and E-Mail, seeking “written confirmation” of the contract’s non-existence. Gorelick never furnished such documentation. It was reportedly furnished when Archie filed its complaint against Penders, but it hasn’t been made part of the public record electronically. Nevertheless, Penders later in the declaration disputed its authenticity:
First, the signatures are not believed by me to be authentic. Second, I have no record of ever receiving documents in 1996 from Archie, nor any recollection of the same. Third, I have no copies of these signed documents in my records – when I receive a document that has already been signed by the other party, it is my normal business practice to make a copy of the fully-executed agreement before returning the document to them.
Penders says the only documents he signed from Archie during his tenure were pay vouchers and a group medical insurance waiver. He also alleges that “all or most of the freelance creators” on the Sonic Comics at the time of his employment did not sign work for hire agreements, and even provided a list of potential witnesses that, at times, is a trip through the series’ history. Penders names former staffers Scott Shaw, Michael Gallagher as “likely witnesses.”
But thereÂ’s a lot more to the declaration than those disputes. Penders testifies at length as to how he came to prominence with the Sonic comics:
In October 1993, my friend Mike Kanterovich came to me, telling me he was approached by Paul Castiglia, the editor at that time of the Sonic Comics, who advised that the current writer for the Sonic Comics might be leaving and Archie was looking for some inventory stories to have on hand as a back-up precaution. Kanterovich told me that Castiglia offered him the opportunity to submit story ideas for potential assignments. Unfortunately for him, Kanterovich knew little or nothing about the character or the comic books, and so he reached out to me because he was aware that I knew a great deal about the character since the “Sonic the Hedgehog” video games, Sonic Comics and “Sonic the Hedgehog” television shows were favorites at that time of my young son Stephen. Kanterovich and I spoke about the Sonic Comic opportunity, and I provided Kanterovich with information on the characters. As our discussions continued, Kanterovich suggested that we work together on story ideas to pitch to Archie for publication in the Sonic Comics. Initially, we prepared and submitted three story ideas to Castiglia for approval during the second half of October 1993. All three stories were submitted by Archie to SEGA for approval, and two of the three were eventually approved by SEGA and Archie.
This method of working on a comic book was different than I was used to doing with other publishers. Specifically, rather than receiving a specific assignment, Archie invited us to pitch story ideas, which they would either accept or reject. Unlike my experience of submitting scripts at any other comic book publisher, Castiglia insisted we submit our scripts in full panel page layout form, clearly depicting everything in a rough visual format rather than in normal text format. We were paid no additional money for producing these story layouts, despite the additional time and effort it required, and received no credit or acknowledgement for them in the published works.
Penders alleges in the affidavit this eventually led to he and Kanterovich visiting Archie headquarters in New York, during which they encountered Archie publishers Michael Silberkleit and Richard Goldwater. Some joking around ensued, specifically on notion both Penders and Kanterovich would become the regular Archie writers. That eventually happened, but as Penders notes, “there was at no time any official undertaking by Archie to formalize our working arrangements, and no guarantee of future work for the Sonic Comics.”
It ultimately was the release of Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood by Sega in 2008, which Penders believed either referenced or outright used characters he created from the Sonic comics without his consent, that compelled him to seek copyright protection. Penders claimed upon doing so, the U.S. Copyright Office notified both Archie and Sega of his intent, and Archie did not intervene:
[....] During the copyright application process, the Copyright Office sent a notice to Archie Comics and SEGA advising them of my copyright claims, but Archie took no steps to object to the applications, and failed to provide the Copyright Office with copies of any agreements that would dispute my ownership. This was confirmed to me via e-mail on May 21, 2010 by William J. Briganti, Assistant Chief of the Visual Arts and Recordation Division at the Copyright Office.
Penders does not explain if the same circumstances held for Sega, and we are checking out that lost detail for clarification. But if that holds similarly, should Penders prevail in this case, it may mean Sega is also legally exposed.
There are two other notable items in the affidavit. One had potential to stop the runaway success of the Sonic comics, now ArchieÂ’s top selling adventure comic, dead in its tracks. Penders alleges that the early alignment with both of SonicÂ’s television series posed a conundrum for Archie once those series concluded, and Archie considered cancelling the series shortly thereafter (Not exactly a shock, as Ken already discussed this a great lengths himself on this very website not that long ago. -Ag). Penders says the Endgame arc, told from issues 47 through 50, was originally conceived as the comic series finale:
In the summer of 1995, (then Sonic comic editor Scott) Fulop advised me that both the Saturday morning animated series and the syndicated weekday Sonic animated television series were being cancelled. Because comic books licensed from another media (such as television) historically were cancelled within 8-12 months once the original media was no longer in the public spotlight, Fulop told me that Archie expected the Sonic Comics comic book series would be cancelled within the next year.
Undeterred, I continued to innovate with my work on the Sonic Comics, creating additional new characters and storylines, including perhaps the most renowned storyline for the entire series titled “Endgame”, which appeared in issues 47-50. This storyline was initially conceived as the last story in the series, featuring the character’s final battle against his greatest enemy.
Despite Archie’s fears, however, the Sonic Comics proved to be the exception to the licensed comic book rule, and actually saw sales increase after the animated shows were taken off the air. As a result, I rewrote the original conclusion of the “Endgame” story thereby allowing the series to move forward rather than terminating.
The other disclosure Penders makes in the conclusion is more personal and more sobering. It involves the current motion to dismiss his attorney has prepared, on account of a lack of jurisdiction. Penders says he is too poor to make the trip to New York for a trial. Penders says, as of the date of the affidavit, he has less than $500 in his bank account and “limited liquid assets”–potentially making travel costs an issue. With no income available to him other than unemployment checks, Penders states “The costs associated with having to travel to and stay New York City [sic] connected to this lawsuit would pose a hardship to me under my current circumstances.”
As reported yesterday, Archie Comics has responded and opposed PendersÂ’s motion to dismiss with a declaration of its own penned by president Mike Pellerito. But it does not appear any decision will be made in the case until June 7th, the next scheduled court conference. No formal trial date has been set.
Rough translation:
"Oh %&#&!!!!! My bluff's been called!"
*backpedalbackpedalbackpedal*
Thus, Penders proceeded to %#@% bricks.
So... he's living off unemployment? No wonder he tried to milk Archie for money.
but Archie took no steps to object to the applications, and failed to provide the Copyright Office with copies of any agreements that would dispute my ownership.
This is the only thing that alarms me.
It seems like there is some fumbling about here for the necessary documents...sort of reminds me of how they can't seem to find the documentation of Obama's birth certificate. 😛 That's probably the only reason there's any issue right now. If the proper paperwork surfaced, then it'd finalize this matter once and for all, hopefully.
This is really exposing Penders more the longer this goes on.
Maybe Penders would actually be making money if he focused on The Lost Ones instead of this stupid case against Archie and spending what little time/money he has left over on less lucrative projects like The Republic.
Here's some more news on Penders legal battle with Archie.
TSSZ News has obtained through sources copies of two work for hire agreements Archie Comics claims Ken Penders signed during his tenure with the Sonic series.
A five page “Revised Newsstand Comic Independent Contractor’s Agreement†and a three page “Licensed Comic Books Independent Contractor’s Agreement†are the heart of a current legal battle between Penders and Archie. The comic publisher submitted the documents when it filed a complaint against Penders in November, but it had never been available electronically for public review. Because the documents contain personally revealing information, such as address information that is pixelated in the above image, TSSZ News has elected not to publish the documents in full.
Both work for hire agreements carry Penders’s alleged signature, dated December 12th, 1996–more than three years after he started work on the series. They also carry the alleged signature of Archie’s then vice president of finance Edward Spallone, dated November 25th, 1996. In theory, that makes the long passage of time between Penders’s first contributions and the execution of said agreement important, were it not for Archie including the following paragraph Newsstand specific ICA:
18. Contractor represents that all of his/her contributions to any Properties or Works have been commissioned by Archie and prepared at the request and expense of Archie and that all past, pending and future contributions of Contractor to the Works and Properties are and shall be Works for Hire owned by and for the benefit of Archie. Contractor and Archie acknowledge that they have entered into previous oral and written Work for Hire agreements, including the Newsstand Comic Independent Contractor’s Agreement that Archie and Contractor executed in __________ (fill in year if applicable; leave blank if inapplicable), and that Contractor’s past and pending Contributions to the Properties and/or the Works, if any, were created pursuant to such earlier agreements and are Works for Hire.
You may have noticed a blank space in the above paragraph. The document has that space intentionally left blank, as are other potentially key spaces in both agreements. Whether those may become points of contention in the case is to be determined.
Still, to be sure, the contract states in paragraph 19 that any other works a contractor makes to a work or property–in this case, the Sonic series–that are not directly subject to the agreement are to have all rights assigned to Archie.
“Contractor will and hereby does assign to Archie any right, title and interest that he/she has or may obtain therein, including all copyrights, patents, trademarks and other proprietary rights,†the paragraph reads.
The Newsstand Comic ICA also states the agreement will be governed by the laws of New York State, where Archie is headquartered. That has become a new point of contention in the case, as counsel for Penders has moved to relocate the case to California, if not have the case thrown out completely.
The second agreement Penders allegedly signed, the Licensed Comic Books Independent Contractor’s Agreement, reaffirms jurisdiction. Though meant principally for the Sonic series and offshoots, it also does not specify in writing what “Licensed Comics†Penders was writing for, as the contract specifies. The agreement also does not specify Sega or anyone else as the “Licensorâ€â€“there are merely blank spaces left.
Where it gets even more complicated is where Archie was to specify the owner of the licensed work, who commissioned it, and who Penders was to look at for compensation. As seen in the image above, one party–presumably Archie–was to designate whether they or the “Licensorâ€, Sega in this case, were the “Owner†of Penders’s work. The documents entered into evidence show that never happened. That’s important because the contract states “that all past, present, and future contributions†are considered Works for Hire by the owner, but that owner is never clearly outlined.
In the suit, it has allegedly been conceded the documents are copies and not originals, and there remains a question as to whether Archie Comics has the original documents. Penders disputes the authenticity of those documents and has throughout the case for that and other reasons, alleging the style and scope of the agreements were unlike anything he had seen in his prior experience within the comic industry.
TSSZ News has also learned neither Archie Comics nor Sega responded to the US Copyright Office’s request for any challenge of the claims Penders sought when he filed for copyright protection, and that there was a 30 day window to do so. This paved the way for his works to be registered beginning in June of 2010.
Research and evidence continues to be collected in the case, with the next conferences scheduled for June. We will continue to bring you more developments as they enter into the public record.
Holy crap, my account still works. It's been years since I've been on this board, but I thought I'd weigh in.
It's also been years since I actually paid any attention to anything Sonic comic related, so when I ran into a guy last year who said he worked with Ken, I was actually kind of awe struck; even more so when he told me that Ken was looking for a graphic artist for his production company. I figured I'd bite since I could always use the extra work/income, and I did enjoy my Knuckles comics back in the day.
So I ask for a bit more info, and learned that Ken hadn't worked for Archie for quite a while, which is odd considering the name of his company was "Floating Island Productions." Plus I found out the guy I spoke to, was actually working for free. After that I decided to drop the lead and seek work elsewhere.
Fast forward to today, I'm looking for info on this Sonic Genesis reboot thing and I end up on this topic, which basically confirmed my suspicions on the way Ken does things. It's been mentioned, but when you are contracted on a work for hire basis, you do not own anything you produce for your client. Depending on the contract you would be free to display the work as somethig you did, but to claim ownership on characters and ideas so closely based on an established character is ludricous. I don't go to my employer, a major broadcasting company, slap a new coat of paint on their logo, and claim copyright infringement when they use it more than once. They paid me for the job, I gave them what they paid for and that's that.
Like so many people have mentioned, I'm disappointed and very put off from Mr. Penders because of all this. Oh well, we'll always have the memories.
Oh, crap, I remember you!! Weba!
http://www.tssznews.com/2011/03/28/arch ... t-lawsuit/
Two former artists on the Archie Comics Sonic series have filed statements supplementing Ken Penders’ pending motion to dismiss Archie Comics’ lawsuit against him.
Former Sonic artists Scott Shaw (who drew the original first issues), plus Amber Greenlee (who also inked and coloured various storylines), have both submitted statements in a response to Archie’s opposition to that motion to dismiss. The documents were submitted March 9th and intend to challenge Mike Pellerito’s earlier statement about Ken’s terms of employment with the company while he was handling the Sonic series. Counsel for Penders believes that nothing Archie has submitted into evidence so far supports their case. Archie is seeking to declare rights on work Penders created while employed by Archie–work that Penders has since won protection for by the U.S. Copyright Office.
No response to that response has been filed by Archie, and that June 7th court conference will be rescheduled. Only time will tell if the new contributions play any part in the case.
Maybe Penders would actually be making money if he focused on The Lost Ones instead of this stupid case against Archie and spending what little time/money he has left over on less lucrative projects like The Republic.
The trailer, which is basically Z budget and wants very much to be X-Men (no actually glowing eyes are exactly what I expected), calls it a bestselling comic: http://www.floatingislandproductions.com/ I didn't know a bestselling comic with no Google results was possible. Nobody's heard of it except through connection to Penders himself.
He may have a decent argument if Archie doesn't use money tactics to force him to quit (I.E. jurisdiction where he can not travel).
While he is not a nice guy regardless of my personal opinion of him Archie may not have the supposed contract. I wonder where it would go if he wins or takes a settlement.
By all rights I shouldn't even care, since I haven't taken the comic and only have some odd back issues I bought a few years ago, but I honestly don't have much interest in the outcome of this legal situation aside from what ends up happening to the comic as a result. Sure, I'd like justice to win out - if Penders has really been screwed over by Archie, and Archie doesn't have legitimate records of the contract he signed, then it'd be nice for him to get some money for his troubles. If Penders was just doing this to try to grab some cash, I hope he isn't able to get away with it. But the bottom line will be what affect this has on the fandom once it's all said and done.
I mean, this whole thing came about in the first place because of Sonic Chronicles, supposedly. So if this affects the comics in a detrimental way, then it seems like it's being aimed at the wrong target. I'm sure that all Archie has to do is ensure that any remaining characters of Penders are killed or removed from the comic, but it still raises questions about back issues and some key concepts behind certain characters' backstories.
Now that some of the facts are starting to come to light via recent filings with the court, and are being posted elsewhere, I can discuss some issues to clarify what is already known.
So far, all Archie Comics has produced are copies of documents allegedly bearing my signature, not any actual documents themselves. In addition, nowhere in the documents are the words "SEGA" and SONIC THE HEDGEHOG" (or "KNUCKLES THE ECHIDNA", "PRINCESS SALLY" or anything else SEGA-related) mentioned anywhere on any of the pages. They have also not submitted any statements to the court from anyone actually working at the company during the 1990's who could verify any first-hand knowledge of the documents themselves. They have submitted a list of freelancers they claim to have contracts on file with, but nowhere on the list are names I've submitted as potential witnesses for my side.
Mike Pellerito did submit a declaration to the court, which my attorneys demonstrated in a filing that virtually everything he said was inadmissible heresay at best, as he started working for the company in 2000, and wasn't the SONIC editor until late 2003/early 2004, well after the events in question. Mike filed statements which were demonstrably incorrect (regarding Elliot S! Maggin) or second-hand knowledge based on office gossip (regarding Scott Shaw!). To give some idea of the inaccuracies filed with the court, I offer the following from court documents available online, specifically in this case Statement 11 from Mike Pellerito's declaration:
11. Elliot Maggin is a well known former writer for DC Comics, and identified as a witness to testify about “standard industry practices… †Maggin has no relation whatsoever to ACP, or Penders’association with ACP. It seems inappropriate for this Court to base a decision on whether to transfer this case on the location of Penders’possible expert witnesses, who have absolutely no factual connection to this case.
Note the part "Maggin has no relation whatsoever to ACP". I now offer the following exhibit:
You'll notice the name ELLIOT S! MAGGIN in bold white lettering at the top of the comic. He was commissioned by Scott Fulop to write the lead story for this issue, based on Elliot's experience writing SUPERMAN for DC Comics over 17 years. Elliot was not provided with nor did he ever sign a work-for-hire contract for this story. He therefore owns the copyright for this story, not Archie.
Furthermore, Elliot - as he states in his declaration to the court on my behalf - was also my editor at no less than three separate companies, where I submitted work at all three companies prior to any association I had with Archie. At all three companies, he issued me contracts for each and every single assignment prior to my beginning work on each of them. Such arrangements were standard at every company that ever published my work, whether it was Marvel, DC, Malibu, Now, Disney or anywhere else. In other words, Archie is the only company I ever submitted work to in which I was not supplied contracts for each and every assignment. Furthermore, each contract spelled out exactly what I supplying and all other necessary details, totally unlike the documents Archie supplied to the court claiming I had signed.
So, no connection to Archie? No connection to the facts of this case? Really?
Then there's Mike's statements concerning Scott Shaw! with the following:
9. Scott Shaw was an independent contractor for ACP in the early 90’s. ACP ceased doing business with Mr. Shaw when he failed to deliver work product in a timely manner. That was more than 15 years ago.
First, how would Mike know? He wasn't there when Scott submitted work to Archie, so he can't testify first hand exactly why Scott and Archie no longer do business. That doesn't stop him, however, from casting aspersions on Scott's professional reputation. It wouldn't suit the Archie narrative that reasons why Scott and Archie don't currently do business include Scott's strong stand in support of Dan DeCarlo or the fact that Scott has never once been paid for any of his work that has been reprinted numerous times in various formats.
From Scott's declaration can be found the following:
4. Unlike my experience with every other publisher I've submitted work to, I never received any contract or other agreement between Archie, Sega and myself.
As well as this:
13. I also never received any contract from Archie to the work I was hired to do by Victor Gorelick.
The last two items he states should be of particular interest to SONIC fans:
16. I am currently in the process of registering my ownership of all of the materials mentioned in this declaration.
17. I have never had any professional or social interaction with Michael Pellerito and consider his remarks about my reliability to be unfounded and extremely injurious to my professional reputation.
So, yes, in answer to everyone's questions, that means Scott owns his work seen in the original SONIC mini-series, not Archie or SEGA.
Anyone doing their homework will discover there has to be a written transfer for each work created, which means Archie has to have something from the writers or artists in writing for each and every story in order to apply for the copyrights, which they would in turn transfer to SEGA under written agreement. That this has never happened is not the fault of the writers or artists, but with Archie. There is no after-the-fact retroactivity.
Anyone stating that SEGA automatically owns anything and everything published in the comics clearly doesn't understand how copyright laws work.
Ian's statements that his plans regarding Hershey and the upcoming reboot are disingenuous at best as my lawyers and I had been anticipating such moves as we got further along the process. As more facts come to light, it will become clear the reboot storyline is the only way for Archie to continue the series without incurring any further potential legal jeopardy should they lose their case.
This also explains to a certain extent why the SONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA has yet to hit the shelves as well. As one of Ian's friends recently stated online, SEGA has gotten more involved with the comic than ever before, and with good reason.
I would like to stipulate that Ian is not in the loop as much as people think, as least not as far as the legal situation between Archie and I are concerned. He may indeed have made plans, but events possibly forced his hand sooner rather than later, and he certainly can't talk about it without risking the wrath of Archie executives.
Likewise, when Ian talks about his contract with Archie, he is speaking from the perspective of someone who hasn't the same level of experience in the comics industry that I had prior to my experience working on SONIC. All Ian knows is what he's experienced working for Archie on the SONIC books. He has yet to experience life working on a Marvel or DC title, for example. (And if he has, I'm unaware of it.)
It's quite possible as a result of my suit against Archie, Ian will learn Archie doesn't own the rights to his work as airtight as they would claim or he believes. And if Archie doesn't, what position would Ian take? He doesn't own the work? Archie can just keep reprinting his stories without paying him? At his age, he may not care. When he gets to be my age, he may have serious second thoughts at that time.
One of the settlement options my attorneys submitted to Archie was for them to license my work for a fee and pay a royalty for reprints. To date, Archie has rejected all my overtures to discuss the situation in a rational manner without the necessity of a lawsuit. Their response has been nothing more than to claim they outright own my work, that I should acknowledge their ownership and sign over my copyrights without any future benefit of payment or credit, pulling the trigger on a lawsuit before it needed to be.
Ian probably hasn't given the matter thought because his work hasn't been reprinted as yet. However, when it is, unless Archie has already told him he will receive royalties - and good for him if that's the case - it's quite likely he's going to feel different when it happens to him. As for the creators whose work has been reprinted without Archie paying them royalties, I already know how they feel. And Archie knows it's more than just me who isn't happy with their actions.
Everything I've discussed is well known between both sides. Anything more can't be discussed because neither side has no idea at the moment which way the pendulum will swing, as well as what the next moves will be as a result.
As I've stated previously, this is not something I entered into lightly or without much thought. No sane person would proceed any further unless they had the necessary documentation, evidence and witnesses to support their position.
A couple of quick comments to finish on:
if he didn't want SEGA using his concepts, he shouldn't have put them in a SEGA-licensed product in the first place
I do have a response for this, but it'll have to wait until the proper time. You may agree with it, you may not, but it is an honest, legitimate response from my perspective.
Maybe Ken will ultimately emerge triumphant after all and get the rights to the characters he made. Then we might be able to see some official Brotherhood stories.
Because of how everything has been progressing, I've been waiting for the right moment to officially announce the first releases. The one thing I am certain is that even without the SEGA elements, fans will embrace what they see as part of the official canon, even if it contradicts what Ian is doing, for the simple reason that whatever I do will be faithful to what has come before, if not finally outright resolve many of the questions people have asked me over the years.
All this crap is really making me dizzy! I really don't know what to expect in the end. What is funny though is Ken's last statement about the Brotherhood stories.
"The one thing I am certain is that even without the SEGA elements, fans will embrace what they see as part of the official canon, even if it contradicts what Ian is doing, for the simple reason that whatever I do will be faithful to what has come before, if not finally outright resolve many of the questions people have asked me over the years."
This cracks me up. Seriously since when does any one accept a non canonical story as canon? This is so outrageously ridiculous that I can't believe Ken actually said it. Talk about being arrogant.
I still don't get this.
Penders can't use Angel Island.
He can't use Sonic or Knuckles.
He'll be able to use Julie-Su, but without Knuckles, she'll have no purpose, same with Locke, and Lara-Le.
He'll be able to use the Brotherhood of Guardians, but without Angel Island there backstory will have no context.
Penders is better off just creating his own original comic series.
Arrogant or no, it's understandable that there are fans of Penders' work who wanted to see how he would have done things if he had stayed on. Nonetheless, there's a definite confident note here that hasn't been in his statements for a while, which reflects how things legally have been proceeding with Archie unable to prove, completely and legitimately, that Penders signed a contract to hand over his work to them.
Nonetheless, there are still problems with his assumptions; I don't know the specifics about the Brotherhood, but there's still the issue that they're echidnas clearly based on Knuckles, and Knuckles has been a key element of most of the echidna stories to my knowledge. It is possible there are some aspects of this that I don't see, but I currently have no idea how he'll continue with a "canon" story without referencing SEGA's character (because Knuckles, even his Archie incarnation, is still the property of SEGA). Even without mentioning Knuckles specifically, wouldn't he have to draw the echidnas differently to avoid possible reference to Knuckles?
I'm all for artists/writers being recompensed for what they've done, especially if it turns out that they've been cheated out of something that was originally agreed to, but I'm still not sure what Ken seeks to do once he's got what he's aiming for. And what will end up happening to those fans who are loyal to the comic rather than to him.
Of course I'm with you there. If Ken is owed money then Archie should pay. But I don't like the fact Ken is trying to claim the characters he made as his and his alone. The guy acts like he OWNS the Archie Sonicverse and that anything anybody else says or does is just non-canon, hell he actually says something to that effect in the previous statement.
Yeah there are those who want to see what will happen if Ken kept on moving with his plans, but I'm pretty sure a large percentage of the comics readers don't know or even care who Ken Penders is, especially today when the comic has more readers than before. If Ken wins out and gets his characters then I'm sure there will be a few, though not all, who will be wondering where their Julie-Su went or whatever happened to that Dimitri guy. Ultimately these fans are the ones who lose in the end.
I'm hoping when this is all said and done, nothing much comes from it. The characters will stay, and Ken gets what he is rightfully deserved. The long time fans are at least deserved some form of past continuity.
I still don't think that Penders has a strong enough case to win. Almost all of his copyrights are for story, and art. None of them mention him actually owning the characters themselves.
This is so outrageously ridiculous that I can't believe Ken actually said it. Talk about being arrogant.
He's arrogant and a massive jerk. His statements about Ian and the reboot are presumptuous and ignorant.
However I'm beginning to think he may, and SHOULD, win the case, especially now that additional plaintiffs are coming up. By the information presented so far, admittedly primarily from his point of view, Archie is not producing proof or even viable arguments. And some of that info did not come from Penders. It's quite interesting that Archie's lawyers attempted to challenge the constitutionality of a law.
God, someone explain to Ken he can just register a FanFiction.net account and let this mess be done with.
If Archie actually gave people the shaft(with random stuff I've read, I wouldn't be surprised), I'd like that company to answer for it.
Gotta love Ken's keeping up his unwarranted self importance, all the same.
Now Penders is saying that Sega might not even own the rights to the "Satam" characters.
While SEGA owns the characters and concepts it creates - Sonic, Knuckles, Shadow, Angel Island, Green Hill Zone, etc. - it is debatable what else SEGA owns, such as the characters featured in any of the DiC animated series, as the copyrights to most if not all of the DiC material belong to both DiC and SEGA. (Check the back of the SONIC SatAM DVD Boxset for confirmation as far as this series goes.) At the very least, DiC owns the episodes and probably the characters and concepts they created. That means legally SEGA may not have the right to authorize Archie the use of Sally, Rotor, Antoine and Bunnie, but it hasn't been addressed because no one thought to question the specific contractual arrangements until now.
I'm pretty sure that Penders is wrong about this. Sega at one point showed interest in possibly putting Sally in a Sonic game(sadly it never happened, and no "Sonic Spinball" does not count). I'm pretty sure that Sega wouldn't have been so interested in Sally if they didn't have the rights to use her.
Sega definitely has the rights to use Sally, considering she was a big part of their merchandising in the mid-late 1990s. Penders is, gaspshock, full of hot air.
Yeah, no - now he's on a Straw expedition and running out of material to grab...sooner or later, his argument will collapse in on itself.
Where did this latest excerpt come from? I don't question that he said it, but the sudden influx of new material to look over makes me interested.
Anyone else feel a little at odds with Penders talking sideways at Ian about comics experience, and yet Penders also apparently got "swindled" by Archie doing something drastically different from other companies despite said experience? I grant that as humans, we have the ability to overlook something or make a mistake, and only realize how important it was later, but it does seem a bit striking between these two facets of Ken's speeches.
It would serve him better to focus on his own legal battle and stop trying to grab attention by saying things that are controversial and irrelevant. It would also help for him to focus on the reality of the situation: Ian is the one writing the comic now, not Penders, so he should focus on those stories and/or characters he claims he owns and stop trying to extend his reach to the entire comic.
Where did this latest excerpt come from?
It's part of one of his replies on his forum. What he said about Sega possibly not owning the rights to the "Satam" characters interested me, so I copyed and paste that part of his reply.
According to some posts made over there, Ken has said that Archie comics is going to check all documents, including his website and posts made on his board. D'you think the Archie legal staff have seen this topic yet? =P
Yes according to Penders, Archie's legal team spies on his forum, and some of what's been said on the forum has shown up in legal documents.
Anyway this just in
TSSZ has learned Ken Penders’s motion to either transfer Archie Comics’s lawsuit to California or have it dismiss outright has been denied. We have been covering the ongoing case, in which Archie is seeing a declaratory judgment of rights regarding work Penders produced while employed at the company, for months.
A five page order, filed on Tuesday and made a part of public record shortly after, said Penders, acting as defendant in the case, did not “make a ‘clear and convincing showing’ of “exceptional facts” warranting transfer,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Berman in his decision. Berman also concluded the original agreement between Penders and Archie, the contract in question that is central to the case, constitutes prima facie “showing of jurisdiction”–in effect keeping the case in New York State, close to Archie headquarters. A central part of Penders’s defense is his assertion those agreements are not authentic.
While the ruling adds more of a burden to Penders, no key ruling has been made on the validity of his contract. Nearly all signs point to this turning into a full blown jury trial, an arduous process that could take many months or more. We will continue to keep you informed of key developments in the Archie/Penders lawsuit.
