Who owns Trinity Angels? (discussion from 2007)

[VHMMV]

I'm a big Kevin Maguire fan from way back, so I got my hands on a copy of Modern Masters Volume Ten: Kevin Maguire, and was pleasantly reminded of his work on Trinity Angels for Acclaim. I found what he had to say about the series interesting, particularly the following exchange between Kevin and interviewer George Khoury. The bolds are mine:

MM: Why wasn't the series creator-owned, since these were brand new characters?

KM: I had a stake in it as a creator. I think after Image and Bravura, a lot of companies were like, "Maybe we don't want to go that creator-owned route." It was owned by Valiant and Acclaim, and like most other publishers around that time they were looking to mine potential video game possiblilties out of their books.

MM: Did they ever give you any kind of hope that this might be a video game?

KM: It came very close.

MM: Did you make a demo or anything?

KM: I don't know if they made a demo, but there was a lot of talk about it, and the guy who was in charge really liked it and wanted to do it, but for some reason it didn't happen.

MM: So you have no copyright or anything on this thing?

KM: That sounds really nutty now. Apparently, there was something in the contract that says you can buy the copyright back from the company for a certain price based on sales or profits or something like that, and after a certain time it reverts. Just about a year or so ago I was told that there was stuff going on. A company had bought all the copyrights and it was legally murky. But I had a lot of fun with that series.

Now, just so people don't get confused, he's talking about two different scenarios here. In scenario one, Trinity Angels is still being published. In scenario two, it has ceased publication. Since Trinity Angels ceased publication in early 1999, one has to wonder at what point the copyright reverted back to Maguire, and what exactly that means. Is it the copyright to the characters themselves, in which case he is free to tell new stories with those characters, or is it the copyright to the twelve issues which were published, in which case he is free to put together a trade paperback and take it to another publisher? Or is it both? Did the copyright revert back before or after Acclaim's bankruptcy auction? (I'm inclined to say before, since five years from '99 was 2004, and five years is usually the length of time at which point such things revert back.)

And the big question is, which other (if any) VH2 creators had similar clauses in their contracts? Did Priest and Bright have it with Quantum and Woody? Was it a standard clause for all of the new VH2 characters, or was Maguire the only one? Do Acclaim's copies of any of those contracts still exist, or were they tossed out in the trash? If push ever comes to shove, does Maguire have to dig through his closet to find his own copy of the contract?

The point of this thread is not whether or not people here care about Trinity Angels, or the VH2 reboot as a whole. I mean, don't be dissin' Maguire because somebody else reimagined Magnus and Solar. I look at Trinity Angels the same way I look at Quantum and Woody: a creator-owned series which wasn't creator-owned, and Acclaim just happened to publish it. It could've been Dark Horse, but wasn't; it could've been Image, but wasn't. Acclaim published it, and it shouldn't have to bear the burden of what happened to everyone's beloved Valiant universe just because it had the same publisher, but that's getting off track. What about the can of worms which Maguire has opened up here?

[Daniel Jackson]

We were just talking about the Q&W situation awhile back. From what I gather VEI still own the characters, but the name of course is being contested by vip. I imagine this the case with Trinity Angels as well.

[Chiclo]

I had always understood that Quantum and Woody were creator owned.

Learn something new everyday.

[magnusr]

one has to wonder at what point the copyright reverted back to Maguire

Could it not also be the right to repurchase that reverts? That's been mentioned in regards to Quantum and Woody.

Is it the copyright to the characters themselves, in which case he is free to tell new stories with those characters, or is it the copyright to the twelve issues which were published, in which case he is free to put together a trade paperback and take it to another publisher?

Just guessing, but I think the latter would make a mess.

What about the can of worms which Maguire has opened up here?

Noone knows until the contracts are found.

/Magnus

[VHMMV]

We were just talking about the Q&W situation awhile back. From what I gather VEI still own the characters, but the name of course is being contested by vip. I imagine this the case with Trinity Angels as well.

But if the copyright to Trinity Angels reverted back to Maguire, VEI has neither the copyright nor the trademark. I know all about the trademark situation, but that has no bearing on the deal which Maguire struck with Acclaim way back when. If the copyright to Trinity Angels reverted back to him as per the terms of his contract, then VEI has nothing as far as Trinity Angels is concerned.

I wonder if Walter can shed some light on this?

[Daniel Jackson]

We were just talking about the Q&W situation awhile back. From what I gather VEI still own the characters, but the name of course is being contested by vip. I imagine this the case with Trinity Angels as well.

But if the copyright to Trinity Angels reverted back to Maguire, VEI has neither the copyright nor the trademark. I know all about the trademark situation, but that has no bearing on the deal which Maguire struck with Acclaim way back when. If the copyright to Trinity Angels reverted back to him as per the terms of his contract, then VEI has nothing as far as Trinity Angels is concerned.

I wonder if Walter can shed some light on this?

I imagine he could if he sees runs across this. He's the one that enlightened us on the Q&W situation.

[VHMMV]

one has to wonder at what point the copyright reverted back to Maguire

Could it not also be the right to repurchase that reverts? That's been mentioned in regards to Quantum and Woody.

/Magnus

I never thought of that. So the creator would have the right to buy back the property, and if he didn't exercise that right, it would revert back to the publisher? But the right to buy back the property wouldn't make sense from the publisher's standpoint. How could they buy back something which they already owned? He didn't say that the right lapsed, but that it reverted.

It's standard operating procedure in many publishing contracts that the property is owned by the publisher, and that it reverts, or becomes the property of the creator, once it has been out of print for a certain period of time. Alan Moore had it in his V for Vendetta contract, and DC has never let it go out of print, so the rights have never reverted back. William Moulton Marston had a similar deal over Wonder Woman, and DC also fixed his wagon by never letting her comic miss an issue for decades. They finally cut a deal with his heirs so that now they no longer have to live in fear that a publishing screw-up will cost them the character. A reversion clause was also how Will Eisner regained control over The Spirit. While it was published, the syndicate which distributed it owned it, and it wasn't until it was discontinued that Eisner got the rights back.

So this sort of thing is commonplace, and it's not unusual that Maguire would have a similar clause in his contract.

[Cyberstrike]

one has to wonder at what point the copyright reverted back to Maguire

Could it not also be the right to repurchase that reverts? That's been mentioned in regards to Quantum and Woody.

/Magnus

I never thought of that. So the creator would have the right to buy back the property, and if he didn't exercise that right, it would revert back to the publisher? But the right to buy back the property wouldn't make sense from the publisher's standpoint. How could they buy back something which they already owned? He didn't say that the right lapsed, but that it reverted.

It's standard operating procedure in many publishing contracts that the property is owned by the publisher, and that it reverts, or becomes the property of the creator, once it has been out of print for a certain period of time. Alan Moore had it in his V for Vendetta contract, and DC has never let it go out of print, so the rights have never reverted back. William Moulton Marston had a similar deal over Wonder Woman, and DC also fixed his wagon by never letting her comic miss an issue for decades. They finally cut a deal with his heirs so that now they no longer have to live in fear that a publishing screw-up will cost them the character. A reversion clause was also how Will Eisner regained control over The Spirit. While it was published, the syndicate which distributed it owned it, and it wasn't until it was discontinued that Eisner got the rights back.

So this sort of thing is commonplace, and it's not unusual that Maguire would have a similar clause in his contract.

It might also have to do with if the characters make any money for the
copyright and trademark owners.

I think in the case of Wonder Woman DC (and Time Warner) are still making money off the character whether it be in comics, video games, TV shows, toys, and other media.

The Spirit on the other hand outside of the Kitchen Sink series and DC's Hardcover reprint series no one else has really published much on the character (or even much less cared for the character) even Eisner seemed not interested in it all that much, and right now the only reason that anyone gives a damn about the Spirit is because of the upcoming movie directed by Frank Miller. That has more to with Frank Miller being
"hot" in Hollywood at the moment.

[magnusr]

Bumping this as it has become more current

/Magnus

[MoonChild]

First Thing that comes to mind is, if anyone creator wanted to make an issue out VEI using Trinity Angels the problem is easily solvable as almost nobody cares about that particular property. They can easily just legally own it and not even use em!

[BugsySig]

As myself and other have posted extensively in the Q&W thread, there are two issues: 1) any reversion rights clause is not enforceable under US law if a company declares bankruptcy, 2) if there was a buy back clause, someone would have to agree to sell, which no one did.

[GGSAE]

Here's a better question....who gives a $hit? It's Trinity Angels.

[GGSAE]

As myself and other have posted extensively in the Q&W thread, there are two issues: 1) any reversion rights clause is not enforceable under US law if a company declares bankruptcy, 2) if there was a buy back clause, someone would have to agree to sell, which no one did.

I think we're making this a lot more complicated than it is. If the creator was aware of the buy-back, but didn't option his right to stake claim, they shouldn't have a present claim on the material.

[IanAlexavier]

As myself and other have posted extensively in the Q&W thread, there are two issues: 1) any reversion rights clause is not enforceable under US law if a company declares bankruptcy, 2) if there was a buy back clause, someone would have to agree to sell, which no one did.

I think we're making this a lot more complicated than it is. If the creator was aware of the buy-back, but didn't option his right to stake claim, they shouldn't have a present claim on the material.

Exactly.. and shouldnt these 'creators' have a copy of the contract laying around somewhere???? LOL.."Um, I have a stake in these characters but, um, Im not sure where my contract is. Cant we find a copy in the bankruptcy mess? Its gotta be there, right?"

[betterthanezra]

VEI owns it period.

-Brian

[nutflush76]

Apparently, there was something in the contract that says you can buy the copyright back from the company for a certain price based on sales or profits or something like that, and after a certain time it reverts.

He doesn't even know for sure if this was in the contract. Since it's going on six years since the original post was written and nobody can produce anything that shows Maguire can even produce his contract, I think he pretty much has no claim.

Can you really see this guy going into court and saying "Well, I think my contract says this, but since I can't find it, I'm not really sure. But these guys are making money off it now and I want some of it."

But the point is kinda moot since nobody is going to be publishing that crap any time soon anyway. Another thread on here quotes him as saying something like the money he would have to spend in legal fees wouldn't be worth it. Of course it wouldn't be worth it! Why would you spend money on something that is worthless anyway?