So in 1993 McFarlane got some of his favorite writers to work on his Spawn book. Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Dave Sim, and Frank Miller (in that order) were brought in to write four consecutive issues (#8-11). Neil's issue #9 introduced 3 new characters Angela, Medieval Spawn and Cogliostro. Neil was also hired to write the Angel mini-series which was 3 issues long as well as part of issue # 26 as Gaiman was afraid people wouldn't know Angela was a spin-off of Spawn. McFarlane himself created the design of the characters and draw the issue. He also continued to develop the characters as a writer on his book too. In issues 14-15 which he drew and wrote Todd develops The Medieval Spawn character more. The character also appeared in a 3 issue mini-series with a Medieval Witchblade written by Garth Ennis. McFarlane continued to feature Cogliostro regularly in the main comic. McFarlane already showed in the comic prier to #9 that it was based on a war between Heaven and Hell. That had warriors on both sides. Although this was the first issue to show an angel in the Spawn universe.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane



McFarlane paid Gaiman $3,300 for his contribution to Spawn No. 26 and more than $30,000 (the exact amount is not in the record) for the Angela series. In 1995 a Medieval Spawn figure was made, McFarlane mailed Gaiman a check for $20,000 designated as royalties, presumably on sales of the statuette, though the record is unclear. For the rest of 1997 and 1998, McFarlane sent Gaiman royalty checks totaling about $16,000, presumably on account of the statuettes and the paperback books.



Anyway in 2002 Gaiman took McFarlane to court and won that he was co-owner of the three characters. McFarlane only had conceded that he was co-owner of Angela as McFarlane and other writers developed the other two characters more. With just issue #9 Medieval Spawn is just Spawn in another time with no real back-story and Cogliostro is just a stereotypical wino old bum.

So now that's not good enough for Gaiman now he wants to be paid for three more Spawn characters he had no part in creating. A Spawn called Dark Ages Spawn and two warrior angels Domina and Tiffany.



Basically he's saying because they look the same as the characters McFarlane draw. The back-stories of the characters are different. An no they don't look identical ether they just look like there from the same comic.


But in issue # 9 Gaiman wrote


Guess he doesn't even remember what the hell he wrote. I guess he'll just continue to lay claim to any other Spawn character from different times or any angle character that ever appeared in the book. Is absolutely ridiculous he did not invite angles or demons and he did not invite the Spawn universe.

In issue #8 that Alan Moore wrote it explores the different levels of hell and introduces one of the Violators brothers. At the end of the issue it shows the 1000's of different spawns from different times in Hell. Moore also write the Violator and Violator VS Badrock miniseries as well as issue # 37. Alan Moore helped develop how Hell works in the Spawn universe but you don't see him coming after Todd for money ever time a demon and creature from Hell appears in the book or as a toy.

McFarlane's paid Gaiman $170,000 for writing a little over 4 comic books I think that's enough money. I think he did treat him better then DC pr Marvel by paying him for the figures which are only based on McFarlane's drawings not on the story of the character. Basically McFarlane lost the first case because he had been paying Gaiman royalties for the use of the characters in different mediums. The court took that as McFarlane's giving Gaiman co-ownership of the characters. I thought that was B.S. but this new case is really B.S.

If these characters are derivative of Gaiman’s characters, then Gaiman’s characters are also derivative of McFarlane’s original Spawn character. So Gaiman is now reversing his earlier position and should lose all rights to Medieval Spawn.

So he doesn't look like a totally douche Gaiman says he's giving any money he gets charity.


http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/when-titans-clash-comic-book-creator-edition/
http://www.usatoday.com/life/comics/2010-06-14-gaiman-mcfarlane-spawn_N.htm

Hey guys forgive me for ranting about this here, but for whatever reason I can never post anything on the Spawn boards. Found a blog were someone is posting the whole proceedings

http://www.maggiethompson.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-06%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=21

and a blog from Neil about the case even though like he says he's not spouse to talk about. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/06/despatches-from-alternate-universe.html

Neil Gailman really sounds like a pompous ass to me in his testimony. In his blog he claims McFarlane had claimed in 2002 that he and not Gailman had written issue # 9. That's not what McFarlane was saying he was saying he and other writers he hired wrote the stories that developed the Count Cogliostro and Medieval Spawn characters. Gailman claims it wasn't work for hire but it obviously was McFarlane hired 4 famous comic book writers to write 1 issue each. I'm sure when McFarlane told Gailman he could write about whatever he wanted he never would of thought it would turn out that from 4 issue and 3 pages worth of work Gailman could lay claim to co-owning half the Spawn universe.

In Gailman's testimony he tries his best to not agree with anything Mcfarlane's lawyer ask him. Mcfarlane's lawyer tries to get him to understand that somethings in creating works can be very similar to others like background characters in a story. Like a mobster being Italian ,a Judge wearing a black robe, a caveman having a club, or a Knight wearing armor. He states he'd never make a mobster Italian, he'd give a caveman an ax instead, only if it was in America would the judge wear black, and if it was a knight in armor then of course he would be in armor but he wouldn't wear it if he was just a knight.

I never fully agreed with the verdict that Gaiman was co-owner of Count Cogliostro and Medieval Spawn characters. As his contributions to those two characters were so limited. Also I believe he was paid as a work for hire just like the other 3 writers McFarlane hired for issues 8-11. I believe McFarlane lost the case only because he had been more then generous to Gaiman for giving him royalties for figures based on the likeness McFarlaned draw and created. And to Gaiman's own testimony were not what he had envisioned.

I agree that he does have a right to own Angela 50% though. As he wrote almost her whole appearance. But the current case I totally disagree with him.

It seems he's basing his case on the similarities on the artwork of the characters and not on the story characteristics of the characters. McFarlane is the creator of the Spawn Universe and its look of all characters and elements are derived from issue # 1 not #9.

In issue #4 Malebolgia makes it clear that they are building up an army to fight God and his army. I do not think Gaiman created anything creatively unique in the idea that God's army would be made up of warrior Angel's.

I would like to hear what Alan Moore thinks as he was basically hired to work out Hell for McFarlane as Gaiman was for Heaven. Besides issue # 8 he worked on 3 other 3 issue mini-series continuing to develop the history of the Spawn costume, Hell, and Violator and his brothers. He also help write issue # 37. It'd be interesting to see if Todd gave him royalties for figures based on the Violators brothers. Or for The Freak which McFarlane created but Moore provided the dialog for.

I mean you don't see Alan Moore suing Todd ever time Hell or a demon is mentioned in the comic. And I find it just as unjustified for Gaiman to lay claim to credit every time Heaven or an Angel is mentioned in the comic.

He really invested so little into the character of Medieval Spawn that he still believes the character lived in the 12th century. When the canon went on to say his character lived in the 15th century.



" He was eventually slain by the demon hunter Angela." This is what Gailman contributed to the character's history.

The Dark Ages Spawn lived in the 12th century.



So apparently Gailman didn't bother to read any of his characters back-story that Garth Ennis (Punisher, Preacher) helped develop in the mini-series.

Gaiman quoted over and over that in issue #32 which McFarlane wrote a character states that a Spawn is chosen every 400 years. Of Course that character was wrong. No one seemed to quote the line Gailman wrote himself in issue # 9 were he says,

"Hellspawn takes much energy and time on the part of the Malebolgia; thus far it has not created more than one in 50 years, and usually not more than one a century."

So obviously these two Spawn could both be from around the same area and not be the same. Although the stories are really 300 years apart.

Gaiman is also wrong about the crowd of Spawns around Malebolgia true most are just solders but some are Generals from past generations. They are just in Hell because they we're slayed or their powers ran out. McFarlane should of took more time drawing that page to better illustrate the point that their all from different times.

In issue #119 there is a similar page better illustrating this on the page it shows a Gunslinger Spawn amongst other Spawn's from different times and even dimensions. His story was told in issues # 174 and 175.

There's also been a WWI area Spawn told in issue #179 so the 400 years rule was never a real rule.

Again Gaiman himself said 50 years. Why did no one site this?

If these characters are derivative of Gaiman’s characters, then Gaiman’s characters are also derivative of McFarlane’s original Spawn character. So Gaiman is now reversing his earlier position and should lose all rights to the characters.

I like how he claims he could create different personalities for Knights in armor but doesn't feel McFarlane and company could.

"Returning to the question of whether there were any stock characteristics of a knight in armor, Gaiman answered, "No, because you'd have - It depends who's in the armor, what they're doing. ... I mean, I could sit here and come up with a dozen different kinds of knight-in-armor characteristics. ... You know, even in the Arthurian legends, there are hundreds of knights at the round table and they're all very different. You can't point to Gawain and say he's like Galahad or Lancelot going mad. They're very different people. You have an impulse for good for most of them, but, then, you have knights in armor who were evil or bad or whose motives are mixed up and conflicted."

He said it himself it depends who's in the armor and it was not the same character that appeared in issue # 9,14,15 and the mini-series. It was a new story as it stated in the beginning of the first issue of The Dark Ages series.

Gaiman is only confused due to his lack of involvement in the continued development of the Medieval Spawn character. He also stated he did not create and did not recognized the Dark Ages Spawn Lord Covenant when they showed him the figure.

The Dark Ages Spawn series was much more dark in look and tone then what was show in issue # 9. They are clearly two different Spawns.

The warrior angel's look different then Angela too. Besides Gaiman did not create the look to begin with as he stated Todd draw the cover before he wrote the issue. Then he through in the elements from the cover like the dagger and the shield.

Gaiman testimony was just ridiculous denying that in stories there are stock characters like Italian mobsters or a Judge wearing a black robe. Because he know it would come back to the fact that he contributed such little creatively unique ideas in issue #9 like a drunk old bum or a knight in armor or warrior angels fighting demons.

He does not deserve half of the Spawn Universe which is what he seems to be laying claim too.

"If you're writing comics, what you always want to do is leave the ground more fertile than when you were there. You want to leave more stuff for people who are going to be writing ongoing series to play with, which is why it was fun for me giving Todd, for example, the idea that there had been lots of Spawns. It was something that left him with more than had been before."

Seems to me he gave Todd nothing but wanted to sell Todd the idea at a very high price.

McFarlane's paid Gaiman $170,000 for writing a little over 4 comic books I think that's enough money for the amount Gaiman contributed.

I mean how do you decide how much to give to someone who hasn't invested any more of his time, effort, ideas, or money into any of the many projects McFarlane took on? Clearly he does not deserve half of the profits from everything in which the three characters appear in. As his involvement was just writing 4 comics and 3 pages.

If Gaiman wins will he continue to sue McFarlane for all the other incarnations of Spawn as he claims he gave McFarlane the idea?

McFarlane devoted his time and money into developing the characters. He paid other writers to continue to develop the characters. He hasn't used the 3 characters since he lost the case. All Gaiman did was take away from were the Spawn universe can go he hindered it by being a part of it.

If McFarlane had not already though of the idea's Gaiman put in issue # 9 he would of done so in time.

He would of went on to tell the stories of other Spawns. He would of gave Spawn a mentor. And most obviously we would of seen the other sides army at some point. And it would of had angels.

Sorry for ranting so much. But I do feel strongly that Gaiman hindered the direction the book was aloud to go in after his lawsuit. Now it looks like its being threaten even more.

Well the judge ruled in favor of Gaiman.

Totally wrong on all counts. She doesn't seem to know McFarlane was the artist and not Gailman. Because in her ruling she keeps saying the other angels are visually similar to Angela. Gaiman didn't create her look he testified in the case the look McFarlane created for her was not what he had envisioned.

She rules that Dark Ages Spawn is Medieval Spawn because of a none existing rule. She states 100 years in her judgment but in issue # 9 Gaiman said 2 Spawn's had come 50 years apart. Dark Ages Spawn is derivative of Spawn not Medieval Spawn.

She also ruled in Gaiman's favor because she said if someone else came out with Dark Ages Spawn then McFarland could sue them. Well yeah if they called it Spawn. I disagree if a different comic would of came out with Tiffany or Domina without the Spawn symbol eye makeup or lance McFarlane created then no they would not of been able to sue. As no one can lay claim to a copyright on the idea of warrior angels. If so I guess Gaiman should sue Top Cow too. I bet he'd claim that's more of the look he had envisioned for Angela too. And of course they would win if a book was called Dark Ages Spawn, but if it was just a demon knight they'd have a tough case to prove. Even if the character had sold he's soul to the devil that's not something you can copyright ether. Ghost Rider's story is very close to Spawn's but Marvel can't sue McFarlane because that's not something you can copyright.

Again all the looks and characters are derivative of Spawn # 1 not Spawn #9. Angela and Medieval Spawn's look are derivative of Spawn's look. Therefore Dark Ages Spawn, Tiffany , Domina are all derivative of Spawn's look too.

Could McFarlane sue Gaiman if he wrote a story of other superheroes in Medieval times? Could McFarlane sue Gaiman if he wrote a different story with Warrior Angels? What about one with Heaven VS Hell? The Devil VS God? The fact is Gaiman could legally write a story close too Spawn and not get sued.

If a Warrior angel appeared in McFarlane's Haunt comic could Gaiman sue? No he couldn't.

Really hope this gets overturned, but with McFarlane's luck I guess it won't. So how long before Gaiman sues for royalties for all the other angels that have ever appeared in the Spawn comics that he had no part in creating? Or for rights to other Spawn in different times? As he claimed in the case to have "given" McFarlane the idea of Spawn's in different times.