T Campbell's Blog

I dunno, man. It seems like it's common sense to have some's permission before you decide to use their intellectual properties to hawk your wares. I couldn't just decide to make a comic starring Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny and start selling it at Barnes & Noble, now could I?
 

ah, don't let it bug you too bad, man. every history book is going to be controversial when reviewed by its subjects. i assume you've done your best to represent the facts honestly, but no matter what, a history book is affected by the author's perspective, and should be viewed as such.

but seriously, change the cover. i dont care one way or the other about you using the characters' likenesses, but honestly, it just looks like half-assed fan art. the logo and jacket design are boring too. if you're going to go to all the trouble of writing and publishing this thing, put a kickass, well-designed cover on it so it actually looks important.

anyway, good luck with the controversy. it's probably a good thing really.
 

Two points, put mostly politely:

1. That you admit to your mistakes is a stand-up thing to do. I presume the printing is too far along to make corrections now. However, if your depiction of your research methods is accurate, you should strongly reconsider publishing at this time--more specifically, publishing while calling yourself a "historian." (See point 2.) Given that everyone involved in creating Megatokyo--Rodney AND Fred--is upset about your representation, attempting to hold publishing and make revisions would also be the stand-up thing to do. You need to do your homework, and by your own admission you have not.

2. I won't cut and paste the cross-post, here is the link: http://www.rcaston.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=2883#2883

I felt it belonged on that forum more properly than here. Now, there is precedent for you to be retrospectively dubbed a "folk historian" or somesuch, if your work is deemed adequate. As you say in your post, it is for others to determine the quality of your work. This does not mean that "historian" (a more jargonal, closely-defined term than "writer") ought be self-applied injudiciously.

Real history books, by the by, are not typically controversial when reviewed by their subjects--controversy arises when relevant history is left out (say of Native Americans in US History, or of Rodney here), or on the points of the book that deal with theory. Facts are facts, and controversy only arises in those areas where the facts are not available or not diligently pursued.
 

From my gathering the past years mr Kurtz is a grouch that has something against mr Gallagher. Sure Rodney Caston was one of the creators of Megatokyo but as with all creative endeavours and businesses if you opt out or get bought out at some point you cannot claim fame for something in all eternity. Rodney sold his share of Megatokyo for an undisclosed amount (probably a large one too considering it seemingly took Fred quite some time to pay it off) and that's that.
I mean if you, say, renovate and paint a car and then sell it you cannot claim it's your car when you have been paid for it already. To me it seems like someone does not have business sense but only artistic diva like foibles.

In summary; mr Kurtz is wrong and mr. Gallagher is right. If Kurtz has such an issue with Megatokyo, why doesn't he help his dear friend mr. Caston buy back the rights or a controlling interest then...

Personally I would ignore mr. Kurtz as he is but one of many web comics creators, and not a very good one either as far as I am concerned. His consistent acidic behaviour toward fellow creators doesn't make things better either...

With hopes mr. Kurtz will at some point grow up...
/Lindus
 

Respectfully, i think you're kind of missing the point on purpose.

You're focussing on "the community's" outcry over the accuracy of your history book. More importantly, you're focussing on one aspect of their complaints over the history book.

Accuracy

I think we can all agree that no history book is going to be 100% accurate, as everyone's recollection of events is slightly different. I've read Scott's post and he doesn't dispute that fact. Quite the contrary, he brings it up and acknowledges it.

The Quotes

But by not checking the accuracy of DIRECT QUOTES you're always going to piss people off. Any book, and I know from having gone through a very similar state of affairs about a new flash book, needs sub-editors or yourself to check the quotes.

The Horseman Factor

Personally, I think your phrasing of this was awful. By calling these people "horsemen", the mind automatically assumes a small but pivotal number. 4, to be exact. To make a list of 7 or more is going to piss people off. Specifically, the people you are writing (or not writing) about. I think you'd find less of a reaction if you had just called them "Legends" or an equivalent word. There can be more than one Legend, and you can mention them separately. You can even add legends later. There is no precedence that says they should be listed together, but there kind of is with the "horsemen". In-fact over 3000 years of precedence.

Basically, this is a schoolboy error. No book, however accurate, can include all the influences of a genre. I’m sure Scott and the others all know this. But by calling the people you chose, the people who in YOUR opinion are the most important ones, “the horsemen” you’ve set up the statement that they are the only ones who mattered. I doubt this was your intention, it probably just seemed like a cool name.

Using other people’s work without their permission

WOW. I know web-comics isn’t really considered BIG business yet, but come on. How on earth did you think that people were ever going to be happy to let you use their copyrighted material without their permission? That a corporate issue I suppose; but I do think it’s one that you maybe might have picked up on, being, y’know, older than 10.

Still, I think the thing that hurts the most for these guys, and you can get that from Scott’s writing; is that you write about them as horsemen. Tell them they have done something wonderful for comics, the internet, a generation. You then don’t have the decency to pick up a phone or write an email and say “ooh, hey, I’m going to steal the likeness of your copyrighted material that you’ve worked your butt off for years on. Is that ok?”


The cover

Aside from the legitimacy of it, it looks awful. Really like Fan Art. I’m presuming it’ll be changed again before publication, but still. I don’t think it’ll help you get many casual browsers. Just an opinion though 


The thing you may have missed

All this boils down to one point. And I think it’s the one that you may have missed. The people that would possibly buy your book, are going to be fans of the genre. The chances of your targeted demographic being a reader of PvP (or a similar publication) is incredibly high. How many of that demographic are going to be influenced into NOT buying your book because the comic creator says bad things about it?
 

*Ahem*

Lick me.
 

I won't be buying it. You have no credibility among your audience, and this Scott Kurtz thing makes it worse.
 

Look at me! I can exploit a popular "Internetular (tm)" sub-culture and write pretty much opinion on the subject matter and call it history!

Wow! Look at me! Buy my book!
 

Man, I tell yah. Scooter sure has a an army of sychophants at his disposal.

The research methods are valid.
Scott's quite skilled at misrepresentation for his own purposes, but just because you all enjoy the comic doesnt mean you all have to take what he says as law.

I've seen this happen a few times now. You're not children people, and Scott's not your daddy. Think for your fucking selves for once.
 

Then again, going by the Dragonball avatars, maybe you are children.
 

So it's hard not to wonder whether you've ignored anything that's not a gag strip, or came before Megatokyo and the term "webcomics" There were many of us doing online comics before any of these big guys, before they were called "webcomic", before keenspot, etc. Ever hear of impro-manga? FAHQ? Eigomanga (pretty bad attempt, but they were back in 1999)?
 

Ok folks, T has been webcomics as long as Kurtz has, to within a couple months. So claiming he's swooping in to exploit webcomics now is just about the most ridiculous claim you can make without verging on self-parody.

If you want to see a shameless attempt to grab readers, check out this article, which merges public record with rumor mongering and baseless speculation. That is what it yellow journalism looks like, folks. It'll make you appreciate the fact you have true historian like T on the case.
 

Scott Kurtz likes to whine alot. He needs to spend more time on his art. His attacks on this book and on previous webcomic artists discolor his good work like a diarrhea colored crayola.
 

I have a question about this book.

It sounds like most of the fury over this book is about the working relationship between two comic artists.

While that might be considered important in some respects, will there be a discussion of webcomics in this webcomics book?

If this book talks about the balance between having fun and actually making a living, then I'll read it.

What about the impact on the larger artistic culture? Movies and TV are dealing with rising costs and fickle viewers. Can webcomics take advantage of that? Who are the people actually making a living at this?

Can anyone comment on that?
 

I think the only scary lesson here is that instead of avoiding drama you may need to pursue it by disagreeing and making a large issue of inaccurate (or accurate but biased) information about yourself as a web entity/your creation, since people will base future research off of whatever sticks around online.
That's not me taking either side, just pointing out that sometimes NOT diving into webdrama can be worse than launching a petty crusade. In the end you don't change anything, but at least there will be an archived record of the stink later for future research. Well, that's what I've pulled from this. And that's somewhat scary.
 

You know, T., personally I consider you one of the most trustworthy and notable people in the webcomic community. You approach the field as something serious, rather than as a joke. You put tremendous effort into this, rather than just good enough to slide by. And you think of things that so many of us would never dream of, or never think would work.

If you take a look at Mr. Kurtz, we have a notary who has a history of retconning posts. He dislikes the comments section of Websnark because he cannot return and edit old posts. His words are left untouched for future readers to look at and see for themselves some of the less pleasant things he's declared.

Worrying about what he thinks about this project is like worrying what an old grouch thinks about the church pangeant. He's not going to change his tune no matter how good it is. He's going to find reason to complain and demean it at every turn.

So ignore him.

The vast majority of research is looking up written sources, not interviews. If there is a written record out there... then why do you need interviews, which are quite subjective in nature?

Honestly, you don't.

Take care, my friend.

Robert A. Howard, Tangents
 

So, let me get this straight? You used other people's IP in ads and cover art, and only asked permission after the fact?

If so, you are VERY lucky that no one is taking you to court for damages. Someone could easily bring you to small claims court and get a few grand out of this, easily enough to make your publisher go "waaaah."
 

"Then again, going by the Dragonball avatars, maybe you are children."

Ahh, good. Getting personal. The sign of a truly impartial comic reviewer.

As a writer, I happen to think that stealing intellectual property for the purposes of self-promotion is... well, it's pretty low. Sure, T said he "made a mistake"... that's like deliberately plowing into a parked car, and saying "it was a mistake". You had a VERY, VERY long time to realize what you were doing, T... realizing after the fact that, "Oh, whoops, I accidentally took all these names, logos, and graphics, and accidentally put them on the cover of my book, then accidentally released advertisments showing them! Wow, what an astounding series of completely faultless accidents I've made!"

I disagree with Kurtz on a couple things, but I have to back him up on this one. T is being a twat (I totally understand why he goes with his initial now), and is now using carefully constructed platitudes to claim innocence without ever really apologizing, taking steps to rectify the situation, or change his ways.

He may have been around for a long time... good for him. A LOT of bad journalists have been around for a long time... at no point in the history of humankind has "seniority" EVER meant "credibility". It just means you're good at not going away.
 

Look, it's not possible to know T even remotely and think he was intentionally out to screw over the people he used the art of. The company producing the book, sure, maybe.

Those images are there because T believed in them, and saw them as iconic of the industry. As people have mentioned - the entire set-up looks fannish, which works in some ways and not in others.

Irregardless of the actual content of the book, I can't see that issue as anything other than an honest mistake on T's behalf.
 

Quoth T Campbell: "But rightly or wrongly, Fred Gallagher has had far more influence on the webcomics world as a whole, and this becomes more true with every passing year."

Nice way to try to make it look like you're addressing the point at hand up there while actually tapdancing around it, T. The relative influence of Rodney or Fred has nothing to do with the criticism of your failure to provide any comment from Rodney on the breakup; to the contrary, it's that you're providing only one side of the story, and not attempting to balance it with the other side. Failing to fact-check Fred's account of how the breakup went down is an amateur move, and not in the good sense of the word "amateur."

As for William G's first post, I'm assuming you meant Scott Kurtz when you said "Scooter"? If you meant somebody else, then I'm not his sycophant, either. Contrary to what you assume (and you do know what you made out of UME when you did that, yes?), my criticism of T is the product of the very thinking for my fucking self which you are attempting to deny the existence of. I read Kurtz's rant on the book, then did some additional reading here and elsewhere on the topic, and I stand by what I've said before: T dropped the ball when he was writing his attempt at history.

My advice for brett day? Do a google search on the term "tu quoque fallacy" when you get some free time.
 

I have been around this business for a great deal. Even before I married Rodney and found the joy that was the mess of Megatokyo. I did some of the multiple author web stories, and the other things before they were ever pinned as "webcomics."

There is no doubt that Rodney Caston was the orignal Creator of the original concept of megatokyo. Both Fred and Rodney have said that Fred was approached with a concept already in hand.

For someone that is involved with the people of Antartic Press, it bothers me that they themselves approved this book for print. Not only becuase of the cover issues, but the fact that you yourself admit to such a little percentage of interviews. Since you were not there, I thought it was only common sense to find out the truth through those that were.

While I have nothing against you I have something against the practice of posting "truth". If he really wanted the "truth" about megatokyo, but didn't want to hear it from the people themselves, you could have asked the other people involved or at least made an attempt.

As to another point. Intellectual property is hardly a car, as stated in some of the comments here. It is not something that you bought or someone else made. It would be more like building a car from scrap metal. No matter who owns the car now, you still made it. You still designed it, created and made it a car with your own two hands. No matter who buys it, no one should be be able to take that point away from you.

That is why movies like O brother where art thou, list the original refrences (the odysey) to what created them. Its a sign of respect. Yes, while I see the point that more people associate Fred with megatokyo so he is the more "influencial", that doesn't mean that the original or the creators are less important. Fred did take what was given and create something from it. However, You cannot influence something that is not created in the first place.

No one, no matter who they are. Will downplay Shakespeare just becuase West Side Story was successful. No one will say that Pygmalian was not important becuase My Fair Lady was more popular. Just becuase someone continues a project, dosen't make the pioneers any less spectacular then they were to create the original.

The History of Web comics presents itself as History. History isn't usually what is in the now and here, it is in the then and the beginnings. I find it even odder, that you would avoid talking to the beginning creators if you were writing a history book. I could understand if you were writing a book on the Here and now of webcomics, but is a book about history not supposed to be about the people that created things? About what is underneath the here and now? So I hardly find the basis of the "most influential" comment to hold water. Creators influence in ways that people who adapt thier creations can't and vice versa. You can't take either Fred or Rodney out of the equation and still have Megatokyo.

I think you have made probably more publicity for you book then you have imagined. And I believe the saying is all press is good press. Perhaps that was the reason that you picked such an approach, I honestly don't know what you are thinking.

But not once, did I present my opinion of what you were thinking as fact. Not once did I look at your blog and determine that this is the complete history or your life. Much less print in publication.

As for Rodney or even myself failing to read your publication. I check the mail every day, Our address is a matter of public record (or just asking the one of us that check their e-mail on a regular basis) and I can tell you I have never seen such a thing offered or presented to my home. May be I missed it.

Perhaps we might have a higher opinion on the publication if we were asked our opinions on the "facts" of our own lives. For you this is a book, but everytime these issues are brought up. Everytime another opinion is added to a pot of speculation it adds to the flames of the fiction was created around the break of Megatokyo.

I myself, travel to anime conventions, and enjoy the industry that surrounded them. I was there for the phone calls and I have seen the contracts. And that is facts that will never get out,and frankly are no ones business. If Rodney got screwed or Fred's is a saint will probably be in speculation forever, but you are presenting the "truth." I would have hoped that someone in the business would have been in a better mindset to know that basing truth on blogs, and public relations statements, and public record isn't a way to create something of history. Just a way to create something.

Tell me, Sir, would you like this truth to be based on Scotts Kurtz comments on you? Or would you rather someone talk to you? He is far more influential, and has a bigger audience and is nationally publish by Image,and is a webcomic creator. Not to mention has even had a publication attached to the special ed. Of City of Heroes. By your own logic, I should listen him more because even though your created the book in comment. He has gotten far more attention about it and is more influential.

But that would be just a half truth, wouldn't it?
 

wow, your a World renowned webcomic historian huh? I might as well be the Premier webcomics historian. I've been reading since Cool-cat studio was half thru, have back issue's of Faan's... All of it's walky & dozens of others. I oughta write Scott & offer to help him write said book.
But If I remember my web-comic history your not a historian but an actual figure. And yeah, you can't get blamed for the 7 thing... heck some are gonna contest the fact that webcomics are even at a level to be labeled historic yet.
Maybe you shoulda called it a Pre-history like Gary larson's 10th anniversary book. I do think though, scott likes a taste of the "controversy" it drives hit counts up, and I do believe he is living off his site so any bit going back & forth between as conspicous a person as yourselves can only help.

I'd like a chance to view the transcript or whatever. People have to remember that webcomics before google, before the collectives DID exist If people remember the BBS days.. you couldn't tell that stuff was out there, but the internet was a big place even then (think 1993) And did you get to research if comics didn't exist then? heck how can we say that Penny-arcade / PVP/ megatokyo should be anything but Sophomoric history rather than "founding fathers" ok I have more thought's email me, my ADDy's on my site if anyone wants to converse deeper
 

The problem, I believe, is that anything labeled a 'history' recieves a certain amount of crediblity weight. In 20 years perhaps these webcomics players will be retired, or their blogs lost in so many server crashes. An entirely new generation of webcomic readers will have grown up. A kid wanting to write a report on webcomics will not have been around to read the blogs as they had been posted, and who knows if they would still exist. So something that declares itself to be a "History of Webcomics" by a "World-Renouned Historian" would probably be a primary source.

How would you feel if you helped shape that history, and that book didn't give you credit for your own work?

It all comes down to that. Nobody wants history to forget them (or forget their story) once they've made their mark in whatever way they can.
 

T, can you provide a run down of which webcomics were included as part of your documentation of the "history of webcomics"?
 

Scott Kurtz doesn't need to tell me that using other people's characters without permission isn't hella smart. If you were a journalist you’d lose your job, or if you were a student youd be kicked out of university for plagiarism. Someone who gets an oppurtinity to write a book, I hope would be protective enough as to what goes on it. Putting the words ‘world-renowned’ adds insult to injury. This book already appears amateur, and it looks like a joke. I wouldn’t let someone put that about me on a book, unless I already had many notches on my belt. You might call yourself a historian, but this tome of yours already looks 30 years old, bring it up todate


cmoore
 

Stealing material is just that, stealing. You are in the wrong and as a fellow writer I am offended that you and/or Antarctic would choose this path rather than try and get permission. So Scott or the others did not get back to you? Then you should not of gone beyond mentioning them. Sometimes that is why projects should not go forward. People just do not want to be put into books.
 

Lindus wrote:
"I mean if you, say, renovate and paint a car and then sell it you cannot claim it's your car when you have been paid for it already. To me it seems like someone does not have business sense but only artistic diva like foibles.
"

The person who renovated and painted it can very well say "I designed the way that car looks" without having to "own" the car. They could also go so far as to copyright their work, to prevent someone else from creating a car exactly like it, unless it had the creator's consent.

Rodney Caston may not "own" Megatokyo, his copyrighted work and intellectual property still exists within the history of the comic, regardless of who owns it.

In my opinion he has every right to be included on the history of Megatokyo and the "Seven Horsemen". After all the book is not called, "Current Webcomics: Where They Are Now", its called "The History of Webcomics". To not include the main creator of Megatokyo, who was also the main promoter thanks to his friends at PvP and PA is absurd. Fred Gallagher didn't have these connections, and without Rodney's connections the comic would have gone no where, and there wouldn't even be a history of Megatokyo to write about. Sure they might have found other means of promotion, but nothing better then recommendations coming from two of the top webcomics out today.

Also, to publish an advertisement of a book that contains cover art that has not been approved for use by the authors is absolutely ridiculous. If you are going to publish a book, you better know the rules before you go about doing so. I'm not even a writer and I know that if I were to publish a book with someone else's work, whether written or illustrated, that I would need the author(s) consent and permission to do so. It's one of the fundamental teachings of English classes all across America. If it's public domain, you are also required to cite the sources of this public information.

I most certainly will not be purchasing this book. It is obvious to me that this is a "Quick Buck Book", simply because of the way it's handled, if I'm going to purchase a book, the author better have some passion about the subject. It is clear that this author has zero passion for the webcomics industry and its creators.
 

All I have to say is: I draw a webcomic, I would love to read about the history of web comics, but i wouldn't pick up a book with that cover.
 

It is clear that this author has zero passion for the webcomics industry and its creators.

I've worked with T for almost two years via GraphicSmash and that could not be any further from the truth.
 

I can think of two things here:
1. The book seems more of an editorial/coffee table book then a genuine history text. The project might be better served by another title, something about observations on an emerging industry or some such. And while I do not know the training of Mr. Campbell I do not believe him to be a historian.

2. Actually if writing a "history" book I think most people would love to interview everyone involved instead of simply reading semi-random blogs. For example, Ken Burns does lots of things about the American Civil War. He is well respected and his documentaries are used as teaching tools. He fills his documentaries with interviews.

Specifically, if this is going to be a "history" text, as was noted earlier that in thirty or fifty years will be treated as outright truth, then you would definitely want every possible interview and direct quote you could get your hands on. The reason many history books are free of interviews is simply because they waited until something was history before being written and by that time many of the people involved were dead.
 

Journ summed it up exactly: it's the flippant attitude about the book coupled with calling it a history that bothers me. Changing the name would help immensely, although so would changing the content, which it sounds like Mr. Campbell is trying to do. Kudos to that.
 

Everyone knows that SK is an egotistical, self-interested, endlessly petty jerk.
He's painfully jealous that he didn't write this book first which becomes all the more transparent with his "If I were to write this book..." screed.

But of course the book will sell jillions of copies simply because "PVP" was mentioned in ad copy for Diamond's catalog, the browsers of which have no friggin' clue nor care what PVP is to begin with.

And speaking of "accuracy" and "honesty" you have to love Kurtz' assertion that T Campbell has never "created" anything himself. As if "Penny and Aggie", "Rip & Teri" and "Fans" never existed.
 

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:

"As a writer, I happen to think that stealing intellectual property for the purposes of self-promotion is... well, it's pretty low."

A blogger and a "writer" are not one in the same. Anyway are you paying the creators of Dragonball Z for the use of that avatar?
What about the artists of the images you use on your blog?
Just wondering.