Keskustelujen arkisto

Luca Boschi wrote:

> Hi, Soeren!
> You have not found the "thing" yet, but you are really close to it!
>
> Maybe that "something" has been erased, but maybe also that for Dane
> people the "object of scolding" has no sense. Indeed, for people able
> to discover all the details that Don Rosa puts into his panels, maybe
> the search be easier! Look at the first panels!

Well, Mickey holds a board with some pseudo-phoenix signs on it.
There are a few words/scratches there, but I cannot really place them a=
s

anything but Italian and scratches, is that it??? And I, who was
expecting an
erased hill like p.... carefully placed between the two mountains or
something... ;-)
...no really, I don't think I've found it... You better tell us, before
we waste
anymore disney-comics-mail-list-space. I have placed a HUGE (350kB)
scan of the page at

http://www.kom.auc.dk/~sko/jumbo/thing.gif

so you can check out, if the "incidence" was actually erased.

S=F8ren

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #127
******************************************

Don Rosa wrote: "Disney would never give permission for a fanzine to use
a Disney image,
though more do than they can keep track of and stop... but they DO say
they
own that magazine if it prints their images....Disney claimed complete
ownership of *anything* published
in a Gladstone comic (except ads), and they would be giving my property
to
Disney without fees or agreements."

John Nichols routinely recieved permission from Disney to place Disney
copyrighted images in the Barks Collector in the late 80's and 90's. I
used many Disney images to illustrate a series of articles I wrote about
Barks paintings, and many comic book illustrations from various stories
to illustrate other articles. John had to submit each issue for
approval before publishing, but to my knowledge he never had any real
problems getting material approved for use. Also, I used many Disney
motifs and "locations" (i.e. the Barks money bin) in covers I drew for
the fanzine: I always put "(c) John Garvin" on these covers and I still
own the original artwork for them. Disney never blinked an eye.

I think they are very protective of the commercial use of their
property. I also think that the internet, over the next few years, will
completely change the meaning of "copyright." LucasArts has already
lost the battle of trying to get enthusiastic fans from using their
copyrighted images on their sites. Disney will lose this one also.
What does copyright mean when anyone can "publish" instantly to millions
of viewers world wide with a few keystrokes? Disney will, and should,
be able to stop others from "profiting" from their copyrighted
characters (don't try to set up a "pay" site, or sell unauthorized
posters on-line) but Disney will not be able to stop their legions of
fans from enjoying their characters in ways impossible before the Web.

jg

Marco Barlotti wrote:

> Mickey scribbles in his table, clearly readable among other stuff:
> PIGLIATELO IN CULO
> I wonder why Gorlero did this...

Yes, he's a naughty naughty boy, isn't he? ;-)
But, as you said there is other "stuff" inbetween,
and the "culo"-word can hardly be read in the Danish edition.

BTW, Marco, I-TL-2063-4, Topolino e il colpo in replica, is
by Dalla Santa, and the beautiful I-TL-2031-3,
Zio Paperone Duca di Milano is by Studio Recreo.
Check the "off-topic" site http://www.topolino.it yourself.

S=F8ren

Mike Schneiderath wrote:
>-the new Micky Maus Magazine (#21) with the smallest Disney Comic of the
World
> (24 pages..20 pages of comic, Story from Barks: "Donald Duck and the
>Titanic Ants", Size approx 5.5 cmx4 cm...magnifying glass included and
>really needed to read it ;-)

There were some Norwegian DD's back in 1979 (i think). I don't know where
I've put mine, but I think they must have been about the same in size.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vidar Svendsen http://home.sol.no/~vidasven

And he said all those numbers
made him numb,
which (he thinks) is why
they're called numbers

To: Dr. Archontis Pantsios and Marco Barlotti:

You've both recently asked about the status of "Somewhere in Nowhere." My
understanding is that the story has been sold to a European publisher. No,
it's not Egmont. I'm not going to say which publisher yet until I can confirm
that my information is correct. I'm in the process of trying to confirm that
right now and I expect to know shortly. I'll try to provide details about this
as soon as possible. For obvious reasons, I'm curious about this myself.

--John Lustig

>From: jgarvin
>John Nichols routinely recieved permission from Disney to place Disney
>copyrighted images in the Barks Collector in the late 80's and 90's.

I hope you don't think me rude... but I doubt this very much. I would like
to see copies of any correspondence where the Disney corporation formally
allowed the use of any iota of its copyrighted images in any nonlicensed
media, whether it was anything from a fanzine to TIME magazine. Perhaps
Nichols just assumed it was okay because no one bothered to stop him. And
they would not stop him because the "right" (wrong?) person never found out
about it, or that it was never formally brought to their attention so that
they would be compelled to squelch it.

>I used many Disney images to illustrate a series of articles I wrote about
>Barks paintings, and many comic book illustrations from various stories
>to illustrate other articles Also, I used many Disney
>motifs and "locations" (i.e. the Barks money bin) in covers I drew for
>the fanzine: I always put "(c) John Garvin" on these covers and I still
>own the original artwork for them. Disney never blinked an eye.

Again, they either never saw it or were not compelled to deal with it. Just
because you placed "(c) John Garvin" on a drawing you do is NOT any proof
your claim on that image will stand up in a court if challenged. That Money
Bin has appeared in Disney copyrighted stories for decades, so your "(c)
John Garvin" on it was meaningless. What, did you think that *you* now owned
the Money Bin image? I guess I'm not grasping your point.
The fact you still possess that original art has little to do with who
Disney thinks it belongs to. Of course, you and I and any other sane person
knows its your property, but that's not the point

>Disney will, and should,
>be able to stop others from "profiting" from their copyrighted
>characters (don't try to set up a "pay" site, or sell unauthorized
>posters on-line) but Disney will not be able to stop their legions of
>fans from enjoying their characters in ways impossible before the Web.

I agree that they will lose this battle, yes, but they will still fight it
and try to win. Have you forgotten that 20-some-odd years ago Disney tried
to sue the worldwide manufacturers of videotape machines to prevent people
from having the power to own their own copies of Disney films. They actually
intended to prevent the existance of home video for the entire planet... and
if they didn't think they could succeed, they wouldn't have tried. (Now you
see how joyously they exploit these same video-buyers with the constant
claims that video-releases of their films will be "the LAST TIME EVER ON
VIDEO! LIMITED SALES PERIOD!" and then rerelease the same videos on a 7-10
year cycle, knowing the public never seems to catch on.)

So, I'm not debating with you what you and I know Disney actually owns and
what they will eventually succeed in doing... I'm just telling you what THEY
claim according to their own statements.

I should have reported the happy news some time ago, but anyway here goes.

I had been a correspondent of Carl Barks for a couple of years or so,
exchanging several interesting letters back and forth, before discovering
this mailing list.

At the first mention of this mailing list in a letter to Carl, I got a
pencilled reply from Bill Grandey (on "Carl Barks Studio" note paper)
saying that Carl was busy painting and couldn't reply for a few months. The
note also expressed sadness at the fact that I was now "on the Internet
with the Rosa group" (pardon me?).

I never received any replies from Carl Barks after that and I finally
convinced myself that my mail was being intercepted and "diverted" (to the
rubbish bin most likely) because I was a Rosa-contaminated person. I don't
know if Grandey ever knew that I later even went to stay at this
disgraceful author's house for a few days and then wrote a book about him
(with Leonardo Gori and Alberto Becattini, for the record). Maybe he would
have treated me even worse.

I also received (like, as far as I can tell, several others who had
previously corresponded with Carl Barks) the infamous anti-Rosa dossier,
together with its nice Lustig-to-Grandey "What a windbag!" cover fax. I
sadly gave up trying to write to Carl again, profoundly disappointed that
these nasty and totally irrelevant wars between other people should be
allowed to get in the way of our personal correspondence. That was in late
1995.

In March this year I finally had the good fortune to visit California,
where among other things I had a great time with Duckfan Extraordinaire
Michael Naiman (I may tell you about this wonderful visit another time). He
brought me up to date on the Grandey stuff, in particular on the fact that
they had had the cheek to sue Carl (! outrageous!) and on the good news
that he was now fighting back with the help of a good lawyer. This was SO
nice to hear! Having these hawks around him trying to squeeze the last
ounce of profitability out of his reputation gave me the same disgusting
feeling as if I had seen thieves robbing my grandfather (who by the way
died last year, older than Barks is now). It was with a great feeling of
satisfaction for cosmic justice that I welcomed the news that Michael gave me.

I was also there at Michael's place around Carl's birthday, when the giant
pack of birthday cards and letters from people on this list was being
delivered (and oh boy with what heroic efforts on Michael's part to get
around the idiocy of the UPS boneheads who managed to deliver it to the
wrong address--and try guessing WHICH wrong address, just for fun...). I
saw all the passion and dedication that Michael had put into organising all
this, and cursed myself for having been out of touch from this list for so
long that I had missed all these important announcements about both the
lawsuits and the birthday card initiative.

Back home, I finally sat down to write to Carl once more. I told him about
all of the above, the mail blackout, the hawks around him, the Rosa book,
even elaborating a little on the fact that Rosa was not actually the devil,
the extraordinary visit to Michael's and so on. And, above all, the fact
that I was so happy that I could finally write to him again KNOWING THAT IT
WOULD GET THERE. (NB: if you want to do the same, I am sure that Michael,
whom you could regard as "the good guys' interface to Carl Barks", will be
kind enough to forward your letters like he offered to do with mine.) I
knew he'd be incredibly busy and stressed with the lawsuit business, and
also that he had just received lots of mail, so I told him not to bother
with a reply. I wasn't writing so that I'd get a
collector-s-item-reply-from-the-duck-man in return: I just wanted to be
able to say thank you once more to the man who had illuminated my childhood
with his immortal tales.

Next thing I know, I receive this wonderfully touching letter in which he
comments on all the things I told him. And the bit I really want to share
with you all on this list, to tell you how much all your messages (and
Michael's coordination efforts) were appreciated, is this:

"Dear Francesco [...] I am certainly glad you got in touch with Michael
Naiman, and that Michael got in touch with many others over the internet.
All of a sudden I find out there are many friends out there who understand
my situation. I AM NOT AS ALONE AND FRIENDLESS AS MY EX-MANAGERS TRIED TO
MAKE ME. Someday soon my lawyer may even feel it is safe for me to meet and
talk with Michael and Don Rosa. [...]" (emphasis mine)

Nothing could make me happier than receiving such a letter. I have no doubt
that all of you who responded to Michael's initiative will feel a special
warmth in their hearts on reading the emphasized phrase above...

The final comment on Don was also especially gratifying. After getting to
know Don as an artist, as a man and as a friend, not only through his
brilliant work but also through this list, through personal email and
especially through those long conversations at his place in 1996 while I
was collecting material for the book, I was genuinely sad that a man for
whom Barks was practically a father figure was effectively denied the
chance of a personal contact with his hero just because of those stupid
wars (with someone else!) that ultimately had their root in greed and
exploitation. I am happy to have given a little contribution to the
dismissal of those untruths and that I helped bringing together two great
men that I deeply admire.

Frank (filologo disneyano) http://www.orl.co.uk/~fms/

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #129
******************************************

Hi everyone!=20

Yesterday a very intersting message arrived in my mailbox=20
and from the content it seems to be not that irrelevant!!!!

I am not that familar with the matter, so I can=B4t give any wise comments o=
n
it.=20
Instead I will just qoute the whole text, so that you can make up your mind
on your own!

Mike Martin!

Original Text follows:=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
***Auction Alert***

An auction of original Carl Barks line art is scheduled for
a May 30th bidding deadline. It is a complete 10 page story "The Beauty
Business" which originally appeared in WDC&S #308 (May 1966).

Before placing your bid, collectors should be aware of some
of the misleading statements and inaccurate facts.

This piece is being promoted as being "the only existing
complete, published Barks original art 10 page story."

Huh?? What about the "Milkman story" published many times
=8Aeven by Disney?? Another 10-pager ,"Silent Night" is missing the 1/2=
page
title, no one knows where it is, whether it does or does not exist, the
point is, it may exist, and if it does, there's another 10-pager.

And let's not forget the "Lemonade King" and "Uncle Scrooge
Christmas Carol" and (maybe even more importantly) "North of the Yukon" a
24-page Uncle Scrooge story=8Asold by the very same person selling this
"Beauty" story.

It is promoted that "all others destroyed by fire 30 years
ago" Come on now"all other" Barks work destroyed by "fire"??? What
happened? Was everything in a giant Ducks-only warehouse and subjected to a
Great Calamity?? According to Barks, Western decided to clean out their
inventory and at some point incinerated many pages. However, there are
many, many pages produced by the Old Duck Man that still exist. Seems
there's a Finnish publication out there cataloging most of Carl's existing
artwork! Why does this auction ad want us to believe that this is the very
last existing piece? No one knows how much may or may not have survived
that has not yet surfaced!! Why are the facts being twisted?? Why does the
auction NOT tell it as it really happened?

It is also promoted that "three Barks original art pages
recently sold at WonderCon" (in Oakland ,California) for $15,000
each=8Ahmmmm, this is odd, most collectors, including Barks collectors who
were there, never heard about this?? Was it cash or trade??? What was the
art??? How early was the art??? What were the contents=8ADonald,Scrooge, the
nephews??????

It is also promoted that this art comes "direct from Carl
Barks" this is not true Barks sold this story approximately 15 years ago it
has been owned by the current seller (not Carl) and now is going to be sold
again=8ACarl has nothing to do with the current ownership of this=
piece...the
seller bought this art "directly" from Carl and now it will potentially go
"directly" to you, the winning bidder! This is hardly the same thing as
saying that the art comes "direct from Carl Barks" to the new potential
buyer.

Estimated values, according to the seller (who, of course,
has no self-interest involved here) are estimated from a low of $60,000 to
a high of $150,000...which translates to $6,000 to $15,000 per page????
Hey, why not ask 1 million per page? To position "estimated values"
however, such as legitimate auctions do, suggests prior knowledge and
experience that these are reasonable---and accurate--figures that a real
collector would pay. These "estimated figures" are clearly delusional and
misleading. Lets take a look at the subject matter of this story.

This story shows Donald in his traditional garb in a grand
total of two panels (one image very tiny at that!). Donald is presented
with slicked down hair throughout the story, and not in his typical ruffled
feathers appearance=8Ain fact, the last two panels even shows him looking
like Gladstone Gander! This story, the next to last Barks WDC&S piece, is
from a period that some collectors say is the least desirable era of Barks'
work. On top of it all, the weaker support characters of Daisy and her
nieces April, May, and June take up most of the story and there's NO Uncle
Scrooge to boot!

An informal survey got some interesting reactions. The
highest estimate offered was $30,000 when pinned down to how much they
would pay for it, the answers were different. Some simply said "I wouldn't
want it," meaning--in actuality--they, of course, would want it if they
could get it cheaply enough to justify keeping or, cheaply enough to resell
and make a profit. Some said they would "probably" give $5,000 for it.

Hopefully, the winning bidder, whoever he may be, will buy
it knowing ALL the facts and because he still feels that what he bids is a
good price. Misleading information and the coloration of the facts can not
only damage the real marketplace but alienate potential new buyers for the
artwork of Carl Barks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
end of quote