How Pepe the Frog was hijacked by hate groups - PBS

I was flicking around the channels, and came across this story about artist Matt Furie, and his fight to reclaim his character from alt right hate and conspiracy groups. To anyone working on your own characters, and concerned about your online image, this is a must watch.

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/feels-good-man/

I have to confess, I always thought "Pepe" had started out as a hate symbol. My first encounter with him years ago was so repulsive, that the character had seemed to be designed that way.

Falling Hare - 1943 - The Gremlin

Hello blog, it's been a busy spring and crazy June, so I haven't posted in a while. Finally having some time to muse, a stray thought struck a spark, which kindled a small, but revealing flame:

What happened to the Gremlin in Bob Clampett's 1943 Merrie Melodies "Falling Hare"? And is he still a trademarked character of Warner Brothers? I worked at Warner Classics in the 90's and I missed seeing his model sheets and other references around the studio. But a post on Facebook lead me to the fate of this cute little saboteur, and who owns him now:

(original copyright Warner Brothers)

http://www.thegremlin.com/about.html 

According to this news, Steven Grossfeld of Gremlin Fine Arts Galleries in Vermont has secured his claim to the Gremlin back in 1990. Steven related to me that since this cute little stinker was used in a U.S. Army Film Corps propaganda short, he was never copyrighted. I didn't know that he was originally created by author and RAF pilot Roald Dahl.

Dahl's books were later used for animation with James and the Giant Peach and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. And you can't forget Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, (except for, maybe Tim Burton's version.)

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gremlins

https://www.roalddahl.com/global/roald-dahl-titles 

To heap more shame on my ignorance, I learned that Disney wanted to use the little guy for a feature, even bringing in Walt Kelly of Pogo Possum fame. (I think Kelly was a Disney artist at the time). 

But when Disney could not secure the copyright, Warner's took over, and the Gremlin floated in legal limbo for years, until he was acquired by Steven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Hare

http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/The_Gremlin

According to Steven Grossfeld, Steven Spielberg was given the okay to use the Gremlin in a couple of  "Tiny Toons." I've never seen them, but nothing can beat "Falling Hare", 

and the "Gremlins from the Kremlin" short "Russian Rhapsody".

 (original copyright Warner Brothers)

So, for this Fourth of July celebration, try to laugh with the first seven notes of "Yankee Doodle", in spite of what is going on in Washington D.C. And remember, the Gremlin was the only character who ever got the better of Bugs Bunny. ("You know how it is with these 'A Cards' ".)

 (original copyright Warner Brothers)

Happy Independence Day everyone.

UPDATE:

Steven also mentioned that Virgil Ross was the key animator and character designer on the Gremlin. Ross told Steven in secret that working on the Gremlin was one of his most favorite projects. So keep it under your hats folks! Loose lips an' all that.

 https://www.facebook.com/groups/254411461352100/permalink/1217100878416482/?comment_id=1217138998412670&reply_comment_id=1217875545005682&notif_t=group_comment&notif_id=1498987944477939

The 1998 copyright extension, or the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”

Dubbed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” , the 1998 copyright extension seems to be done at Disney's behest. Employees should chip in, because they're part of a big, happy family.

(photo copyright collegehumor.com)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/disney-ceo-asks-employees-to-chip-in-to-pay-copyright-lobbyists/

Hard to think of Mickey in the public domain. But it might happen someday!

Hawkman vs. Daredevil

This is a lot tougher than I thought. Really got to tip my hat to Ross over at http://braveandboldlost.blogspot.com/

(art copyright Marvel/Disney and DC/Time-Warner)

This was bashed together from low rez jpegs of Daredevil #20 and Hawkman #4.

Now I know.

salute!

How Thanos stole Christmas (Not the Grinch) - Part I

Another guilty pleasure. This scene was set up by my friend Trell at the Animation Guild in Burbank. You can check out his cool goodies at 

http://www.jupeykrusho.com

http://jupeykrusho.blogspot.com

Trell deserves the credit. But this scenario could be totally insane: It would take the Avengers, Warlock, Captain Mar-Vell, the Defenders and Spider-Man to handle this crisis. Okay, and the X-Men and S.H.I.E.L.D. too.

(And it would probably have a cameo by Stan Lee as well.)

(Thanos created by Jim Starlin, copyright Marvel/Disney, scene set up by Trell, photo by me, Christmas copyright of Jesus)

Thanos would have no little dog Max to serve as a moral compass, or as a witness to his Holiday perfidy. Instead, Pip the Troll would probably be his unwilling servant. (Pip would be perfect as second banana with his smart remarks and stinky cigars.)

Will Thanos destroy Whoville? Would he incinerate little Cindy-Lou Who? Does he even enjoy "roast beast"? Hey, I'm just trying to get in the Holiday spirit here. It's been so hot and dry in southern Cal. Stay tuned!

Click button for Spoiler

In the end, it's Santa who gains the Infinity Gauntlet, and puts everything back to normal.

Marvel settles with Jack Kirby estate

(Photo taken by Suzy Skaar for "The Art of Jack Kirby" (Blue Rose Press, 1993)

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/marvel-settles-dispute-over-superhero-rights-with-jack-kirby-estate/#/0

It's taken me more time than I thought to comment on this news item, and I hope I've learned a bit more about the artist/employer relationship. When it comes to Jack Kirby, and all the work he has produced, it stirs up a lot of passion in comic fans.

And that's not a bad frame of mind, but it may not be useful when dealing with our current business climate. (My commentary will naturally be biased towards the artist.)

When Disney acquired  Marvel Comics, it seemed like mixing oil and water. I could not see how Disney's wholesome, family image could be balanced with Marvel's gritty superhero themes. Except for the profit motive, of course.

Marvel Comics had been owned and passed along by quite a few different corporations over the years since the first Lee/ Kirby days.The issues of who created which characters, and who signed their rights of ownership away as work for hire seemed to settled.

No one knew who would create the next Mickey Mouse or Superman, so these guys cranked this stuff out just to earn a paycheck. Comics were considered disposable, like old newspapers. Case closed, or so it seemed.

However, I learned recently from a debate on LinkeIn that the families of Siegel and Shuster, the creators of Superman, had been getting some kind of royalties, or share of the profits that the Superman character had generated for DC comics over the years. 

"With great power comes great responsibility"

(Simpsons copyright Fox)

Even though I'm a comic fan, I missed this information somehow. My assumption is the public having an image of the families of the creators of Superman being "left to starve" created bad press. And so a new arrangement was made to cut the heirs of Shuster, if not Siegel, in for some of the profits. Guess I need to hang out at more comic conventions. 

Oi.

Getting back to the settlement with the Kirby estate, a commentator on LinkedIn noted that this Lee/Kirby feud may have been old baggage that Disney did not want to lug around anymore. I can just picture their reluctant hands going down a little ways into those deep pockets and tossing the Kirby descendents a few bones. 

Whether the DC/Siegel and Shuster settlements set some kind of legal precedent will take more digging on my part. (Hooha!) But knowing the image Disney wants to portray may have spurred them into pouring oil on these troubled waters, even though it's quite late in the game.

Another thing that surprised me was how a faceless organization like Time/Warner could have made such a "warm and fuzzy" move with the Superman heirs. By faceless I mean that Disney had Walt, and Marvel had Stan Lee. But Time/Warner has no real "faceman", other than Bugs Bunny. 

Rant time: Business is business, and a deal is a deal, but maybe the world is getting tired of these huge media conglomerates winning ugly. Or else these corporations just want to avoid any more embarrassment.

But here's to Jack, still the King!