ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 492
Mar 22 11 12:01 PM
Posts: 3016
Mar 22 11 12:02 PM
Posts: 4692
Mar 22 11 12:33 PM
Posts: 11309
Mar 22 11 1:59 PM
Matthew McCallum wrote:The brevity of Twitter posts makes it difficult to discern the core of the objection. Is it merely dismay over a seeming lack of courtesy? Or regret at not being able to participate in the retrospective? Or concern at an entity profiting off the work of a beloved family member without fair compensation? Perhaps all three?
Mar 22 11 3:10 PM
droid714 wrote: Matthew McCallum wrote: The brevity of Twitter posts makes it difficult to discern the core of the objection. Is it merely dismay over a seeming lack of courtesy? Or regret at not being able to participate in the retrospective? Or concern at an entity profiting off the work of a beloved family member without fair compensation? Perhaps all three?You don't refer to someone as a "crook" because they fail to make a courtesy call; you call them "crooks" if you perceive that they have stolen something. The only conclusion that I can make, while admittedly not knowing the principals involved or the facts of the situation, is that Stephanie feels that she and or her family should have profited from this book. Again I want to point out that I don't know what the laws are concerning this matter, but considering how litigious society has become, I have to assume that the authors have made sure to follow all pertinent laws and regulations before they published their book. If they did, then I truly don't understand the outrage.
Matthew McCallum wrote: The brevity of Twitter posts makes it difficult to discern the core of the objection. Is it merely dismay over a seeming lack of courtesy? Or regret at not being able to participate in the retrospective? Or concern at an entity profiting off the work of a beloved family member without fair compensation? Perhaps all three?
Mar 22 11 3:21 PM
Matthew McCallum wrote: That's a reasonable assumption, but "crook" doesn't always mean "thief". Sometimes people use it to mean someone whom is dishonest or dishonourable (i.e. crooked). Hence, I don't immediately leap to the conclusion the disdain is automatically profit-centric without a more full explanation of the objection.
Mar 22 11 3:33 PM
Posts: 1455
Mar 22 11 3:44 PM
Posts: 1754
Mar 22 11 3:59 PM
Registered Member
Mar 22 11 6:09 PM
sfcityduck wrote: Whether such conduct is legal or ethical is a debate I'm not interested in, but I believe that Ms. Buscema's statement of her opinion of the situation is not actionable.
Mar 22 11 6:20 PM
droid714 wrote: sfcityduck wrote: Whether such conduct is legal or ethical is a debate I'm not interested in, but I believe that Ms. Buscema's statement of her opinion of the situation is not actionable.You certainly know more about the law than I do, but Courtney Love recently settled a lawsuit for $430,000 for calling her clothing designer "a nasty lying hosebag thief" and accusing her of being a drug addict and a prostitute, on Twitter.Admittedly, that's a bit more harsh than simply calling someone a "crook" in a public forum; but calling them "crooks" in this particular forum could certainly have a negative impact on book sales.
Posts: 5970
Mar 22 11 6:42 PM
sfcityduck wrote:I speculate that the Buscema family feels wronged that someone elected to write what is being billed as "a complete picture of one of the comics most outstanding artists" without ever contacting them. IMHO that's not unreasonable. This is in stark contrast to how the Krigstein and Kirby books were done. I further speculate that the ire over this discourtesy is compounded by a perception that the author is acting parasitically in profiting off of Buscema's reputation and reproduction of his work without any compensation to the family. Whether such conduct is legal or ethical is a debate I'm not interested in, but I believe that Ms. Buscema's statement of her opinion of the situation is not actionable.
Posts: 1289
Mar 22 11 7:13 PM
Posts: 14425
Mar 22 11 7:38 PM
Golden Age
Posts: 179
Mar 22 11 8:08 PM
sbuscema wrote:The bottom line is: John's wife should have been contacted immediately in regards to a book being published about her husband. I find it not only disgusting but disrespectful that she had to find out this information second hand.
Mar 22 11 8:26 PM
Mar 22 11 9:52 PM
... the truth is, the book was well advertised and had a long delay, there was plenty of time for the Buscema's and/or their agents to inform themselves on what books containing Buscema works were being released, no-one denied them of that action and if they choose not to do it then it is their decision
Mar 22 11 10:41 PM
Posts: 4703
Mar 22 11 10:52 PM
Donovan wrote: I'm trying to understand what makes them crooks as well.Karma will get them - for not notifying the widow that a book was being published? Or not giving proceeds of the book to the widow...
Posts: 1150
Mar 23 11 12:52 AM
My band's charity single benefiting the West Memphis Three:iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/justice-at-last-west-memphis/id368804016Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Last-Memphis-Three-Benefit/dp/B003IOYEUW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1273505497&sr=8-3eBay: http://stores.ebay.com/asoundofthunder
Share This