Is Roger Sweet getting credit where it's due?

[Poe Ghostal]

I'd rather see Roger Sweet's genuine reaction as opposed to someone staging the event to illicit a desired response and/or without it being edited for dramatic purposes.

Well, unless you're standing next to him when it happens with no cameras present, that's pretty much impossible. Call it the Reality Show Uncertainty Principle.

I suppose you could surreptitiously videotape it without his knowledge...but you'd still have to wait around for him to stumble upon it himself. Could take months! Anything else would be, technically, staged.

Not that I care about this at all. Odd point to nitpick, really.

[Skeeter]

Yes he will get credit where it is due.

So what that means is he will not get credit because none is due.

He was an employee of Mattel and his work was all work-made-for-hire.

He had no owenership. No ongoing rights. No claim of credit.

All of this would have been in the agreement he willingly signed in order to have his job.

Walt Disney is the creator of all the films that bear his name because he wrangled the artists, told them what he wanted, edited, changed, threw away, kept and produced.

And Mattel is the creator of He-Man.

[LORD FALLEN ELDOR]

I would to, but whatever. The wrestling-like aspect (when applied to anything really) = hilarious entertainment!!!

Your right that it can be entertaining, but it can also be misleading. You ever see that show Ancient Aliens? OH BROTHER!
I prefer something either just be fiction or Non-fiction not some *******ization of the two...Gotta leave that for the politicians

Well, unless you're standing next to him when it happens with no cameras present, that's pretty much impossible. Call it the Reality Show Uncertainty Principle.

I suppose you could surreptitiously videotape it without his knowledge...but you'd still have to wait around for him to stumble upon it himself. Could take months! Anything else would be, technically, staged.

Not that I care about this at all. Odd point to nitpick, really.

I was thinking along the lines of Roger Sweet chillin' at SDCC and somebody busts out a camera right as he sees the MOTU display.
Just something candid and on the fly without any preparation or editing.


Whats so Odd, my original nitpick or you picking my nit?

[Moominsthenmotu]

Yes he will get credit where it is due.

So what that means is he will not get credit because none is due.

He was an employee of Mattel and his work was all work-made-for-hire.

He had no owenership. No ongoing rights. No claim of credit.

All of this would have been in the agreement he willingly signed in order to have his job.

Walt Disney is the creator of all the films that bear his name because he wrangled the artists, told them what he wanted, edited, changed, threw away, kept and produced.

And Mattel is the creator of He-Man.

Well... As I posted before, Jerry Robinson was identified by two courts - one in New York and one in LA as having 'Statutory authorship rights' to the Joker.
This was the first time the comics industry had such a judgement passed because that judgement was usually only applied to Hollywood film cases. Carlo Rambaldi, the designer of E.T. had his thrown out after the ET re-release in 2002 because Amblin and Universal had approached him with the concept. Jerry Robinson worked for DC and as they were looking for a "major criminal adversary" for Bob Kane's Batman, he thought up the Joker and "authored" the character.
Neil Gaiman was the last person to attempt this claim with his 'Angela' character for Impact's 'Spawn' comic, but as Todd Macfarlane had said he "wanted a WOnder Woman for Spawn" Todd Macfarlane retained client and commissioning rights and remained "author". Gaiman won some credit and residuals from the judgement, though.
Steve Sansweet, the Star Wars archivist, pointed out how any toy produced by Kenner or its European subsidiary 'Palitoy' was stamped as being copyright Lucasfilm and that most toy designers were made aware of that fact. Palitoy, based in England, had very enthusiastic designers who generated the concept of a smaller GI Joe line of 3 3/4 action figures. They called it 'Action Force' and Kenner imported the idea as 'GI Joe' into the states. Palitoy lodged so many patents - not least of which for a very cool Tie-Fighter esque vehicle with a skull-shaped cockpit - that Kenner simply didn't use their designs.
Moral being - know what you are going into. Any student of MOTU's history knows Sweet has been arrogant in some statements and especially his time at Mattel bordered on corporate tyranny - but any student of MOTU knows that, goofy as they are, Sweet did kitbash those concepts we are now being sold as Vykron and if Mattel don't kick a couple of dollars his way then it is ethically poor show. I had no idea that Mark Taylor hadn't been given even a nominal courtesy residual for 'Vikor' and 'Demo Man'... if Mattel ever make 'Torok' (sic) they surely must!

Your right that it can be entertaining, but it can also be misleading. You ever see that show Ancient Aliens? OH BROTHER!
I prefer something either just be fiction or Non-fiction not some *******ization of the two...Gotta leave that for the politicians



I was thinking along the lines of Roger Sweet chillin' at SDCC and somebody busts out a camera right as he sees the MOTU display.
Just something candid and on the fly without any preparation or editing.


Whats so Odd, my original nitpick or you picking my nit?

I think I would get ready for some old-time, good old fashioned old-man-swearing! Anyway, does anyone get a kind of 'Adam West' vibe from Roger Sweet?.. Just me then.

[EtherianChronicles]

I think I would get ready for some old-time, good old fashioned old-man-swearing! Anyway, does anyone get a kind of 'Adam West' vibe from Roger Sweet?.. Just me then.

Adam West has a much more accurate self-image.

[Barbecue17]

I'd actually be in favor of all of the original crew getting some type of credit on a figure that was based on their design or prototype. Has anyone ever debated that Roger Sweet made that original trio? I know the whole issue of who created He-Man is as muddy as the Tar Swamp itself, but I've never heard anyone else take credit for creating those original three prototypes. It would be nice to get a stamp on the figures like Vikor, Demo-Man, and the Sweet trio saying something like, "Based on concept art by Mark Taylor" or "Based on the original prototypes created by Roger Sweet."

The new creators in the 30th sure haven't shied away from promoting themselves as the creators of their figure. It would be cool, on a few of these throwback figures, to have some type of reference to these originals. I understand the rights issues are tricky, but I think about how in creative disciplines like authorship, comics, statues and busts, music, tv, and film, people are credited for their work. It would be nice to see more credit on the part of the creators and teams working on these toys.

[MrRoboto]

I'm assuming that, legally and/or financially, Mattel aren't obliged.

[Gragar]

Interesting that Todd Macfarlane's case has been cited because what Macfarlane really did give in Image Comics and his toy line - that sired the 4H lest we forget - was creator credit and even a degree of control. Nothing had ever been done as regards crediting sculptors or artists on that scale before and as the Gaiman case proves, it could be messy as well as a sweet deal.

We need to look at it this way - Neitlich' name and/or alias (I count Spector as an alias) has dominated the promotional, packaging and even figural material of MOTUC. How can he refute, even implicitly, the right of at least creator acknowledgement when he as brand manager saturates it? Saturates marketting and creator credit hogging for good or ill? Even ToyGuru cheerleaders have to agree with that!

Let me put it this way. Push the limits of your imagination real wide now and imagine I take over the running of the Hasbro 'Star Wars' toy line tomorrow, disallow mention on the packs or promotion of George Lucas, Ralph McQuarrie, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox or even ILM - but create a stromtrooper 'Lt. Gragar' then create a Jedi Knight far superior to Yoda called 'Gragar Annoyingnerd' or something then write revisionist "director commentaries" on how I felt Mace Windu or Darth Vader without helmet should look as a figure.
What on earth would Star Wars fans think? They'd think it ludicrous, no? Outrageous? Absolutely, they'd have every right! Well it happened with MOTUC.

'Star Wars' Hasbro line, in fact, has incorporated creator likenesses and names into the brand - guys who did eggshell-skin texturing on aliens even got their name on a clone trooper! 'Star Wars' even had a prestige, niche line devoted to the conceptual work of Ralph Mcquarrie. No Hasbro manager or representative moaned about cost or snakeoiled the fans - and McQuarrie's family cited that toy line as one of the things that made their relative just that bit happier in his latter years.

We are paying premium rates for a line that is not being handled in a premium manner - things I really envy 'Star Wars' fans because Hasbro does that in their sleep.

[MC Modulok]

Walt Disney is the creator of all the films that bear his name because he wrangled the artists, told them what he wanted, edited, changed, threw away, kept and produced.

Walt Disney did that for a minuscule fraction "of all the films that bear his name".

[Skystalker]

Interesting that Todd Macfarlane's case has been cited because what Macfarlane really did give in Image Comics and his toy line - that sired the 4H lest we forget - was creator credit and even a degree of control. Nothing had ever been done as regards crediting sculptors or artists on that scale before and as the Gaiman case proves, it could be messy as well as a sweet deal.

We need to look at it this way - Neitlich' name and/or alias (I count Spector as an alias) has dominated the promotional, packaging and even figural material of MOTUC. How can he refute, even implicitly, the right of at least creator acknowledgement when he as brand manager saturates it? Saturates marketting and creator credit hogging for good or ill? Even ToyGuru cheerleaders have to agree with that!

Let me put it this way. Push the limits of your imagination real wide now and imagine I take over the running of the Hasbro 'Star Wars' toy line tomorrow, disallow mention on the packs or promotion of George Lucas, Ralph McQuarrie, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox or even ILM - but create a stromtrooper 'Lt. Gragar' then create a Jedi Knight far superior to Yoda called 'Gragar Annoyingnerd' or something then write revisionist "director commentaries" on how I felt Mace Windu or Darth Vader without helmet should look as a figure.
What on earth would Star Wars fans think? They'd think it ludicrous, no? Outrageous? Absolutely, they'd have every right! Well it happened with MOTUC.

'Star Wars' Hasbro line, in fact, has incorporated creator likenesses and names into the brand - guys who did eggshell-skin texturing on aliens even got their name on a clone trooper! 'Star Wars' even had a prestige, niche line devoted to the conceptual work of Ralph Mcquarrie. No Hasbro manager or representative moaned about cost or snakeoiled the fans - and McQuarrie's family cited that toy line as one of the things that made their relative just that bit happier in his latter years.

We are paying premium rates for a line that is not being handled in a premium manner - things I really envy 'Star Wars' fans because Hasbro does that in their sleep.

But doesn't this assume that Scott is behind giving Roger no credit on Vykron? There are decades of bad blood between Mattel and Roger Sweet. He ain't gonna get a mention no matter who is in charge.

[iron_pride]

This type of legal stuff is why they had such harsh rules concerning the create a character contest. They don't want my great grandson taking Mattel to court in 60 years over a drawing I submitted. I don't care either way, but from what I have read, Sweet has been pretty loud about himself (and I probably would be too, so I'm not knocking the fellow) in regards to MOTU so I wouldn't expect him to even get a passing thought.