Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 2847235" data-attributes="member: 2810">Personally, I'd hardly consider something like 'Babylon 5' &quot;lasting and impressive&quot;, but tastes vary. The original 'Star Trek' was lasting, maybe, but in a hundred years they'll all be answers in 'Trivial Pursuit -- 2106 Edition'.The fact is, Mongoose's business relationship is with WB, not him.&nbsp; If Mongoose has violated the licensing agreement (or, more to the point if WB has assigned rights to Mongoose they shouldn't), that's what lawyers are for.The first thing any artist should learn is how to take criticism.&nbsp; The second thing they should learn is that once they let their 'child' out into the world, it's no longer purely theirs.&nbsp; I knew a couple painters, for instance.&nbsp; One could not stand going to showings of his work, because it drives him nuts when people saw something entirely different in his work than he intended.&nbsp; The other loved talking to people as they perused the gallery, because she got a thrill out of seeing how different people interpreted the art.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both of them, though, have said that if the person who buys it takes it home and let's their kid fingerpaint over it, it's no big deal.&nbsp; If they didn't want to let it go, they wouldn't have sold the painting.Assuming Mongoose is following the letter of their agreement with WB, they have no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise, to consult with JMS.&nbsp; Mongoose is the creator now, or co-creator anyway, and if they want to take&nbsp; B5 and metaphorically fingerpaint over it, that's their perogative.&nbsp; It would be a courtesy, I suppose, to consult the original author, but given the tone of that post and the reputation of the person in question for being hard to get along with, courtesy might be wasted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rodrigo Istalindir, post: 2847235, member: 2810"] Personally, I'd hardly consider something like 'Babylon 5' "lasting and impressive", but tastes vary. The original 'Star Trek' was lasting, maybe, but in a hundred years they'll all be answers in 'Trivial Pursuit -- 2106 Edition'. The fact is, Mongoose's business relationship is with WB, not him. If Mongoose has violated the licensing agreement (or, more to the point if WB has assigned rights to Mongoose they shouldn't), that's what lawyers are for. The first thing any artist should learn is how to take criticism. The second thing they should learn is that once they let their 'child' out into the world, it's no longer purely theirs. I knew a couple painters, for instance. One could not stand going to showings of his work, because it drives him nuts when people saw something entirely different in his work than he intended. The other loved talking to people as they perused the gallery, because she got a thrill out of seeing how different people interpreted the art. Both of them, though, have said that if the person who buys it takes it home and let's their kid fingerpaint over it, it's no big deal. If they didn't want to let it go, they wouldn't have sold the painting. Assuming Mongoose is following the letter of their agreement with WB, they have no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise, to consult with JMS. Mongoose is the creator now, or co-creator anyway, and if they want to take B5 and metaphorically fingerpaint over it, that's their perogative. It would be a courtesy, I suppose, to consult the original author, but given the tone of that post and the reputation of the person in question for being hard to get along with, courtesy might be wasted. [/QUOTE]

Verification