Regarding Ted Anderson - IDW Comics

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

I love the comics and even though I will still buy them, I do not support Anderson's actions. Cook and Price were such nice people at brony con when I met them and I'm not going to let one ignorant person ruin the career and incomes of other people. 

[Megas 27,052]

Well looks like EQD has actually decided to jump on this bit of news so I'm quite surprised they're doing it without official response from IDW yet.

tbf, they were probably gonna have to report it eventually

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

tbf, they were probably gonna have to report it eventually

It was probably a good thing that they did hold back and made sure this wasn't just a tempest in a tea pot that wasn't going to go anywhere.

[Zekromic 1,054]

Equestria Daily posted about this issue. Well, I see it's escalating quickly. My position remains the same, I don't agree of any comic writer putting fan OCs in them, because it promotes favoritism. He made an specially bad choice of putting an OC of someone who promotes sexism. There are going to be consequences for him as such, he undoubtedly will have a stain in his work at least, he might even be fired. No matter what the outcome is, I'm still willing to buy that comic and I don't care if that OC is removed or not

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2014/09/mlp-comic-writer-ted-anderson-possibly.html

Edited September 30, 2014 by Zekromic

[The Coffee Pony 1,390]

Really, all I think that needs to be done now is to remove the OC's of Cuteosphere and David McGuire from any future reprints of the Annual and I think they definitely need to remove the link to Cuteosphere's tumblr in the credits. I heard he actually put that in the annual! He really made things really bad for himself, no wonder parents took notice of this. There was one who went to the boards expressed her concerns and said there were plenty of parents that were discussing the issue and that there were talks about removing IDW comics from school libraries!

 

Can anyone who bought the issue confirm for me that he actually did that?

Edited September 30, 2014 by The Coffee Pony

[Nuke87654 1,849]

Really, all I think that needs to be done now is to remove the OC's of Cuteosphere and David McGuire from any future reprints of the Annual and I think they definitely need to remove the link to Cuteosphere's tumblr in the credits. I heard he actually put that in the annual! He really made things really bad for himself, no wonder parents took notice of this. There was one who went to the boards expressed her concerns and said there were plenty of parents that were discussing the issue and that there were talks about removing IDW comics from school libraries!

 

Can anyone who bought the issue confirm for me that he actually did that?

I only have the digital version but I was unable to find it.

[JESmith 69]

This is kind of a shame. Back in July Ted Anderson did an interview with the Babble with Bronies show and he comes off as a cool guy here (For some stupid reason the link kicks to the 45 minute mark of the interview...I have it set to start at the beginning...).

 

 

 

I hope though this doesn't affect what kind of freedom the other writers for IDW have.

Edited September 30, 2014 by JESmith

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

Equestria Daily posted about this issue. Well, I see it's escalating quickly. My position remains the same, I don't agree of any comic writer putting fan OCs in them, because it promotes favoritism. He made an specially bad choice of putting an OC of someone who promotes sexism. There are going to be consequences for him as such, he undoubtedly will have a stain in his work at least, he might even be fired. No matter what the outcome is, I'm still willing to buy that comic and I don't care if that OC is removed or not

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2014/09/mlp-comic-writer-ted-anderson-possibly.html

 

Good Lord, some of the comments look like Tumblr over-flowed. The only saving grace is that the sane comments have more upvotes.

[Will Guide 21,325]

What exactly is the offensive image? Is it on the cover of MLP 2014 Annual or in one of the backgrounds of the comic? I would like some visual evidence.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Good Lord, some of the comments look like Tumblr over-flowed. The only saving grace is that the sane comments have more upvotes.

Good ol Dragondicks herself posted in all of her inflammatory glory, too.

Look for Princess Octavia. That's one of her personas.

[Nuke87654 1,849]

What exactly is the offensive image? Is it on the cover of MLP 2014 Annual or in one of the backgrounds of the comic? I would like some visual evidence.

 

http://www.horse-news.net/2014/09/mlp-comics-give-shout-out-to-known.html This news article from Horse News provides ample detail for why this was a problem among other things.

[Zekromic 1,054]

Good Lord, some of the comments look like Tumblr over-flowed. The only saving grace is that the sane comments have more upvotes.

Yes, is a shame that many of the people complaining are falling to the same hate game they are accusing of being victims from, worst of all, they want revenge by demanding the author to be fired. Some love and tolerance we got there 

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,328]

*Looks at comments from EQD post*

 

Wow, some of these comments are just pulling the opinion card saying he got fired unfairly cause it's his opinion. Yeah I don't even need to say anything about that.

[Nuke87654 1,849]

I've found an anon comment on Horse New's article for Ted's firing that I believe describes why IDW would fire him or let him go:

 

I think people are missing something important here, that show staff has repeatedly made clear: The legal issue with origanal content of third parties in the show (or in this case in the comic). I was on a panel of MA Larson about writing, where he got the usual questions about if he ever checked out any fanworks. His answer was, that he is simply not risking it. He signed a contract, that he would not use an original content of a third party or draw any inspiration from that. To not unconsciously write anything into the show, that belongs to some fan, he simply doesnt read any fanfics or watches any fan animations. He said, that if he would ever do that and it would come out, he would never get a job in the industry ever again. So he is not risking it. If by some accident his storylines would match up with that of a fanfic, he could always truthfully say, he never read that fic and therefor never used the content of its creator.

Hasbro is scared of being sued using original content. That's why everyone, who works for them, has to sign a contract, that explicitly forbids the use of content of a third party. Ted Andersson violated the contract he signed. That's why he will no longer get any jobs from IDW.

Imgine the comic issue with the OC appearance becoming very popular over the years and selling idk maybe 200k copies. That DD person might just decide then, that these are alot of copies with her OC in it without her consent. She will sue IDW/Hasbro and very likely win. She will get then some amount of money per copy. Let it be 5$ which will sum up to a million. She would be dumb to not do this, if the comic becomes that popular.

Hasbro doesnt want a situation like that nor does any other big IP owner. Chances are that this stunt will cost Ted Anderson his career in the comic business. Non of the big IP owners will give somebody a job, who plants legal timebombs into their works. I dont think it has that much to do with the timbomb being DD, that's just coming ontop of that. It could have been a cameo of Flufflepuff and wouldnt have been much different.

What i wonder is, what will happen to the comic now that the legal timebomb is planted. I guess IDW is talking with their legal department now or with that of Hasbro what to do about it. Worst case scenario for IDW is, that the legal department will deem the potential loss of money due to a sueing by a third party higher than stopping sales of the comic in its current form and reprinting it with the panels in question fixed. Either way they will lose money or they just gamble and hope the OC owners will not sue them.

---- tl;dr ----

Legal timebomb planted in the comic, potential loss of alot of money -> violation of contract, no more new contracts.

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,328]

I've found an anon comment on Horse New's article for Ted's firing that I believe describes why IDW would fire him or let him go:

 

I think people are missing something important here, that show staff has repeatedly made clear: The legal issue with origanal content of third parties in the show (or in this case in the comic). I was on a panel of MA Larson about writing, where he got the usual questions about if he ever checked out any fanworks. His answer was, that he is simply not risking it. He signed a contract, that he would not use an original content of a third party or draw any inspiration from that. To not unconsciously write anything into the show, that belongs to some fan, he simply doesnt read any fanfics or watches any fan animations. He said, that if he would ever do that and it would come out, he would never get a job in the industry ever again. So he is not risking it. If by some accident his storylines would match up with that of a fanfic, he could always truthfully say, he never read that fic and therefor never used the content of its creator.

 

Hasbro is scared of being sued using original content. That's why everyone, who works for them, has to sign a contract, that explicitly forbids the use of content of a third party. Ted Andersson violated the contract he signed. That's why he will no longer get any jobs from IDW.

 

Imgine the comic issue with the OC appearance becoming very popular over the years and selling idk maybe 200k copies. That DD person might just decide then, that these are alot of copies with her OC in it without her consent. She will sue IDW/Hasbro and very likely win. She will get then some amount of money per copy. Let it be 5$ which will sum up to a million. She would be dumb to not do this, if the comic becomes that popular.

 

Hasbro doesnt want a situation like that nor does any other big IP owner. Chances are that this stunt will cost Ted Anderson his career in the comic business. Non of the big IP owners will give somebody a job, who plants legal timebombs into their works. I dont think it has that much to do with the timbomb being DD, that's just coming ontop of that. It could have been a cameo of Flufflepuff and wouldnt have been much different.

 

What i wonder is, what will happen to the comic now that the legal timebomb is planted. I guess IDW is talking with their legal department now or with that of Hasbro what to do about it. Worst case scenario for IDW is, that the legal department will deem the potential loss of money due to a sueing by a third party higher than stopping sales of the comic in its current form and reprinting it with the panels in question fixed. Either way they will lose money or they just gamble and hope the OC owners will not sue them.

 

---- tl;dr ----

 

Legal timebomb planted in the comic, potential loss of alot of money -> violation of contract, no more new contracts.

Pretty much this. People just assume Ted was fired unfairly by using buzzwords like "It's his opinion." or, "It's just satire." Without knowing the true problem with this. Yes, people do have the right to their own opinions. However, that doesn't give you the excuse to go out and do all this.

[The Coffee Pony 1,390]

*Looks at comments from EQD post*

 

Wow, some of these comments are just pulling the opinion card saying he got fired unfairly cause it's his opinion. Yeah I don't even need to say anything about that.

 

Their arguments are invalid.

 

1.) When you flying under your company's banner you have to watch what you say publicly. On the round stable he made it clear on his sig that he was working for IDW and listed the comics he worked on whilst he was spouting those opinions of his for everyone to see. Nobody can pull the Free Speech card as Freedom of Speech only guarantees that you won't get arrested for your opinions it does NOT prevent you from getting fired though. People can and do get fired for what they openly say whether it was on company premises or on social network sites like twitter. Aflac canned Gilbert Gottfried from representing their company due to some of his posts on Twitter and Charlie Sheen was fired from Two and a Half Men after publicly referring to the show’s creator as a “warlock” and a “troll”.

 

2) He's a freelancer so he didn't get fired but he is now barred from writing anymore MLP comics however the consequences are greater than that. I was going to bring up that anon post from Horse News but Nuke beat me to the punch.

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,328]

Their arguments are invalid.

 

1.) When you flying under your company's banner you have to watch what you say publicly. On the round stable he made it clear on his sig that he was working for IDW and listed the comics he worked on whilst he was spouting those opinions of his for everyone to see. Nobody can pull the Free Speech card as Freedom of Speech only guarantees that you won't get arrested for your opinions it does NOT prevent you from getting fired though. People can and do get fired for what they openly say whether it was on company premises or on social network sites like twitter. Aflac canned Gilbert Gottfried from representing their company due to some of his posts on Twitter and Charlie Sheen was fired from Two and a Half Men after publicly referring to the show’s creator as a “warlock” and a “troll”.

 

2) He's a freelancer so he didn't get fired but he is now barred from writing anymore MLP comics however the consequences are greater than that. I was going to bring up that anon post from Horse News but Nuke beat me to the punch.

People think that freedom of speech means I can say whatever I want with no consequences. Now, I'm not for censoring someone's views, but what these people need to understand is just because you can say something doesn't mean you should say it.

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

I've found an anon comment on Horse New's article for Ted's firing that I believe describes why IDW would fire him or let him go:

 

I think people are missing something important here, that show staff has repeatedly made clear: The legal issue with origanal content of third parties in the show (or in this case in the comic). I was on a panel of MA Larson about writing, where he got the usual questions about if he ever checked out any fanworks. His answer was, that he is simply not risking it. He signed a contract, that he would not use an original content of a third party or draw any inspiration from that. To not unconsciously write anything into the show, that belongs to some fan, he simply doesnt read any fanfics or watches any fan animations. He said, that if he would ever do that and it would come out, he would never get a job in the industry ever again. So he is not risking it. If by some accident his storylines would match up with that of a fanfic, he could always truthfully say, he never read that fic and therefor never used the content of its creator.

 

Hasbro is scared of being sued using original content. That's why everyone, who works for them, has to sign a contract, that explicitly forbids the use of content of a third party. Ted Andersson violated the contract he signed. That's why he will no longer get any jobs from IDW.

 

Imgine the comic issue with the OC appearance becoming very popular over the years and selling idk maybe 200k copies. That DD person might just decide then, that these are alot of copies with her OC in it without her consent. She will sue IDW/Hasbro and very likely win. She will get then some amount of money per copy. Let it be 5$ which will sum up to a million. She would be dumb to not do this, if the comic becomes that popular.

 

Hasbro doesnt want a situation like that nor does any other big IP owner. Chances are that this stunt will cost Ted Anderson his career in the comic business. Non of the big IP owners will give somebody a job, who plants legal timebombs into their works. I dont think it has that much to do with the timbomb being DD, that's just coming ontop of that. It could have been a cameo of Flufflepuff and wouldnt have been much different.

 

What i wonder is, what will happen to the comic now that the legal timebomb is planted. I guess IDW is talking with their legal department now or with that of Hasbro what to do about it. Worst case scenario for IDW is, that the legal department will deem the potential loss of money due to a sueing by a third party higher than stopping sales of the comic in its current form and reprinting it with the panels in question fixed. Either way they will lose money or they just gamble and hope the OC owners will not sue them.

 

---- tl;dr ----

 

Legal timebomb planted in the comic, potential loss of alot of money -> violation of contract, no more new contracts.

 

and DragonDicks is exactly the kind of person to push the big red button.

*Looks at comments from EQD post*

 

Wow, some of these comments are just pulling the opinion card saying he got fired unfairly cause it's his opinion. Yeah I don't even need to say anything about that.

 

I'm cringing at the people that are writing it off as "the fandom whined because it can't take criticism".

 

I wasn't aware straight up hate-speech was criticism. 

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,328]

and DragonDicks is exactly the kind of person to push the big red button.

 

 

I'm cringing at the people that are writing it off as "the fandom whined because it can't take criticism".

Really? Saying they can't take criticism over completely invalid criticism. People should have the right to counter-argue unfair criticism. Not all criticism is valid and if they find it unfair, they have a right to call them out on it.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

Their arguments are invalid.

 

1.) When you flying under your company's banner you have to watch what you say publicly. On the round stable he made it clear on his sig that he was working for IDW and listed the comics he worked on whilst he was spouting those opinions of his for everyone to see. Nobody can pull the Free Speech card as Freedom of Speech only guarantees that you won't get arrested for your opinions it does NOT prevent you from getting fired though. People can and do get fired for what they openly say whether it was on company premises or on social network sites like twitter. Aflac canned Gilbert Gottfried from representing their company due to some of his posts on Twitter and Charlie Sheen was fired from Two and a Half Men after publicly referring to the show’s creator as a “warlock” and a “troll”.

 

Admittedly I did forget about this issue coming up during the whole A&E/Duck Dynasty fiasco where the guy was fired by the TV channel and people & groups from all over were crying foul with free speech.

 

In the end, Anderson really should've known better. All that can be said.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

When I'm super-president of the world, the first thing to go is freedom of speech. All that ever does nowadays is give self-righteous SJW people and other deranged psychopaths a shield to hide behind when they say that...I don't know...It's okay to be racist against white people.

 

You can argue and say it's wrong

Go ahead

I need to start making my list now :comeatus:

 

Edit: relevant

Edited September 30, 2014 by Dattebayo

[Zekromic 1,054]

I've found an anon comment on Horse New's article for Ted's firing that I believe describes why IDW would fire him or let him go:

 

I think people are missing something important here, that show staff has repeatedly made clear: The legal issue with origanal content of third parties in the show (or in this case in the comic). I was on a panel of MA Larson about writing, where he got the usual questions about if he ever checked out any fanworks. His answer was, that he is simply not risking it. He signed a contract, that he would not use an original content of a third party or draw any inspiration from that. To not unconsciously write anything into the show, that belongs to some fan, he simply doesnt read any fanfics or watches any fan animations. He said, that if he would ever do that and it would come out, he would never get a job in the industry ever again. So he is not risking it. If by some accident his storylines would match up with that of a fanfic, he could always truthfully say, he never read that fic and therefor never used the content of its creator.

 

Hasbro is scared of being sued using original content. That's why everyone, who works for them, has to sign a contract, that explicitly forbids the use of content of a third party. Ted Andersson violated the contract he signed. That's why he will no longer get any jobs from IDW.

 

Imgine the comic issue with the OC appearance becoming very popular over the years and selling idk maybe 200k copies. That DD person might just decide then, that these are alot of copies with her OC in it without her consent. She will sue IDW/Hasbro and very likely win. She will get then some amount of money per copy. Let it be 5$ which will sum up to a million. She would be dumb to not do this, if the comic becomes that popular.

 

Hasbro doesnt want a situation like that nor does any other big IP owner. Chances are that this stunt will cost Ted Anderson his career in the comic business. Non of the big IP owners will give somebody a job, who plants legal timebombs into their works. I dont think it has that much to do with the timbomb being DD, that's just coming ontop of that. It could have been a cameo of Flufflepuff and wouldnt have been much different.

 

What i wonder is, what will happen to the comic now that the legal timebomb is planted. I guess IDW is talking with their legal department now or with that of Hasbro what to do about it. Worst case scenario for IDW is, that the legal department will deem the potential loss of money due to a sueing by a third party higher than stopping sales of the comic in its current form and reprinting it with the panels in question fixed. Either way they will lose money or they just gamble and hope the OC owners will not sue them.

 

---- tl;dr ----

 

Legal timebomb planted in the comic, potential loss of alot of money -> violation of contract, no more new contracts.

Yep, that's very sane argument I've ever read about this issue, regardless of what that OC stands for, he did violated a rule in the company. He will face consequences, but whichever is, it should be fair and up to the company, not because the consumers demands practically death sentence in him 

[Pinkamena-Pills 6,838]

I don't read the comics..but this sounds like some serious horse drama. 

[Dattebayo 2,850]

I don't read the comics..but this sounds like some serious horse drama.

neigh news is srs news, friendo

[Pinkamena-Pills 6,838]

neigh news is srs news, friendo

 

Serious horse news drama is seriously serious, seriously. 

 

It appears the idiot was fired(or maybe ive skimmed too much), so all will be well in the horsehead nebula in time. 

Edited September 30, 2014 by Pinkamena-Pills