Bustercomic.com says goodbye

[Dizrythmia]

I've been going over this decision for the past year & have spoken at length to Matt from Bustercomic.co.uk about this. I've decided to close Bustercomic.com. It has been a REALLY difficult decision but ultimately I have little choice as I can't run the site the way I want it to be run. Allow me to explain.

Back when I started the site I remember quite clearly Lew Stringer telling me on this forum that having a site full of scans is sure to upset a few people. It hasn't REALLY... I was in talk with Egmont's legal advisor about coming to an agreement over the scans. She'd seen the site & didn't have much of a problem with it. The killer was the clamp down on fan art believe it or not.

I abandoned the site back in 2007 after the death of JEO. Jack helped me a LOT behind the scenes, even providing the site with his final ever interview (at least I can't FIND one online that took place after mine... do correct me if I'm wrong.) I lost a lot of motivation after he passed away. At the end of last year I was about to let the domain registration lapse & close it down quietly until Matt reminded me that 2010 was going to be a big year for Buster: 50 years since it started & 10 years since it ended.

We discussed a few ideas & thought it would be a good idea to create a fan art online issue. After 18 months I finally decided it was time to get back into it, until Matt decided to email Egmont about it. Now this isn't Matt's fault, he did the right thing by checking with the rights holders who sadly vetoed the idea instantly. I have no idea why, but that was really the final straw.

Now, can someone tell me why it's OK to have scans on a site but not fan art? I dunno, anyway I really like drawing the characters & if anyone remembers the old bustercomic.4t.com site it was full of my fan art. I even had an online comic in the works that never got completed. The difference was Egmont were not aware of my existance at the time. I'm not going to be bitter about it & dwell on what I think of the situation though. That's in the past now & the decision has been made.

Matt has agreed to take over the bustercomic.com domain, so in early January when it expires it will switch over to him who will redirect it to his site. I'm also burning a CD with all the data used & unused from bustercomic.com. Hopefully he can find some use for it.

I see the site still gets some visits & redirects from this site (not bad for 2 1/2 years of inactivity), so there are still some supporters out there. Thank you all. I'd like to direct specific thanks to a few people:

JEO - Sadly no longer with us, he was a huge help with the site & even complimented me on my Cliffhanger fan art.

Lew Stringer - Who agreed a LONG time to do an interview with me, but I never got around to it. Also a real comic guru, he's always been here helping people on the site myself included. Thanks Lew.

Trevor Metcalfe - It's not everyday you open your Inbox & see an email from one of your favourite comic artists with a scan of his first ever piece of work for Fleetway but it happened to me. Thanks Trevor for allowing me to use the comic strip on the site.

Peter Gray - We haven't been in contact for a while & I never did add any links to my site eventhough you reminded me several times. My apologies. We had some good discussions & arguments though.

Matt Bowen - Very soon the owner of the ONLY Buster comic website. On a side note, it's very hard talking Doctor Who to someone who doesn't like spoilers, cos I'm all over them. We talk very regularly & he's known about this for a long time, but I've been very back & forth about it.

I know there are more of you & I apologise to those who I missed here.

What's next for me? Well I've been indulging my other interest which is retro video games. I've been helping out on Snescentral.com & on a new community site Retrospekt.com.au so some of my work has shown up there if anyone's interested.

I'll still pop by here every now & again, but I rarely post as it is. I've become more of a lurker these days. I'm still a Buster & always will be.

Thanks again to everyone who helped out with the site & keep watching Bustercomic.co.uk which may end up using some of the material from Bustercomic.com.

[bustercomic]

May I be the first to say how disappointing it is to have it confirmed Bustercomic.com is closing.

You've done some great things since first launching as bustercomic.4t.com and I always hoped that might continue or be revived. You were the perfect companion to my fact based site - and I shall endeavour to ensure the fanbased stuff that you have created continues in some form.

And, of course, you are more then welcome to have input at any time.

There's something of a "Great News Inside" about this thread, isn't there?!?

Matt
Webmaster - Bustercomic.co.uk

[Peter Gray]

Enjoy your next projects..

glad a lot of it will be saved and used again..

and keep drawing...

Maybe there will be a fifty years book of Buster next year.heres hoping..

[Raven]

There's something of a "Great News Inside" about this thread, isn't there?!?

More of an "Important News Inside", alas, as "Great News" tended to be a free gift!

Sorry to hear the site isn't continuing. The fan art thing is odd. It's true that fan art on a site is technically illegal unless you have permission, but most companies would be *much* less likely to have problems with that - preferring to keep good relations with fandom, and who's potentially making or losing money from fans being a bit creative with drawings on a website anyway? - than with actual scans from the comics. So it's surprising that that's the thing they had the problem with.

[Lew Stringer]

Now, can someone tell me why it's OK to have scans on a site but not fan art?

My guess is they're being protective of how their characters appear to the public. Disney are the same with Mickey Mouse. (Egmont love Disney stuff so maybe they're taking a leaf out of their book.)

The way it works is: scans of strips are of artwork that has been officially approved by Egmont. Characters are "on model" (ie: accurate, and not out of character). So Egmont are happy for those pieces of art to represent their company.

Now you and I know that fan art is just that; fan art, done by people who care about the characters and you wouldn't do anything to harm the franchise. But to big companies, all they see is someone doing a copy of something they haven't approved (and they won't spend time setting up an office to approve fan art because there's nothing in it for them). If a character is a little bit "off model" or not quite up to their standard they think it'll reflect badly on the company.

There's also the copyright situation. With fan art you're basically creating new work of their characters. Even though it's not for profit and even though it's done with affection, their legal people will see it as infringement.

Sounds like Egmont are coming down too hard, but in a business sense they're only protecting their characters (even though they're not currently doing anything with them). Companies have really tightened up on stuff like this now.

Sorry to hear you're closing the site. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision. Good luck with all your future projects and keep your chin up.

Lew

[Raven]

Now, can someone tell me why it's OK to have scans on a site but not fan art?

My guess is they're being protective of how their characters appear to the public. Disney are the same with Mickey Mouse. (Egmont love Disney stuff so maybe they're taking a leaf out of their book.)

Lew

Disney do overlook fan art though - there are loads of Disney fan art sites (and remember all those Disney-Marvel mash-ups a while ago?) which they don't do anything about. Just do a Google or Google Image search. So they're being a bit more heavy-handed than Disney there. Disney seem to keep quite good relations with the online fan communities.

[chrissmillie]

I think it's ridiculous myself. Not only does fanart/fanfiction not harm sales, it actually promotes characters - especially ones that have been dead for ten, twenty, thirty years.

The official Marvel Comics forum used to actually have their own sub-forum specifically for fanfiction, whereas DC Comics have no problem with posters 'advertising' their work.

The Fleetway comics themselves used to publish fanart in their comics too.

Very very poor decision in my opinion.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

The insistance of conglomorate cartels making sure that all famous characters are rigidly 'on-model' has helped to create a stifling, generic entertainment world that lacks individuality. In the days when characters were licensed out to toy manufacterers without such limitations imposed, the sheer diversity of the toys, comics, puzzles, etc was much of the fun........merchandise at that time may have sometimes looked 'odder' then, [reflecting the tastes of the artists who often redone the characters with their own style showing through] but the efforts usually had more charm, and were less boring.


here's some 60s BATMAN toys from the days before the corporate clampdown;








These items may appear a bit bizarre to the modern eye, but it signifies more diversity and was probably a lot more fun for the creators to work on: sure, have spot-on, regulated versions of the definitive item by all means, but it quickly becomes tedious.........I doubt if 60s kids minded that these toys were not all identickle.

er-----is that a 'Bat-b**t plug on the top waterpistol?'----TOLD you it was funnier stuff!

[chrissmillie]

They still have these in Egypt. Oddly-coloured super-heroes. Superman/Spider-Man crossovers etc.

Pretty sure they're not exactly licensed though. I don't have a problem with that myself. There are many poor families here that could never afford anything with a license. Similarly there was (not seen too many recently) cheap Arabic copies of comics that were obviously not licensed by DC. But then, how many Egyptian families can afford to spend $3.99 on a comic? I doubt it resulted in many sales being lost.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

same story everywhere, Chris......

[Digifiend]

I think it's ridiculous myself. Not only does fanart/fanfiction not harm sales, it actually promotes characters - especially ones that have been dead for ten, twenty, thirty years.

The official Marvel Comics forum used to actually have their own sub-forum specifically for fanfiction, whereas DC Comics have no problem with posters 'advertising' their work.

The Fleetway comics themselves used to publish fanart in their comics too.

The Beano still does to this day. Dandy Xtreme has fanart as well, and for licenced characters as well as their own (Maggie Simpson is in the current issue, I wonder what Fox think about this?)

[Lew Stringer]

The Fleetway comics themselves used to publish fanart in their comics too.

Very true, and comics still do that, but those are images that have been editorially "approved" as fit to use if you see the difference. I'm not saying I agree with Egmont's decision in this instance but I can understand their wish to control their characters.

The insistance of conglomorate cartels making sure that all famous characters are rigidly 'on-model' has helped to create a stifling, generic entertainment world that lacks individuality. In the days when characters were licensed out to toy manufacterers without such limitations imposed, the sheer diversity of the toys, comics, puzzles, etc was much of the fun........merchandise at that time may have sometimes looked 'odder' then, [reflecting the tastes of the artists who often redone the characters with their own style showing through] but the efforts usually had more charm, and were less boring.

Very true. Back in the days of Film Fun I don't think actors were even consulted about their likenesses being used. As for licensed strips, I don't think most of the stuff in TV Comic ever had to be scrutinized for "off model" styles. As kids we noticed that the characters looked a bit different but we didn't care.

Even though Gerry Anderson had a close involvement with TV Century 21 in its early years he still allowed artists to interpret the puppets in their own styles, and the comic was stronger for it.

Lew

[Phoenix]

Back in the days of Film Fun I don't think actors were even consulted about their likenesses being used.

I can't imagine either that the tobacco companies paid for permission to use photos or drawings of politicians, beauties, sports personalities and the like on the cigarette cards they included in their packets for over a hundred years. They probably saw them in the same light as other things they created sets out of, such as ocean liners, racing pigeons, boy scouts and birds' eggs.

[Raven]

Very true. Back in the days of Film Fun I don't think actors were even consulted about their likenesses being used.
Lew

I'd be surprised if that was the case as Hollywood would have very powerful lawyers even back then! If you look in Film Fun you do get a lot of "by permission of Columbia Pictures Corporation","by permission of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer", "The Famous Radio Pictures Stars", "The Famous National First Comedian", "The Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Star" etc. which implies to me that it was all above board.

[Digifiend]

Same with The Dandy's Our Gang strip in the early issues, MGM got credited.