(UPDATE) Robert Kirkman Responds to Tony Moore’s THE WALKING DEAD Lawsuit

Tony Moore and Robert Kirkman were friends as teenagers, and both launched their comic book careers together. In the intervening time, they’ve had some disagreements, some public, about the ownership of the runaway success of The Walking Dead. They co-created the series in 2003, and Moore did the artwork for the first six issues. But now, Moore is suing Kirkman over the revenues of The Walking Dead.

You can read the details, as they are known at The Hollywood Reporter. The basic gist is that Moore alleges he hasn’t received any revenue or financial statements regarding The Walking Dead since they came to an agreement on the property in 2005.

I spoke to Moore in 2010, after the TV series premiered on AMC, and we touched on the issue as it was at the time. He said there was a disagreement over ownership, and they had since come to terms with one another. You’ll see Tony Moore’s name in the credits for the show, and he flew out to LA for the premiere. Last we heard, all was well.

The thing is, no matter who is right and who is wrong, this is ugly, and could have shockwaves throughout the comic industry. The fact is, The Walking Dead is the prime example of success in indie comics. There’s nothing out there that even touches it in terms of sales that isn’t from Marvel and DC. It’s a small industry, and you just don’t want to see things like this happen in today’s comic market. We’ve supposedly learned so many lessons from the past regarding rights, ownership, and copyright, but when you work with friends by the skin of your teeth, you rarely think this is going to be an issue. Then, a decade later, something like this can happen.

I just hope this can somehow be settled amicably, and both of these creators can get back to making comics.


02/10/2012 – Robert Kirkman has issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter in response to the lawsuit:

“The lawsuit is ridiculous, we each had legal representation seven years ago and now he is violating the same contract he initiated and approved and he wants to misrepresent the fees he was paid and continues to be paid for the work he was hired to do. Tony regularly receives payment for the work he did as penciler, inker and for gray tones on the first six issues of The Walking Dead comic series and he receives royalties for the TV show, to assert otherwise is simply incorrect.”

The statement is paired with scans from the title page from early issues of The Walking Dead comic, which credit Moore as “Penciller, Inker, Gray tones.”


  1. Ugh, hate to see stories like this! It’s odd that this lawsuit starts just as the Gaiman/McFarlane one finally ends. I wonder if this will drag on for years, too.

    • it will all depend on their prospective lawyers, and how much they like money.
      As the show gets more acclaim, if a movie follows, there will just be that much more to gain. I expect a looooong drawn out battle

  2. Holy crap, this sounds awful. This is one of my favorite comics, written by my favorite writer, and I really hope Kirkman or anyone else has any ulterior motives for what these allegations. I doubt we’ll find out what the real story is, but I am really worried about what may come from this. The biggest red flag though, is why Tony Moore is only just bringing this up now.

    • The article states he is not just bringing this up now.

    • I meant that before he said that they had an agreement, and if he hasn’t gotten any money from this since 2005, why wait until now to bring that up? At the very least I’m surprised he hasn’t done so before the show came out.

    • ask a lawyer why its smart to wait on something like this…either way we don’t know anything.

    • Why is it smart for Moore to wait on a claim like this?

    • well, what do you think has more lawsuit value…a comic book series with a few collected editions, or a comic book/TV show/Merchandising brand that just broke all kinds of Cable TV ratings records?

      I’ve heard of these kinds of things before in Movies and Music…when someone hits it big, someone they once worked with sues them and claims credit…like Facebook.

      I dunno its all speculation….like others said, i hope it gets resolved quick and fair.

    • So you are saying Moore purposely waited for Kirkman and company to turn this into a money machine and then wants to come in and cash in?

      That doesn’t make one party look too good in the public eye.

      Also, judging from the details above, that seems unlikely.

      I still think he should have filed suit earlier if he really thinks some sort of contract was broken.

      He could have secured his rights and not have someone speculating that he only cares about large sums of money and not what is right and wrong.

    • Someone’s name is going to join Frank Darabont in the:

      ‘Awkward and quite fade in and out of credits in the opening titles of the TV show’ category.

    • *quick (Damn you lack of edit button aka my brain!)

    • no one knows…..there are literally millions of reasons and possibilities.

      he could have been waiting in good faith. who knows .

    • I’m curious about the “waiting in good faith”.

      Explain how that works.

    • waiting in good faith for the financial records to be released to him or start seeing a share or something is what i meant.

    • Makes complete sense.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    • He may be just bringing it up legally now “skangaroo” but when I got an autograph from T Moore sometime around Walking dead year 2 or 3…. Moore seemed kind of pissed off about signing a walking dead HC book 1 (or at least pissed of about something walking dead related)… and this was a long time ago. I said to him you worked on walking dead right? and he responded with attitude.. something to the affect of “not anymore” but with attitude.

    • It’s also possible that he’s bringing it up now because they were friends for so long and he was hestitant to get lawyers involved.

      I remember hearing the podcast interview with Moore and was really saddened (but not surprised) that such a success could have such an effect on a friendship.

  3. whoa. that sounds terrible. i noticed Moore gets credit on the title card of the show now…. but Yeah if Moore’s allegations have any legs to it., thats just really bad for everyone.

    Has Twitter self destructed yet?

  4. Ouch.
    Its a shame to see this happen, and worse that its happening to, of all people, Kirkman.

  5. I really hope this gets settled quick.

  6. People get funny with the money as the Beastie Boys once said about Rick Rubin.

    And I agree this should have been handled way before it got this far.

  7. Hoo boy.

    I don’t like the idea of Tony Moore not getting enough for one of the most successful comics in recent memory, but I’d imagine it’s ten times more complicated than that.

    Time will tell.

  8. Shame to hear a friendship is basically ruined now cause of this. But if Moore is right then he should deserve a bigger piece of the pie, but if Kirkman is right then Moore should be happy on what he got. (He only did the first arc to be fair)

    In fact, it kinda serves Moore right for not continuing with the series. I mean I know that sounds harsh and obviously he wouldn’t have known this was gonna go on for 100 issues and a TV series….but if it was getting huge at the time it started he shouldn’t have just decided to leave.

    • I remember listening to Moore on an iFanboy podcast and their friendship seemed to be ruined way before the AMC show.

      Keep in mind as the artist launching the series he did conceptual work for the characters.

      Still, this is a zombie comic and not really high concept work that I could see giving an artist too much credit for.

      How long did Moore do covers for the comic book? I know it was beyond the first six.

    • “serves Moore right”

      You know these are real people right? That’s just a ridiculous conceit, and it is harsh, and entirely untrue, and frankly incredibly ignorant.

    • Josh, it is TheNextChampion . . .

    • @Scorpion: Considering he still does covers for the WEEKLY releases lately I’m surprised he says the friendship was totally ruined.

      @josh: It’s a real person all right. He’s trying to rake in some dough because he missed out on getting even more at the time. That’s what real people do because they’re greedy.

    • He is doing new covers for the weekly releases?!

      I thought those were just the covers he had originally done.

    • @Scorpion: Considering he left the series after the first volume and Adlard did the covers from then on it’s unlikely. But maybe Moore did a few covers even after he left doing interiors….

      In fact doing more research it looks as though Adlard is now taking over the art duties for the covers. So either you are right in that they were just the original covers he did….OR Adlard took over because of these legal issues. We’ll never know.

    • Oh, I thought you knew he had done new covers for the weekly releases.

      Adlard did not do the covers from issue 7 on. I know that for sure.

      I know Moore did covers beyond the six issues. I just don’t know how many. And those covers may have been done before he left the book.

    • @Scorpion: Doing even more research it looks as though you were right. He did covers for at least the first twenty five issues and then Adlard worked on the covers for Weekly.

      Comparing the two series it looks as though Moore did some original covers for weekly. Cause some don’t match others.

    • @scorpionmasada Tony Moore did covers for the first 24 issues. The weekly releases are just the same covers from before.

    • Damn! I didn’t know it was 24 issues. Thanks!

  9. Money and women…..friendship killers.

  10. I find it somewhat reassuring that things haven’t changed since the days of Kirby, Siegel and Shuster.

    • It’s also striking that this happens in relation to Kirkman who is so self-righteous about (and I’m interpreting here) the moral superiority of independent creator owned comics

  11. This is at the very least sad, and a backward step for creator-owned works. Please bear in mind that there could well have been nothing more to it than Kirkman having more faith in the property than Moore back then. It seems to me quite possible (based solely on the above) that Moore simply cashed in his chips too early, with the benefit of hindsight, and that Kirkman held on to them.

    On the other hand, they could both be scheming, venal, idiotic assholes with no basic concept of human dignity or friendship.

    • Hmmm….A little of column A and a little of column B?

      (Although ‘asshole’ might be too strong of a word)

    • Well, my intent there was to lay out the two extreme scenarios. Of course the truth is likely somewhere in-between (to the extent that any one version of the objective ‘truth’ is possible in a he-said, she-said situation)

      I’d imagine if you were ever sued for that kind of money, the word ‘asshole’ and stronger variants would quickly flow from your lips! Or that may just be me…

    • From the interview I had heard, Tony Moore said he wasn’t going to get a creator credit, but was going to be a work for hire. Even Kirkman said it was solely his idea,.

  12. Ah man. This makes me incredibly, incredibly sad. I love Kirkman, but Tony Moore has been one of my favorite artists for a very long time now, some of the first books I picked up were his interiors. I’ve backwards doubledipped for him (bought single issues AFTER buying the trade) just so I could have a copy of his covers. As an artist I’m super sensitive to this topic. I refuse to make any assumptions, because I don’t know the details and I hate the idea of a large portion of the population jumping on his jugular thinking he just drew some pictures and is getting greedy now.

    Just so sad.

    • yeah you’re right. Its easy to go crazy on the speculation and i’m guilty as charged. Like others have mentioned, its probably a combination of he said she said + some fuzzy memories and vague promises…plus stuff we just don’t know.

      either way….it is very sad and i feel like we’re all losing out if this thing turns messy.

    • That’s just what I was thinking. Ultimately, it comes down to whatever promises they made to one another and that can be a really vague conversation that either party can interpret in different ways. Sadly, I assume nothing is in writing or it wouldn’t have gone this far.

      Bad news all around about two of my favorite creators of the past decade. I a way, I’m even sadder that a friendship appears to be over. It must be the best feeling to start making comics with a friend while you’re in high school and have both of you become big names in the industry. Gonna pull out my Battle Pope trades tonight and think of the good times.

  13. In the end, the next time you tweet a picture of you showing hundreds of dollars laying beside you….Don’t do it publicly. A lesson to all you inspiring writers going into creator owned comics.

  14. 🙁

  15. Lot of recent news about rights and ownership lately: Watchmen, the Ghost Rider suit, this. It sucks to see people fight over something and just proves how important good, fair contracts need to be and shows how people will always fight over getting their share of success. Sad stuff.

    • Oh yeah that Ghost Rider suit is really interesting. I feel bad for the guy because, even if Ghost Rider isn’t the biggest character right now, he has spawned two movies and several ongoings. But for the guy to actually be forced to pay out of his own pocket and lose rights to the character is pretty low for Marvel.

  16. I have read the article on the Hollywood Reporter site, and it sound a little suspect to me. Why would Kirkman grant him 60%of the publishing comic net proceeds It wouldn’t leave much profit to continue the series or hire a decent artist to replace him(being an indie comic).
    It sounds like Tony Moore would be at fault, if he signed away his rights thinking it would fail. In the end, it’s really sad to see them headed down this route.

  17. Without knowing the facts of the case, I just wanted to point to a parallel with songwriting: as far as Copyright goes, if a musician is in at the *writing* of a song, they are entitled to credit and part ownership, but if they added after the song was written they aren’t. From an ethical point of view, the question is: was Tony Moore in at the conceptual stage of the book, and there’s every reason to think that he might have been.

    I was always sorry Tony Moore gave up drawing this book – the first six issues are masterful! It continued to be good and moody, but has never reached those heights again for me. I like seeing artists working in that clean style and not superhero books! Moore’s characters had such humanity and realism – they added so much to the feel of those early issues and to the reader being able to care about the characters.

  18. Honestly, these are two creators who have made tremendous contributions to modern comic books and whose work I personally happen to like a lot. It’s painful to see them fight, I don’t know any of the details, and hopefully this just ends up being a footnote on the “Walking Dead” Wikipedia page.

  19. No disrespect to Tony Moore, but what exactly does he think he “created”? He drew zombies and people. He did them both very well, but can one really say he created an original artistic concept?

  20. Who is the creator of The Walking Dead? Is the writer the sole creator of a series? It’s his/her idea, they have devised the premise and the characters. But it takes an artist to bring these ideas to fruition, and in some cases give the series its distinctive look.
    Kirkman and Moore’s situation reminds me of Stan Lee’s stance on the creation of Spiderman and other Marvel heroes. Check out this clip from Jonathan Ross’ BBC TV show “In Search of Steve Ditko”, where he asks Stan about the authorship of Spiderman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4z7xuDhMeg

    • I see the point, but I have to disagree. There is a big difference in creating the distinctive look of a superhero vs. drawing zombies, which while well done, are simply generic zombies.

    • Hail brings up an interesting point.

      That said, I’m not sure it’s germane to the way this lawsuit plays out. No one can deny that the AMC show used Moore’s imagery as a major driving point, far beyond the “conventional” way the zombies may have looked. They pilot basically used the same frame and panel layouts that Moore did, almost identical in many cases.

      The issue isn’t whether Moore’s visuals are a big part of Walking Dead, the issue is whether Moore is right in his claim that he was unfairly taken advantage of in giving up those rights.

    • If im not mistaken, the entire marketing prior to airing the pilot was based off an image drawn by Moore. Wasn’t that shot of Rick riding the horse on the highway into atlanta straight out of the comic? that image was everywhere when the show first started up

  21. After reading the article I wonder if any of this has to do with Hollywood’s infamous book keeping where nothing gets a “net” profit, even when projects gross $100’s of millions over estimated (usually not published) costs. Kirkman could be making the money up front in his roles as producer and writer on the series, and not making much on the “net” on the backend as a creator.

    Just a though, I know none of the details.

  22. This whole lawsuits smells like Moore is trying to cash in off the success of the show. If he supposedly signed a “shady” deal with Kirkman back in 2005 by does he wait 7 years to finally sue him? Also Moore did covers on the book for years after leaving and also did covers for the TBP’s 1-4 … If someone SCREWED you over and ripped you off why would you continue working for them?

    The other part that really bothers me is that since 2005, Moore has given countless interviews and the Walking Dead is brought up every time. Did he ever once bring up that Kirkman screwed him? No in fact he has went on record to say he was happy about the success of the show and even went to attend the LA premiere of season 1! Again why would you go to the premiere if you felt you were screwed out of ownership???

    I just seen Moore last year at Toronto Fan Expo and his ENTIRE BOOTH was plastered with Walking Dead and Zombie paraphernalia, so don’t tell me he’s not STILL cashing in to this very day off his 6-issue stint on the Walking Dead from 2004!!! In fact I was looking for some Fear Agent trades but had a hard time finding them over everything walking dead/zombie related! In fact if I remember correctly, Moore was doing commissions that day and had done one of Rick from Walking Dead.

    If the case is truly Kirkman is not opening up the accounting books to Moore then he has every right to file suit, but there are just too many red flags surrounding this to lead me to believe that. Most likely the cold truth is that Moore is greedy and probably a little bit jealous of the success has had since he walked away from it.

  23. Hope they work this out privately and everything is fair for both parties.

  24. I wonder if he wants a lump sum or continuing residuals?

  25. sucks. I hope they resolve it privately.

    • Tony has certainly taken that option off the table. Typically lawsuits are filed after attempts to resolve things privately fell apart, or went unanswered. You can’t file a suit like this and then put the genie back in the bottle. Now that said, they COULD agree to something like binding arbitration, and then seal whatever settlement agreement comes of it, but given Kirkman’s legal response, I see that as unlikely.

    • @Jason; That depends on your definition of ‘putting the genie back in the bottle.’ While the information that this is still unsettled cannot be removed from the public sphere, this can still be settled without getting nasty. A vast majority of disagreements are still settled even after the first court filings are submitted. This is just another step in the negotiation. And as it is a civil suit, especially one dealing with Hollywood properties, it is likely that it will be settled and not fully litigated and the settlement sealed by the courts. This does not mean that information will not get out, just that the both parties will ask for this to be sealed and that the court would likely grant the request.

  26. Since I don’t know them I’m going to choose a side arbitrarily. Lemme get a coin out here… Ok. I’m flipping it. Tails I’m with the KirkMoney machine. Aw man it was heads. Fuck you KirkMoney! GuyThatDrawsGood should get all the dollars!

    After catching up on Fear Agent, god damn me if Moore isn’t one of my favorite artists. I need to find more shit he’s done and buy it. Venom is awesome sauce and my first experience with his art was on that thing their fighting over for money. Where do I go from here? Preferably sans Kirkman. Not because of the hooplah. I’ve slowly dropped all my Kirkman books over the past year because I wasn’t enjoying them.

    Aside from my Goober Douchery, it is sad to see the talent fighting over money.

  27. This is very unfortunate on a lot of levels, and makes the upcoming Image Expo a bit more of a potential media brouhaha. I’m sure anyone that’s ever met both of these guys (and I’ve had the good fortune) knows that they’re both likable, hard-working, incredibly talented individuals. They were childhood friends who let business get in the way of their friendship — which wasn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last time that happens in the world.

    It’s very hard for us to not gravitate toward one side or another, and I can’t pretend to not be guilty of that. But I would caution anyone from jumping to conclusions here, because this is a tort matter. There are very specific legal definitions to the rights of these properties, and the construct of verbal and written agreements. The onus will be on Moore’s team to prove their claims, since they’re the litigant, and whether they have a case will come down to the specific claims versus a judge’s specific interpretation of the evidence presented.

    It’s dry, boring stuff that will only make the lawyers happy.

    There are no winners here.

    I will tell you, from experience in following these matters as an investor (companies get sued all the time), the resolution of these things is rarely cut and dried. And the only way we’ll see a quick resolution will be a) if Robert’s side decides to not accept any wrong doing but ups Moore’s piece of the pie (unlikely) or b) a court throws the case out as being frivolous (more likely).

    If the courts deem the case to have merit (and that’s a low hurdle, legally), it will proceed and take a looooong time.

    I can’t pretend to not be a bit skeptical, but I’m also open to either outcome since I have no idea what was said between the two, what was written, what they signed, and when they signed it. Based purely on gut instinct, I find the timing of the lawsuit, combined with Tony’s prior comments about being at peace with things and having no regrets, to be tough to rationalize. Walking Dead was NOT anywhere close to a financial empire when they made these agreements in 2005-2006, and it’s very easy for any of us to look at what it’s become and say how easy it should be for Kirkman to dish out more money. It’s the ‘there’s enough to go around for everyone!” argument. But we have to remember that no matter how this case turns out — Robert kept building the Walking Dead into the giant its become while Tony walked away (whether he was happy to do so is not relevant to my point).

    Maybe Robert believed in his heart of hearts that WD was going to be massive, even back then, while Tony thought it was just another indie comic. We’ll find out, I guess.

    • This needs to be up top above all our comment nonsense.

      I learn something new everytime you show up.

    • Pretty straight on point Jason. I agree with all you have here, except the part about making the lawyers happy. This kind of stuff is so boring that it only makes managing partners happy. 😉

      A lot of the potential cash is likely to be tied to the 2005-6 agreement and how the agreement negotiated rights and corresponding monetary rewards to future non-comic entertainment endeavors.

    • @diebunny agreed. Jason, we miss your columns!

    • I can’t help but picture some Grima Wormtongue lawyer whispering in Moore’s ear…

  28. Anyone up to see a charity boxing match? Kirkman looks to be a big guy but has an oversized headpiece. Might be easy for Moore to zero in on. What say the odds makers?

  29. Very sad to hear about this. I hope other indy creators will learn from this lesson.

  30. Its just a shame to have stuff like this happen. Its just sad.

  31. I love that THR’s article name drops Battle Pope. And reveals that Moore has a deal for 50% of profits from a movie version of Battle Pope. Which means that they thought at some point that could be made into a movie.

  32. LOOKY LOOKY…. this link was sent to me, thought ‘d share..


    • I personally hope it’s just a falling out, and not an all out war. These guys were friends, and money can make folks act funny…but if you’re friends, you have to work that stuff out. Call me pollyanna (just kidding…if you do, i’ll snap ur necks like dry twigs), but sometimes friends count more than scratch.

  33. sooo…..tony signed a deal and now he’s changing his mind. is that the gist of it? hmmmmm…

  34. Robert Kirkman gave him a script and he drew it. He drew it very well but I hardly think it makes him a “co-creator” of The Walking Dead. It’s not like the Ditko Spider-Man situation where Steve created an original and iconic design – without which the character would never have taken off. Invincible is similar, there’s was a LOOK there in terms of character design that was innovative and part of its success – ergo Cory Walker is a co-creator. But what exactly was created in TWD? Zombies? Black and White?

    Moore’s good, but Kirkman could have given the script to one of thousands of other talented artists and TWD would be exactly the same phenomenon it is today. (I realise it could also have flopped in some hands, but what I’m saying is Moore did nothing specific that lots of other people couldn’t have done just as well). As an artist Moore isn’t even as responsible for its success as Adlard.

    I’m not disrepecting artists, in these situations art is definitely “creaTING” or “creaTIVE” but it I don’t see how it makes them the “creaTOR” unless they’re either breaking the story with the writer (don’t think that happened here) or doing something very specific with the art that is hugely contributive to its success.

    • Really? How on earth do you have any knowledge that that is how the creation of this book went down? You’re assuming there was zero collaboration, which for a creator owned indie title made between friends… that’s a BIG assumption. And as far as the original look and design there was some great discussion above you about iconic images created by Moore being very integral to the marketing of the AMC show.

    • I’m not saying he’s necessarily talking about me but Josh just tweeted about seeing people disrespecting artists, I’m NOT doing that, I’m just asking the question of what EXACTLY qualifies someone as a “creator” of something.

      If any money made from TWD has been split 50/50 to date, Moore wouldn’t be bringing this lawsuit. Since he is, it’s clear it hasn’t. So Robert Kirkman clearly doesn’t view Moore as having equal creator rights either. Take it up with him, not me.

    • I’m sure his tweet wasn’t directed at you specifically, just the general tone of a lot of the comments here. And I’m “taking up with you” the assumptions made when we don’t really know, because we aren’t in that circle and details haven’t come to light.

  35. For people saying how convenient it is for him to come now, after the show’s success, and how that proves he clearly just wants to cash in: That’s precisely when it would make sense for him to come. The property has entered a new realm other than just comic sales, which changes a lot of things. This is the only time that makes sense whether his claim is legitimate or falsified. If he’s getting screwed out of what was agreed on (or if he thinks previous agreements were made through clear deceit on Kirman’s part) this is when it would be coming to light and this is when it would be relevant. Don’t be that person, like the people who during the writer’s strike just talked about how greedy they were for wanting fair compensation for their work as it hits a new medium.

    Now, once again, I’ll say I don’t know which side is telling the truth. We’ll have to wait as details come out (it sounds like Kirkman is digging in his heels. This might actually go to trial…) But as someone who’s about to embark on some major work for entrepreneurial siblings, this is a sad professional lesson to me. Friendship, apparently, can’t be taken for granted when it comes to contracts. Always have a contract, and always independently verify that it speaks to your best interest.

    • That’s exactly how I see this mess. No one knows what kind of agreement was made between these two, but them. How this plays out from here we’ll see. I’m not a fan of Walking Dead. I read the first trade and was not impressed, but that doesn’t mean i don’t recognize what started out as a labor of love between friends has become an empire, and now its turned into this.
      You can’t express enough the importance of a clear contract between people. And personally, I’d never go into business with a friend(s).
      I was on the train coming home from work a few weeks ago and saw a someone reading a collected edition of Walking Dead and we got into a conversation about it. She told me how she was enjoying it so much more than the t.v. show.

    • There are a number of things I haven’t seen mentioned yet in the comments. According to the update, BOTH sides had legal advisors when they came to terms in 2006. If this is in fact the case, then Tony either didn’t listen to his lawyers or he had the absolute WORST lawyers money could buy. Any lawyer worth his salt would have told Tony to not sign that particular deal and try to come up with a new one. He did sign it though so it’s hard to build a case with that. Also as far as creating the comic, there really aren’t too many original things EITHER person came up withl. That being said, Tony only did the first 6 issues so creatively, the lawyers need to figure out how much he did (other than covers) past that. If no other story ideas came from him past the initial storyline, then he really should have no claim on anything else. All the characters in those issues are dead except Rick and Carl, for the most part, and they are totally different both physically and mentally now than they were then, which I’m sure the lawyers will bring up. As far as the show goes, it is totally different than what they did on the comic and if he’s getting royalties, as Kirkman claims, then he is really lucky as again, the zombie thing is not an original idea EITHER came up with. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. I would love to say i’m impartial, but this time I think I’m going to have to side with Kirkman. I’ve never met either one of them and have no sentiments as to them being “nice guys” or anything like that, I just believe, with the info we’ve been given, Tony is in the wrong. Now, as more information gets released, I would flip overt to Tony’s side if they could Prove his claims, but again, if both had legal representation when the initial deal happened in 2006, then as much as it sucks, Tony signed the agreement and that’s it, end of story.

    • First of all, the whole “A contract is a contract” claim is just not true. There are a variety of circumstances in which contracts can be nullified. If it was signed under false pretenses, if a party knowingly deceived the other party, if anything illegal was included within the contract, etc. etc. It’s not a be all end all binding agreement. And just because lawyers were previously present doesn’t mean mistakes weren’t made. There’s plenty of crap lawyers out there, especially if you don’t have a lot of money to pay. Now it would fall to the litigant to prove that there was a condition such as the above were present, but it’s certainly not unprecedented, or even that uncommon.

      Second, Tony is alleging that Kirkman is not following what’s laid out in the contract. Kirkman is responding that he is. So basically it’s going to be up to their lawyers, a judge or maybe even a jury (depending on how far this goes) to decide who’s telling the truth.

  36. Plain and simple fact is that MOORE signed a contract in 2003 not knowing that The Walking Dead was going to be what it is today. This is noy uncommon in the comic book world. Josh Flanagan (@jaflanagan) just wrote a fantastic piece about ALAN MOORE nad the Watchmen prequels, the same could be said in this situation as well.

  37. Oh, wow. That’s horrible

  38. There seems to be a fair amount of “Well what did Moore REALLY do? It’s just a zombie book, no real design there, no like superheroes” which is really quite sad, face palm worthy and disappointing.

  39. Really disappointed in the amount of disrespect comic artists are getting here. I know comics are writer centric right now, and kirkman is practically a Demi-god, but we all need to check ourselves and stop with all the “artists don’t create” bs. Your starting to sound like advertising clients.

  40. I don’t know why people are attacking Tony Moore for “waiting too long.” Is there something like a statute of limitations on how long he has to sue in a case like this? If so, he’s within his rights to wait until the very last minute to file his suit, as long as he comes in under deadline. Moore also has the right to contest the previous agreement if it was not comprehensive (maybe some language was vague) or if he concludes some details were handled improperly. “The Walking Dead” is creator owned, so the ownership issues are probably going to be more complicated than if the work were done for Marvel or DC.

  41. What about merchandise? Is Moore getting a piece of that? Walking Dead has everything now, t shirts, shot glasses, action figures, prose novels, and a Walking Dead pregnancy test.

    Possible that income coming from things other than the comic and TV show are what Moore wants more of.

  42. Is it possible that Image comics and the imprints and titles that have spun out of it have caused more and complex, increasingly bitter and divisive lawsuits over creator rights in it’s short history than Marvel and DC put together?

    And if so, isn’t it ironic? Don’t ‘cha think?

  43. “As the saying goes, in all humor there’s truth,” said the attorney, Devin McRae. “And also, I think from my client’s perspective, Mr. Kirkman is clearly speaking from experience.”

    How lucky we are that the justice system works so swiftly in the future now that we’ve abolished all lawyers.

    Oh wait…. three years too early for that… Damn.