Rebellion acquire Egmont's archive of strips and characters

[Lew Stringer]

Its great news, these characters are now in the hands of a publisher who publish weekly and monthly newsagent distributed comics.

They know what they have bought, but it going to be a mammoth undertaking to to a stock count of exactly what they own and digitise, it really is years work.

For British comics fans, here come the good times (in a while!!)

Absolutely - this also opens up other possibilities, too, and not just comics.

Here's my list of what Rebellion now owns: http://downthetubes.net/?p=33494 - but this almost certainly only scratches the surface. Let's hope they make a full list available to save further scratching of heads here, on Facebook, the 2000AD forum...

Good work, John. I noticed that the reprint All-Action Monthly is amongst the titles Rebellion have acquired, although content wise it features some material from Tiger, which would be off limits to them. Likewise, as Phil said, there are reprints in things such as Whizzer and Chips that were from 1960s comics that would also be off limits. Or characters such as Sammy Shrink, who, although had new stories in Whizzer and Chips, originated in Wham!, that would presumably exclude him from the deal. I'm guessing though that all of this would have been sorted out years ago when the rights to who owned what were divided between IPC and Egmont, so hopefully it's already been clarified for Rebellion.

[johnfreeman96]

Its great news, these characters are now in the hands of a publisher who publish weekly and monthly newsagent distributed comics.

They know what they have bought, but it going to be a mammoth undertaking to to a stock count of exactly what they own and digitise, it really is years work.

For British comics fans, here come the good times (in a while!!)

Absolutely - this also opens up other possibilities, too, and not just comics.

Here's my list of what Rebellion now owns: http://downthetubes.net/?p=33494 - but this almost certainly only scratches the surface. Let's hope they make a full list available to save further scratching of heads here, on Facebook, the 2000AD forum...

Good work, John. I noticed that the reprint All-Action Monthly is amongst the titles Rebellion have acquired, although content wise it features some material from Tiger, which would be off limits to them. Likewise, as Phil said, there are reprints in things such as Whizzer and Chips that were from 1960s comics that would also be off limits. Or characters such as Sammy Shrink, who, although had new stories in Whizzer and Chips, originated in Wham!, that would presumably exclude him from the deal. I'm guessing though that all of this would have been sorted out years ago when the rights to who owned what were divided between IPC and Egmont, so hopefully it's already been clarified for Rebellion.

Yes, there's quite a bit of "blurring" because of reprinting of characters from the 1960s - and indeed the continued publication of pre January 1970s created characters. The rule of thumb is, however, generally, if a character or comic was first published after January 1970 by Fleetway Editions, it's now owned by Rebellion and, as David McDonald noted earlier in this thread - they have a much more detailed list than I've published ( Ihope!)

[Spencer]

This is indeed fantastic news! I have no idea how much a deal like this actually costs Rebellion, but considering Time Inc are doing nigh on nothing with most of the pre-1970 material they own the rights to, wouldn't it be great if Rebellion could also gain the rights there? This would solve any doubts as to what they can or can't publish and also give them access to Lion / Tiger / Valiant / Buster etc. I'm really not sure Time Warner are about to release a Johnny Cougar / Batman crossover or Sammy Shrink is about to join the Teen Titans, so it would be great for q company that cares about the product to be able to licence it!

[philcom55]

Also - without wanting to go all 'Brexit' - it's great to see this material back where it belongs in the hands of a British publisher!

[Phoenix]

I didn't want to go all 'Brexit' in the first place, and I'm convinced that many of those who voted for it would not vote for it now.

[Shiner]

Maybe a small niggly point but Whizzer & Chips was first printed in October 1969. It now belongs to Rebellion under this deal so I'm wondering whether the cut off is June 1969 which was mentioned a couple of times in Dez Skinn's Comics International magazine some years ago. This was supposedly the date that determined the IPC/Egmont split. No one would want to see that title get left behind in Egmont.

[Lew Stringer]

Maybe a small niggly point but Whizzer & Chips was first printed in October 1969. It now belongs to Rebellion under this deal so I'm wondering whether the cut off is June 1969 which was mentioned a couple of times in Dez Skinn's Comics International magazine some years ago. This was supposedly the date that determined the IPC/Egmont split. No one would want to see that title get left behind in Egmont.

Let's remember that the division of who owns what between IPC and Egmont happened years ago. We know Egmont got Whizzer and Chips because they put out that annual two years ago. Rebellion have simply bought what Egmont acquired. Therefore W&C is part of the deal with Rebellion.

[starscape]

I hear Adam Eterno is now part of the deal (along with the rest of Thunder). Weird, as, when I was reprinting the Leopard from Lime Street, I was also trying to reprint Adam but it was IPC I was directed to (who asked for over 5 x what Egmont wanted!).

Still, good news!

So, if Rebellion released a new comic, what stories would be in it? What should it be called? I always thought Battle Action was a great name. However, that would probably rival 2000AD, rather than complement.

I wonder if a return to a humour/adventure style for younger (but not that young) would be best. Maybe characters like Buster, Cheeky, along with the Leopard from Lime Street and Birdman & Chicken might hit the spot. And the name? Well, Fleetway might be the way to go if that's not trademarked to Egmont.

[David McDonald]

I would presume that W&C is included because it was still been published in 1987, along with Buster and The Eagle (all started pre 1970) which were all sold to Maxwell in 1987.

[Lew Stringer]

I would presume that W&C is included because it was still been published in 1987, along with Buster and The Eagle (all started pre 1970) which were all sold to Maxwell in 1987.

Exactly. There's no doubt that W&C is part of the package that Rebellion have bought from Egmont.

There's been a lot of discussion on the net about this whole deal. Some people seem to be confused, reacting as though the sharing of the pre/post 1970 rights has just happened as part of Rebellion's deal.

[Louis Crandell]

I hear Adam Eterno is now part of the deal (along with the rest of Thunder). Weird, as, when I was reprinting the Leopard from Lime Street, I was also trying to reprint Adam but it was IPC I was directed to (who asked for over 5 x what Egmont wanted!).

Early in 2005 I was told Adam had ended up with IPC, but by 2007 IPC and Egmont had apparently both agreed it was the other way round. It seems there was some level of confusion. Not entirely unsurprising, if you think that whoever worked out the split in the 1990s probably didn't get too specific and go through things strip by strip, and those then left to try and figure things out a decade later would have to work from that. Plus, while some of those working on figuring things out actually knew the characters and had a clue what they were doing (I'm thinking of the IPC guys who worked on Albion, for example), there would also be legal types involved who didn't. When it comes to figuring out just how clueless some corporate types can be about the characters their company owns, I'm reminded of a comment made by Marvel's 1970s/80s EiC Jim Shooter:
http://jimshooter.com/2011/04/spider-ma ... been.html/

The licensing people thought that the Amazing Spider-Man and the Spectacular Spider-Man were two different characters and licensed them to different film producers. Lawsuits ensued. They licensed the Avengers, including Iron Man, to a film producer, then, having no clue that Iron Man was an Avenger, licensed Iron Man to another film producer. Lawsuits ensued.

[johnfreeman96]

Maybe a small niggly point but Whizzer & Chips was first printed in October 1969. It now belongs to Rebellion under this deal so I'm wondering whether the cut off is June 1969 which was mentioned a couple of times in Dez Skinn's Comics International magazine some years ago. This was supposedly the date that determined the IPC/Egmont split. No one would want to see that title get left behind in Egmont.

No, January 1970 is very definitely the demarcation date. I have that in writing from IPC on file and it's been stated many times in various articles that have been published since Comics International was last published.

As I've also said, though, there are some exceptions to this in terms of who owns what - the Whizzer & Chips brand being one. It's possibly because Whizzer & Chips was a title that was merged into Buster - where again, there are exceptions to the January 1970 rule because Buster was still being published when the IPC (now Time UK) and Egmont agreement was made.

[johnfreeman96]

I hear Adam Eterno is now part of the deal (along with the rest of Thunder). Weird, as, when I was reprinting the Leopard from Lime Street, I was also trying to reprint Adam but it was IPC I was directed to (who asked for over 5 x what Egmont wanted!).

Still, good news!

I updated my article yesterday to clarify the THUNDER situation, because I queried ownership in 2007/8 when like you I was looking at reprints from that comic, Chris, and discussed it with both Egmont and IPC. In 2005 IPC thought they owned Adam Eterno, but suddenly realised THUNDER was first published after January 1970, so they didn't. It's why, although Adam Eterno features in Albion (#1, I think), it's only a vague 'homage' reference. By 2007/8 IPC were acknowledging in correspondence that they didn't own that brand or its characters.

[Lew Stringer]

Maybe a small niggly point but Whizzer & Chips was first printed in October 1969. It now belongs to Rebellion under this deal so I'm wondering whether the cut off is June 1969 which was mentioned a couple of times in Dez Skinn's Comics International magazine some years ago. This was supposedly the date that determined the IPC/Egmont split. No one would want to see that title get left behind in Egmont.

No, January 1970 is very definitely the demarcation date. I have that in writing from IPC on file and it's been stated many times in various articles that have been published since Comics International was last published.

As I've also said, though, there are some exceptions to this in terms of who owns what - the Whizzer & Chips brand being one. It's possibly because Whizzer & Chips was a title that was merged into Buster - where again, there are exceptions to the January 1970 rule because Buster was still being published when the IPC (now Time UK) and Egmont agreement was made.

Perhaps Whizzer and Chips was included because it was the first of that new stable of humour comics that went on to include Cor!!, Whoopee!, etc.? It would be strange to leave it behind with IPC when Egmont had the rest. Also, like you say, it would complicate things regarding mergers, so far easier for Egmont to have it than IPC.

[Lew Stringer]

I hear Adam Eterno is now part of the deal (along with the rest of Thunder). Weird, as, when I was reprinting the Leopard from Lime Street, I was also trying to reprint Adam but it was IPC I was directed to (who asked for over 5 x what Egmont wanted!).

Still, good news!

I updated my article yesterday to clarify the THUNDER situation, because I queried ownership in 2007/8 when like you I was looking at reprints from that comic, Chris, and discussed it with both Egmont and IPC. In 2005 IPC thought they owned Adam Eterno, but suddenly realised THUNDER was first published after January 1970, so they didn't. It's why, although Adam Eterno features in Albion (#1, I think), it's only a vague 'homage' reference. By 2007/8 IPC were acknowledging in correspondence that they didn't own that brand or its characters.

Yes, Albion isn't a strict indication of what IPC (or Time Inc. now) own. For example, Faceache is in there, but Egmont own him, so he's called Fred instead of Ricky Rubberneck (Faceache's real name). Heck, there's even a Brickman reference in Albion and IPC / Time definitely don't own him!