Unfortunately, Sal passed away on Friday, Jan. 23, as reported at comicbookclublive.com/2026/01/26/s... .

Now you have to leave the window like that forever or you'll be defacing art!

Thank you, sir! New this week, for lovers of horror, mystery, and thrillers! #FridayReads

amzn.to/3TSPOus

Joe Quesada paid him a personal visit, promised to give him credit in the indicia, then Collected Editions forgot, Moore flipped out, and that was that.

legacy.aintitcool.com/node/11422

My memory is Moore was upset with Marvel over his Captain Britain work because he said they only ever bought first use rights to his scripts, so he was still the copyright owner, not them. Until they acknowledged that, he wouldn't work for them again.

PM/IF! Red Tornado! Last JLA/JSA team-up! LWW! Marvel Age! Jean Grey isn't dead!

I read all your stuff when it was new before Marvels, but I was a kid, so I didn't connect any of it with a single human being. Not unlike some editors, I suppose!

It worked out for you!

Hang on! I thought they bought WW outright, years ago!

Also, would reprints of WW have kept their original contract valid, or did they need to produce new material?

So why can't Doubleday publish a new Carrie book without Stephen King if they hold the copyright, and why does it say (c) Stephen King and not (c) Doubleday, if DD is holding the copyright? Is this just a comics vs books thing, or a legal thing?

Publishing Carrie doesn't give them the right to make Carrie II without Stephen King, though. It's (c) Stephen King, whereas Watchmen is listed as (c) DC Comics, not Moore & Gibbons under license to DC. Always thought DC has the copyright, then have to transfer it to M&G if it goes out of print.

Well, there was that. He lost all leverage with that announcement. But I mean they would publish it without owning the copyright, which is the norm with novels. Still reprint it, still make money, keep it in print, just not own the copyright.

Could've kept publishing Watchmen without owning it, if money was all they were after.

Tomorrow when I wake up, I'll think I dreamed this whole conversation!

Technically, DC didn't do anything wrong. But they would've been better off making Moore happy since there was more money in more comics by him, not less. Also, DC doesn't need the copyright to have publishing rights. Novels don't work that way; graphic novels (like Watchmen) shouldn't, either.

My point is, Moore believed that DC would temporarily have the Watchmen rights. They had an understanding that he would get the rights back at some point, and it still hasn't happened. There are copyright reversion laws that take into account not seeing the future, but I guess they don't apply here.

If Eclipse published it, Todd McFarlane would've won Watchmen at auction and it'd be in comic book purgatory for years!

Assuming DC would've let them, and they didn't have to worry about paying their bills. The more money you have in the bank, the easier it is to leave it on the table. The more kids you have, the more food they eat... principle often gets sacrificed for practical.

Eclipse didn't have the money. There was a reason why an unknown Chuck Bechum was drawing Miracleman instead of Alan Davis.

I think they saw all other options as lesser. Plus, they trusted DC. Not a legal argument, I know. Probably also thought they'd want him happy so he'd write more titles for them, so they wouldn't go against his wishes.

I mean they weren't going to get a better deal from DC. I think DC already thought it was going out of its way to accommodate them, it wasn't going to let them hold the rights while DC published the comic. So if it's DC, those are the terms. Taking it elsewhere would've been problematic.