- Joined
- Aug 23, 2017
It is not contested whether or not the ownership of the SatAM belongs to Sega, it is the fact that those characters bleed over to the Archie series were Ken participated and he started putting his grubby hands all over them. (ew) I have no doubt that with the success the Sonic movies, Sega would love to create additional media as new animated series or even reboots of the older SatAM series, specially considering how nostalgia driven is the current pop culture landscape. But Sega simply wants to avoid any association to those older characters precisely because of the Ken lawsuit. Hell, the entire Archie comic continuity was altered with an incredibly contrived "Super Genesis Wave" plot just to get rid of all of Ken's characters and story lines and make the new plot more focused on the games.
It is utterly absurd once you start dissecting some of the details of which characters he ended up walking away with. Sally Acorn belongs to Sega but Ken owns Alicia Acorn (literally Sally's doppelganger mother, because he "created her")WHAT!?
Even assuming he does own "Alicia Acorn" he can't own the concept of "Sally's Mother." You can't claim copyright to broad ideas, only specific applications.
Look at the stink Ken is raising on Twitter over Knuckles, that for him is enough to claim infringement on his ideas despite the fact there is nothing in common between the movie and his stories except perhaps the words "echidna" and "father".
Ken believes he's a lot more influential than he actually is for Sonic Lore, and also more importantly, wants attention and money for nothing. Him raising this stink over this is probably exactly what Sega would want from a PR standpoint.
I still can't understand why. I'm sure he thought he was going to gain something, but what would he get from these spinoff of a spinoff characters?
He thought he'd be getting fat licensing checks because "they HAVE to keep using my characters"
WHAT!?






