>>9418245>It said that Gaiman wonwon what?
You don't even know, because you didn't read or understand what i posted
It isn't about Mcfarlane wronging Gaiman, it's that something completely unrelated was falsified by completely different companies, so the deal that both McFarlane and Gaiman agreed to couldnt happen.
Also, do you like how Gaiman had to claim damages for his work being credited by Mcfarlane after claiming that Mcfarlane wasn't crediting his work?
It's almost like Gaiman's lawyer was trying to look up every little loophole to get out as much money from the lawsuit as possible, which was a negotiation tactic in the first place.
Nevermind that this lawsuit only happened 7 years after the work was done without any complaint from Gaiman, because the lawyers at Image wanted to get a verbal contract written down on paper and Gaiman saw an opportunity to get paid twice.
