Karen: Gerry Conway posted a very interesting article on his blogspace the other day about DC policies towards recognition and compensation for artists/writers whose characters are being used in other media. He used an example from the Flash TV show, but there are many more out there. Please read his article here, and then jump back to comment.Karen: This whole "derivative character" concept is so ludicrous, it's stunning to me that anyone could discuss it with a straight face. DC has several successful TV shows on the air right now featuring dozens of characters, but they've created a loophole that allows them to credit no one - it's as if they were somehow magically created from thin air, or by this great mass organism known as DC Comics. It's not as if DC is going to break the bank by giving credit (and compensation) where it is due.
Karen: A few months ago I spoke with a writer who had worked at both DC and Marvel and we began discussing the Marvel films, as some of his characters were appearing in them. He said that Marvel, particularly since Disney had taken over, had become much better at crediting and compensating creators. He felt that part of it came because of the backlash over leaving Jack Kirby's name off of The Avengers. They "became enlightened" after that. But DC/Warners, he said, has always seemed to have taken the other route. They own it and that's that. It's a sad attitude. We can only hope that as more people shine a light on it, DC will do what's right and treat the comic book creators, without whom they wouldn't have material for their TV shows, movies, toys, etc., fairly.
Yeah, I saw Conway's piece a few days ago; I had to read his explanation of how DC is doing this several times, and I still haven't completely wrapped my head around it. The legal acrobatics employed to deny creators their due credit and royalties are simply breath-taking.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I think everyone here will also be interested in this interview with Stan Lee and Roy Thomas about the Hulk, Ultron and so forth posted on The Rolling Stone's website. Right at the end, Thomas confirms something Karen mentioned, i.e., that Marvel/Disney has finally taken some steps toward fairly compensate the people who (co-)created this stuff that's making them obscene amounts of money.
Edo, you rascal... You've begun to think like a Bronze Age Baby! The Rolling Stone article to which you link was shown to me by Karen yesterday afternoon. Since it does tie into today's topic, we debated whether to include it here or attach it to tomorrow's Age of Ultron post (since as you say it also deals with the Vision and Ultron). In the end, I suggested holding it another day.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you (and Karen) were right -- it fits better in today's conversation. It will be linked again tomorrow, but surely this topic is big enough to spill into two days' discussion.
And do not even think of apologizing -- I just smiled and thought "what are the chances?" when I read your comment above.
Doug
And by the way, today is the first time I've gotten the cute pets captcha!
But this. . . this is utterly appalling. And it's such a blatant, transparent maneuver based utterly on naked corporate greed. From Conway's article, it sounds like this is a "company policy" decision that hasn't been challenged in the courtroom at all, is that correct? 'Cause the self-serving Catch-22 reasoning is childishly obvious, and it's hard to imagine that any half-way credible judge would let a "no one created these characters" position be uttered more than once before dismissing it as utter nonsense. I wonder if DCE is simply assuming that they could win a courtroom war of attrition by simply delaying and court-costing even a unified body of creators to death before any judgment is made? They do, of course, still have the precedent of winning big (more than once) in regards to Superman. History and precedent may be inducing some (hopefully mistaken) hubris.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually pleasantly surprised that Disney seems to be taking the higher road, here, 'cause that really wasn't the Mouse's reputation at all for decades and decades.
HB
Doug - cute pets?! All I keep getting are steaks, bread, pasta or sushi. And usually it's right before I have lunch, so I get really hungry.
ReplyDeleteHB, yes, it's good that Disney seems to be doing the right thing, although I doubt there's anything high-minded about it. I think Thomas put much hits the nail on the head when he said they're just tired of getting sued all the time, plus the goodwill created among both the creators themselves and the fans.
Yeah, I think Disney just have a lot more experience in ip law. I suspect a big part of their "enlightened" attitude is the result of (to put it politely) historical slack practice in the comic biz - the lack of contracts, getting freelancers to sign the back of their paycheques, that kind of thing - that allows for ambiguity in ownership. Making it harder to be certain of an outright win, so the tendency is to settle a case before any legal precedent is set.
ReplyDeleteNot quite sure what Roy Thomas is referring to about Marvel being sued by everyone - have there really been many attempts? Surely he's just avoiding a direct reference to the Kirby case; that was about such a big part of the company "property" - and so blatantly out of order - that any result would always shape company policy.
Btw, I couldn't help but notice in that Rolling Stone piece Stan Lee was still downplaying Kirby's contribution, with all that "I told Jack what to draw" stuff.
-sean
I should have known one of our astute BABsters would find the same Rolling Stone article -Edo! I think we will leave it in tomorrow's post; there's always the chance that someone might miss today's and just read tomorrow's.
ReplyDeleteAs far as lawsuits against Marvel, there have been a few; for example, yesterday Doug and I were discussing the Gary Friedrich suit regarding the creation of Ghost Rider.(You can read about that here: http://comicsalliance.com/marvel-settles-gary-friedrich-ghost-rider-rights-lawsuit/)
DC's stance is utterly disgusting and also seems untenable in court -like HB, I'm curious if anyone has challenged it.It seems ideal for a group of creators to get together to do it.
But apart from the Friedrich case, were there any others?
ReplyDeleteThere have been instances of bad publicity - like over Starlin and the first Avengers film - but I'm can't reall any actual legal actions. At least, not before the Kirby settlement (unless you want to go far back to something like the Gerber suit over Howard the Duck).
It just seemed like the Thomas quote was a way of avoiding the very large and obvious elephant in the Marvel room.
-sean
Sorry about the typos in that last - slightly garbled - comment.
ReplyDelete-sean
Hiya,
ReplyDeleteRead article.
That's Warner management style. Fits into everything else that they do.
It's probably a reaction to the Superman legal case. They're floating a new argument in case some other creator starts asking questions about royalties.
It's what lawyers do! Create dubious legal arguments to advance their clients interests. The frightening thing is the courts might agree.
pfgavigan
I have to get a report done today, so I don't have time to do any research, but off the top of my head, there's the Gerber suit (as you mentioned Sean), the Wolfman suit over Blade, and even Stan Lee has been in litigation with Marvel. And who knows what cases may have been quietly resolved?
ReplyDeleteWeird -I had to click on cakes for the Captcha just now...
Does Hollywood and the music industry have a better handle on such things, as compared to the comic book industry? It seems that actors (speaking of those with a name big enough to carry some clout) are able to negotiate deals that may be based on ticket revenues, DVD sales, etc. Music artists get paid-for-play on radio, in films, etc. Am I wrong on this?
ReplyDeleteSo why can't the comic company owners do something similarly fair with films, action figures, birthday party balloons, t-shirts, etc.? It just feels like every license issued should come with a percentage cut to the creators. And when we're talking profits in the billions, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Doug
Hiya,
ReplyDeleteNot to disdain Conway, but suddenly realized I was only getting his take on the situation. Does anybody have access to the notification that he received or has Warner made any commentary on the issue?
pfgavigan
Doug - As I understand it, a big part of the reason Marvel settled with the Kirby's was precisely because that stuff is all much more part of a larger entertainment industry now. The Kirby kids got to appeal the original verdict to the supreme court in part because a number of parties - not particularly known for an interest in comics - backed them up.
ReplyDeleteThe sort of thing a small cottage industry could get away with in the 60s and 70s won't necessarily fly once it becomes big business.
www.hollywoodreprter.com/thr-esq/jack-kirbys-heirs-get-huge-712924
-sean
Doug - Meant to add that it also seems like the issue of creators rights is very much up in the air at the moment, what with changing media. And the Kirby case was an important test that would have wider implications.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in Conway's comments about "due diligence", which seems to be part of a modern trend. That its up to the artist to constantly claim their due... sort of reminded me of Google's idea that they could copy anything unless specifically asked/told not to.
(But of course, that's just an immediate reaction based on Conway's side of thing
-sean
In that vein, Sean, your last point is why we (and many among our blogging brethren) have a disclaimer on our sidebar simply asking offended parties to let us know if we've used an image we shouldn't have. We'll kindly remove it. That actually has happened once and we were happy to make it right.
ReplyDeleteSome of you may have seen the tweets earlier today where Comics Alliance (for one example) tweeted out a full head and torso shot of Ben Affleck in the new Batsuit. Hours later they'd removed it and replaced it with the same image but with the bright red Superman insignia overlay and the date "2016". Honestly, it didn't make that much difference to me as a viewer, but maybe that's because I'd seen the unobstructed version first.
But ownership of a thing or idea is a real issue. Those who create should be able to say how their work is used. Bottom line.
Doug
Doug, just to jump in before HB answers. ASCAP is the organization that protects the rights of and collects the royalties for Composers, Authors and Publishers. They, ASCAP, do all the legal wrangling and bean counting. As far as I know, there is not an organization covering artists/creators in the comics industries. Could be because they're "compensated" up front and not for each time their work is published.
ReplyDeleteMy gut tells me that it's just the man trying to keep us down but I think there's more layers to it.
DCE may be making less off of their movies so they're trying to keep as many pennies as they can. Though, trying to establish a policy of "no creator" will only work when they, DCE, have to 'fess up on who came up with it and when did it happen.
The struggle continues........keep hope alive!!!
(Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow, you're only a day......aaaaaaa........way).
PS I don't think I'm going to make a showing until Sunday!?!
Comic Book Resources has said that DC Entertainment declined to comment on the matter. I haven't found any official statement from DC on the issue. The general gist of what Conway said is backed up by other comics pros, although this was the first time I had heard details.
ReplyDeleteHiya,
ReplyDeleteMindless speculation time:
DC moved from New York to Los Angles and brought within the corporate structure. Most of the songs, movies and tv shows in their catalogue are owned by Warner, they don't see any reason why this working model shouldn't extend to the comic book characters.
Except for that little creators clause sited by Conway.
This is probably the first move to test the waters to either renegotating the clause or ignoring it entirely. They're probably taking the strongest stance possible because they've got the legal resources and finances to back it up.
It also states that they don't see much future in comics besides providing characters for tv shows and movies and that they aren't worried about attracting talent to actually work on the books.
Yours while gazing into a bowling ball, the crystal one was recalled.
pfgavigan
That's infuriating. The question is, what can we fans/ readers do about it. I don't know if boycotts will have any effect. Making noise at conventions? Petitions? Protest emails? None of those options seem strong enough.
ReplyDeletePitchforks and torches sound pretty good right now!
- Mike Loughlin
Man, this represents the worst aspects of entertainment law - I'm no lawyer myself but this looks like another case of a corporation stiffing creators out of their rightful piece of the pie. The whole 'derivative character' concept smells kinda fishy to me. It seems that a writer/artist has to have a copyright lawyer present whenever he or she creates a new character nowadays!
ReplyDelete- Mike 'dreading what captcha I get' from Trinidad & Tobago.
Obnoxious and despicable indeed! The NEW DC...what a bunch of money grabbing *%$*&...but sadly it has always been the way for artists/creators...the patron always gets the reward - whether, as in rennaisance times, it was a place in Heaven or as in later centuries receiving the admiration of your peers...What the artist/creator did have over his patron was that the memory of the work usually outlived the money-man and posterity rewarded the original artist/creator with eternal fame...But this didn't help feed Van Gogh.
ReplyDeleteSadly even this paltry reward has now gone, as these huge corporations, with the help of (and I feel sick at having to use the word) lawyers, just seem to last forever and keep morphing into even larger forms; swallowing even the memory of those artist/creators...Ask the comic reading youth in 10 years who Big John was and how they rate him? Ask them who Wally Wood was or Gil Kane? Ask them what Steve Engleheart wrote...Fun Fact: After Superman was created lawyers were employed to control a 'ban' on any other heroes being created that came from the vastness of the universe!
Wow! It seems that corporate greed is a bottomless pit.
ReplyDeleteIronically the MORE money they make off of these characters the LESS they want to give to those who actually created them.
"The more things change…" I suppose. Back in the so-called "Golden Age", DC Comics chewed up and spat out the two men who created for them their most successful property. (At the time).
Then in more recent times, things seemed to be looking up for creators, and they started getting some of the credit (and compensation) they were due.
Now, things have come full circle and they are getting screwed again. It seems when billions of dollars are stake, the suits get paranoid. And they want to deny that anyone (but them) has any rights to anything.
Gerry Conway has an update on his blog about why he won't be suing DC, and it has to do with both legal and ethical reasons (and that most of his work was done as work-for-hire): http://gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117875235598/why-dont-i-sue-dccomics-over-uncredited
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the legal situation, it seems to me that DC once offered compensation and is now wiggling out of it.
Karen, thanks for linking Conway's follow-up post. He basically confirms this really depressing fact, that whenever these creators' rights issues come up in the comic book industry, the creators rarely have a legal leg to stand on - so it's left to the goodwill of a large corporation as to whether they will do the right, ethical thing.
ReplyDelete