Alan Moore

[Noisybast]

...Which, of course, Amstor said, much more succinctly and accurately over an hour ago.

I'm in my GF's house. No broadband. Have to dial up,  load each thread in a different tab, disconnect, read 'em all, then reconnect & reply.

Bloody dialup...

[The Amstor Computer]

Well, IMO a preferable situation would be for a company to purchase the exclusive publication rights to a strip for X years when they first commission it. The writer & artist(s) would be paid the typical fee for their work, plus a set amount to secure the exclusive rights, plus royalties on any reprints during this time period.

At the end of X years, the company would be obliged to offer the rights to the strip back to the writer and artist(s). They would then be able to negotiate a continuation of the existing arrangement, taking into account any changes in the past few years (popularity, dissatisfaction with the publisher, sales of reprints etc.), sell the strip outright, or retain the rights and do with them as they see fit (offering the character/series to another publisher, for example).  

I'm sure that's not a perfect setup, and I suspect there are quite a few holes, but it seems more equitable and provides an incentive for publishers to treat creators well, as well as giving creators total control over a strip after a reasonable period.

Any ideas?

[paulvonscott]

I'm not sure I see a problem with companies offering work for hire with royalties.

[Quirkafleeg]

Can't someone wrap themselves in some green plastic sheeting and caper outside his house in the middle of the night shouting "Finish Halo Jones! The snake-god demades it!" or something

[Swearengen]

>but it seems more equitable and provides an incentive for publishers to treat creators well

I can never see why people who work knowing full well how a system works then moan about it years later. Whether you think its right or wrong that same system gave Moore the chance to see his work printed and get to where he is today.

[paulvonscott]

Well, 2000AD lead a lot of people onto a fairly profitable career (though not all of 'em!).

Anyway, the problem in the eigties was that, suddenly a lot of spin offs and merchandise were making the publishers (IPC) a lot of money, and no one (creators or publishers) had really forseen this when they did the original work.

This understandably caused some resentment among creators.  But the publishers and even the NUJ weren't very sympathetic.  Nobody was asking for all the rights back for work for hire, just for them to get a slice of the pie they had created.

Thanks really to John Wagner and the management at Egmont, they finally got this.  And I think that's a fair system (from my viewpoint on the outside).  Creators get paid for doing their job, and a percentage of any money that material goes on to make.

[Matt Timson]

It's all very well saying that creators know full well how the system works- but it's still a bit like blackmail for them in the begining, isn't it?  Want to get paid?  Want to see your work in print?  Fine- just sign here first.  You might know what you're getting into, but that doesn't mean you're ever going to like it.

I totally see Moore's POV.  He's not saying "you can't use that, it's mine", he's just saying "I don't want to work like that anymore, thanks".

Who would, given the choice?

[philt]

The question is - does 2000ad need Alan Moore? I think the simple answer is no. It never needed him.
However Alan Moore needed 2000ad. Would he really have got to were he is now without it? Would he really have achieved all that he has if he'd been stuck writing for Warrior and UK Marvel? In fact a more interesting question. If 2000ad hadn't existed would Warrior?

This is the thing. 2000ad does not (and probably never will) get the credit that it deserves. 2000ad has had more of an impact on the entire comic industry than any other single publication. If there was no 2000ad there would have been no explosion of UK talent into the moribund US market. You might claim "talent will out" but where would this have been discovered? Without the exposure 2000ad gave all the creators how would their talents have ever been discovered? Think about it - a US comic industry without UK creators.
Sometimes people here don't realise just how important (in Comic terms) 2000ad really is.

[paulvonscott]

I think you are right in what you say, JEB.  And I understand Alan Moore's position.  

But I think you need publishers to keep comics publishing going, creators have a lousy track record.  Is it blackmail, because they aren't there just to serve all the needs and desires of the creator?

[Matt Timson]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not 2000ad need him, but whether or not they want him- and why wouldn't they want him?  Like it or not, he still sells.  Of course Moore needed 2000ad in the begining- but does he need them now?  Personally, I believe that a Moore/2000ad reunion would be a lot more beneficial to 2000ad than it would be to Moore (assuming he wasn't being paid an astronomical sum).

I don't think anyone in their right mind would dismiss the importance of 2000ad in regards to their having discovered a lot of talented people- but how many of those people do they get to keep?

Cor!  On-topic and everything- who'd have thought it!

;)

[The Amstor Computer]

Paul --

I don't really have a huge problem with work-for-hire, provided writers & artists are fully aware of what they're getting involved in.

I'm also well aware of the importance of an established publisher in supporting, promoting and distributing comics, and in giving new creators a platform.

However, I do feel that there is room for an arrangement that benefits both creator and publisher, and doesn't just boil down to the publisher purchasing a story/character and then being able to do whatever they want with it, for as long as they choose.

[paulvonscott]

Well, that's the element of choice again.  Creators may not feel the need to have someone else own and publish their work.  But that's something you can only do when you've 'made it'.

I believe publishers do pay more for more experienced and well know creators.  But the matter of what deal they strike for rights on current work, they may or may not neccesarily involved the renegotiation of old contracts.  But who would be being blackmailed there?

Whether Publishers can offer enough for more experienced creators to create new stories and characters is something determined by the creators I suspect.

Anyone here fancy funding young spotty comics creators to develop their own work, which they will own and you have first publishing rights only?  Anyone?  Anyone?  No?

[paulvonscott]

Well, as John Wagner seemed to be the one to force the hand on royalties, Pat Mills has gained 'unwritten' rights over who gets to right his characters.  i.e. he does.  And I think as a result, creators get more say in what happens to theior characters these days than ever before.

The current way of working does benefit both creator and publisher, it just depends which way you want to tip the scales.  I'm all for creators rights, but often enough publishers are automatically painted as the bad guys.

With your leasing scheme, publishers fund and help creators develop all sorts of characters, and the popular ones are then sold off by the creators to the highest bidder.  Why shouldn't they?

I'm pretty sure there would come a point when the publishers would ask themelves why they are in effect a creators benevolent fund, in a rather stunted medium and just pack it in.

This 'I want the rights back' argument, is to my mind understandable, who wouldn't want them back.  But you can't normally claim back the rights to something once you've sold it.  Would the creators like it if the publishers started changing the rules?

I think the royalty issue, was resolved fairly on the side of the creator, and it would have been much better for 2000AD and IPC if they had done it themselves.  If the next inevitable stage is just creators demanding their work back entirely, well, then even that becomes a more complicated affair.

All of the above is qualified by the fact that I don't really know how the systems work and I could be very wrong indeed.

[DavidXBrunt]

Far more potentially embarassing for Alan would be D.R. and Quinch which is pretty much a pastiche of a National Lampoon feature. Some would say copywrite breaching facsimile but I'd not.

[Something Fishy]

for a guy who acted such a hipy. bit of a capitalist old fat isn't he?