The Complete Zenith

[IndigoPrime]

All very interesting, and a tad more balanced in tone than the first part.

I disagree. If anything, I felt there was more misdirection/attempts to conflate various things in this piece than the first one. To be fair, Sneddon presented this as a piece with biases, and that's what we're getting.

We've all been over the Alan McKenzie-not-issuing-contracts-to-Alan-McKenzie thing so often that's there no need to start that argument again

And yet I'd argue that's absolutely critical to that era of 2000 AD. Sneddon glosses over that entirely, that the editor of the magazine knew loopholes he could exploit to retain rights. One might argue that showcases poor management at the time, but I'm sure an editor would just love it if a senior manager had to sign off on every strip or contract. (This actually happens at one publisher I write for, and it's nightmarish. It hugely slows every process down, from commissioning through to payment.)

I always find it interesting to note that Morrison explicitly retained copyright to Really & Truly and Big Dave, implying that he understood that this was not the case with his other work.

I've always felt the same about this: Morrison knew precisely what the deal was at the time. Now he's famous and presumably doesn't need Zenith, he's trying it on.

So in this piece, we now have:

• Attempts to conflate something having been designed/conceived outside of a publication with something that had actually been published outside of a publication.
• Zero insight into what a wholesale reversion of rights would actually mean for these strips and their creators.
• "Having previously sold text stories to other publishers, Robinson had assumed that comics worked the same – that the author retains the copyright." — Not true, or misdirection in how it's worded. Depends entirely on the publisher and the contract signed. Assumption when it comes to such things is something that should never be done.
• "Of course it later emerged that in the case of Zenith there was perhaps no contract at all." — Of course, that quote also showcases that Morrison knew exactly what the state of play was at the time.
• "The Journal of Luke Kirby, as popular and incredibly influential as it was" — Really? I liked that strip a lot—it was about the one thing McKenzie did for 2000 AD that was any good. But "incredibly influential"? [citation required]

[opaque]

but I always find it interesting to note that Morrison explicitly retained copyright to Really & Truly and Big Dave, implying that he understood that this was not the case with his other work. 

I do wonder if for some copyright only really became an issue when something was very popular (Zenith) and they could republish and make money or really bad (Big Dave) so they could stop anyone from ever seeing it ever again?


IndigioPrime: I was wondering about the Luke Kirby thing as well. Was it that it was one of the better things that time so seemed more popular or looking back at the strength of Harry Potter etc? I seem to remember someone writing about it being rather popular a year or so ago so maybe that's where it came from? (ie no proof needed beyond a quote)

[Jim_Campbell]

• "Having previously sold text stories to other publishers, Robinson had assumed that comics worked the same – that the author retains the copyright." — Not true, or misdirection in how it's worded. Depends entirely on the publisher and the contract signed. Assumption when it comes to such things is something that should never be done.

I'll confess I raised an eyebrow when I got to that bit — that's an extraordinary statement to allow to pass unchallenged. Whilst First British Serial Rights (FBSR) is definitely the norm when selling prose fiction in the UK it is, as you say, by no means a universal standard. I struggle to believe that Robinson would just assume that every piece of prose fiction she sold would automatically be on FBSR terms so why she would assume that it would be the default in an entirely different medium makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Cheers

Jim

[opaque]

Wouldn't you look at the contract/agreement for each piece of work you do to make sure of such a thing?

(Currently working on scientists Open Access paperwork, giving content to the journals for free whilst having to spend thousands of pounds for the 'right' to make their work freely available to the public)

[IndigoPrime]

I was wondering about the Luke Kirby thing as well. Was it that it was one of the better things that time so seemed more popular or looking back at the strength of Harry Potter etc?

It was never that popular and it's certainly not been influential in comics or otherwise. (People arguing links with Harry Potter on a few occasions clearly have some kind of collective amnesia regarding the commonplace 'young boy as a magician' foundation in children's literature.) I'd argue that it was—for the most part—pretty good though. Summer Magic in particular was an excellent story. I'd be happy to see it as a chunky Rebellion trade, but that's clearly not on the cards, for obvious reasons.

Wouldn't you look at the contract/agreement for each piece of work you do to make sure of such a thing?

Well, I would. My assumption, coming at things from a freelance magazine writer, is actually the opposite—that the publisher will own everything, forever. Some clients don't do this—one reverts original submission rights after six months, and another after just one. That's rare though. What you don't do is enter into a business arrangement without making it clear what rights are. If you don't have a contract, assume the worst, not the best.)

What annoyed me, though, was the manner in which the issue of FBSR went by, as Jim said, unchallenged in that piece. It smacks of agenda, not neutral/investigative reporting.

[TordelBack]

One might argue that showcases poor management at the time, but I'm sure an editor would just love it if a senior manager had to sign off on every strip or contract.

Maybe not every contract, but possibly the ones representing a direct conflict of interest, eh?  I do agree that Sneddon skipped over the McKenzie thing, I was just tired of talking about it myself.  Oddly I had just re-read McKenzie's 'I never read 2000AD before I became editor, I haven't since I left' quote in TPO, and found myself wondering if he ever read it while he was there, and after that I wasn't well disposed to having any further thoughts about that period.

Also didn't mean to imply that I thought the piece was unbiased, it's definitely still full of misdirection and conflation, I just felt that the discursive tone was more engaging without the explicit, so far unsupported, thesis from the first part looming over everything.

It's a good if frustrating read, and it's saddening to hear agai of creators who feel that the work that made the comic such fun has been stolen from them, but again and again I come back to one central point:  Rebellion bought 2000AD because of its ownership of mountains of juicy IP.  Without that lure, no Rebellion, no 2000AD, no lunch money for today's creatives.

I'm reminded of Alan Moore's line to an ailing Harvey Kurtzman, reported in Campbell's Fate of the Artist:

"I've lost the copyright to my two most successful works.  But we press on merrily. With the total folly of youth we assume we'll have an inexhaustible supply of good ideas".

It's tragic that comics professionals work in an environment where they find themselves selling some of their precious finite store of creativity in order to pay the bills, and then watch others profit from it.  But making use of an existing publisher and their reader base is, I suspect, a necessary step in not starving while you establish yourself, if you ever do, as successful enough to direct your own creator-owned projects at an expectant audience. 

It's a crap situation, but reading Sneddon's piece all I see is creators failing to establish in advance what they were being paid for, or understanding the kind of environment they are working in.  I have no problem with them trying to find loopholes to turn this situation to their advantage, but I still can't see it solely as goodies versus baddies, especially when the baddies in question are long gone.

[JOE SOAP]

It was never that popular and it's certainly not been influential in comics or otherwise.

It was one of the better things at the time though; popular enough to run intermittently for 7 years in 2000AD/specials/yearbooks and it was one of the stories featured in the fleetway film/TV option portfolio. I think it would be well up for reprinting, if possible.

[opaque]

It was one of the better things at the time though; popular enough to run intermittently for 7 years in 2000AD/specials/yearbooks and it was one of the stories featured in the fleetway film/TV option portfolio. I think it would be well up for reprinting, if possible.

I'd buy it but then I buy all of the tpb's. I do have a page of the original artwork though and it's always nice to see it in a collection.

Not the reference to it's influence I was thinking of but: http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php?topic=33981.0

[Jim_Campbell]

it was one of the stories featured in the fleetway film/TV option portfolio.

Hmm. You'd think they'd have double-checked the rights situation on any property they were touting for adaptation to a different medium...

Cheers

Jim

[IndigoPrime]

Maybe not every contract, but possibly the ones representing a direct conflict of interest, eh?

The big failure from a management standpoint has to be McKenzie's own contract, which he inferred lacked a clause stating his work's rights would remain with the publisher. (There's also the question of self-commissioning under pseudonyms, although I don't recall that having been confirmed one way or the other—at least not by McKenzie himself when challenged on various forums about that.)

It's a good if frustrating read, and it's saddening to hear agai of creators who feel that the work that made the comic such fun has been stolen from them, but again and again I come back to one central point:  Rebellion bought 2000AD because of its ownership of mountains of juicy IP.  Without that lure, no Rebellion, no 2000AD, no lunch money for today's creatives.

Quite—and also at the time. How did creator-owned Warrior fare, for example?

It's tragic that comics professionals work in an environment where they find themselves selling some of their precious finite store of creativity in order to pay the bills, and then watch others profit from it.

The issue some writers have is in assuming they're owed by the publisher. Without 2000 AD, many of these creatives wouldn't have had a leg-up and wouldn't be working in the medium today. That's not to say certain things couldn't have been done better—reprint fees, for example. As for selling some of their finite store of creativity, I'd worry as a writer if my store was finite; I'd also say none of these creators has been blocked. In the case of Moore, you can bet if he said "Hey, Rebellion guys, how about I write up the next three Halo Jones books?", they'd go for it; the issue is the terms wouldn't be ones Moore would be willing to agree to.

It was one of the better things at the time though

I agree, but "really great for one series and then not bad, especially compared to the crap running in 2000 AD at the time" is a long way from "The Journal of Luke Kirby, as popular and incredibly influential as it was"!

[ThryllSeekyr]

Only three and a half more hours to go now:)

[Hawkmumbler]

Only three and a half more hours to go now:)

Not that where all counting. And not I'll be buying one either! Haha ahem.

[Dunk!]

If 6 o'clock comes and The Complete Zenith doesn't sell out (pre-order out?) in a gazillionth of a second causing much wailing & gnashing of teeth on the forum I'll be most disappointed.

Dunk!

[opaque]

Or maybe the website won't load up the new page quickly, or the site collapses from demand or the payment system stops working again, people putting them in their shopping cart but then realising they need to have a shop account etc etc
So many potentially exciting scenarios that could come our way

[Greg M.]

I firmly believe that thirty seconds before the countdown ends, Grant Morrison will astrally project himself into all our living rooms and try to kick us in the balls, a psychic assault which will be spoiled only by his intangibility.