Big Dave

[maryanddavid]

I agree where you are coming from Patrick,
BUT,
If the terms of work are that everything created goes to the publisher, and you go wide eyed into that arrangement, as has every creator since DCT and Amagamated Press etc started doing these comics (Im not passing comment on whether this is right or not, the one I feel has come off worst is Ian Gibson) , then to 'get out' of the arrangement smacks to me of cute hoorism. Might be legal, but  not the spirit in which the arrangement or payment was made.

David

[Colin YNWA]

Mckenzie wasn't making any stand on creator's rights, though, was he?  If he was, he'd have told someone that he planned to print his own work and pay himself for it, or possibly even extended the same courtesy to other creators... well, writers, anyway, as he seems to suggest he owns Luke Kirby, not he and John Ridgeway.

There's a key issue in this specific case. If (and its a big if) the limited evidence we have is correct  in its suggestions and the conclusions that get drawn from that, as stated by Professor Bear, then it reeks of self interest not some strike for creators rights.

In more general terms we all here support the 'evil machine of the comics business' that chewed up creators rights in our support for 2000ad, which exists and supports the creation of new properties only because of the way it used contracts to assign rights of creators work to themselves (or rather their parent companies). Just as I go to work and don't expect to take home and sell the ideas I have 'cos my contract says the work I do in the office is done for the College I work for (trust me there's a fortune to be made in the truly brilliant librarian ideas I get snatched from me 'cos I choose to collect a monthly wage... ahem...). The truth of the matter is most of the properties that people point to wouldn't have got to the point were they could have made money for the creators if the  'evil machine of the comics business' hadn't existed to support those creations coming to light and being seen and becoming popular. Does that mean that the division of rewards from said creations is fair in and just in all cases, no of course not, not by a very long way.

That said, like everyone, the creators do have a choice. In some cases its as stark as take the bum deal or don't see ya work come to light (in the older cases typically). These days its take the risk of earning a very small amount, that might just make you a fortune, in a tiny number of cases, or work for the man and earn more (for established creators at least).

Things are getting better for creators and I'm glad of that, but while we sit here supporting 2000ad we're gaining the benefits of the system that so many say is wrong.

[Professor Bear]

Oh absolutely I support the idea of creator's rights, but I just cannot be having with entitled whining after the fact because no-one makes comics at gunpoint and "take the deal or don't" is not gangsterism, it is how an employment contract works and you can sign it and get busy or you can find another job.
I'm sure it'd be great if making comics was a wonderland of lemonade waterfalls and magical rainbows cast from candyfloss clouds, but working for 2000ad is not a hobby and it is not art, it is a job for which those who do it are paid a set rate to produce material they will not own.  I can understand if that is not ideal for some, but no-one is stopping them from approaching Vertigo, Image, or Dark Horse.

[Bolt-01]

I've just had a cracking half hour reading this.

[Jim_Campbell]

It doesn't seem to hurt publishers in the book world, where they buy publishing rights, first refusal on sequels, and so on, but don't expect all rights in perpetuity.

Personally, I'd like to see comic book contracts resemble novelists' contracts* much more closely, ie: the publisher buys the English language rights and first refusal on sequels, and the English rights remain with the publisher unless the work goes out of print for (typically) five years, in which case the rights revert to the author(s). (I would imagine that for comics those first rights would be for "Captain Chaos: Book I" in both serial format and a collected edition.) Foreign language, film, TV, computer game rights and merchandising are all negotiated separately, usually by the author's agent.

Clearly, this wouldn't work with any of 2000AD's shared universe stuff -- anything in the Dredd, Rogue or Strontium Dog canon, for instance, but I would have thought it might make creating standalone works for TMO a more attractive proposition to creators who might otherwise look elsewhere.

Cheers

Jim

*Not licensed stuff like Black Library or (I believe) Abaddon, which I believe is also work-for-hire, but more like 'standard' novel publishing arrangements.

[Colin YNWA]

Personally, I'd like to see comic book contracts resemble novelists' contracts* much more closely, ie: the publisher buys the English language rights and first refusal on sequels, and the English rights remain with the publisher unless the work goes out of print for (typically) five years, in which case the rights revert to the author(s).

Isn't this the type of contract that its said Alan Moore got with DC for Watchmen that has coursed so much kerfuffle? Well languages and other media aside which I have no clue about, but for the comic itself?

And having just dragged this thread even further off track and to different controversy I'll try to redeem myself by saying Steve Parkhouse worked with Alan Moore once and he's a bloody astonishing artist... ahem...

[Trout]

Isn't this the type of contract that its said Alan Moore got with DC for Watchmen

Fucking hellfire. You've done it now.

[Patrick]

Personally, I'd like to see comic book contracts resemble novelists' contracts* much more closely, ie: the publisher buys the English language rights and first refusal on sequels, and the English rights remain with the publisher unless the work goes out of print for (typically) five years, in which case the rights revert to the author(s).

Isn't this the type of contract that its said Alan Moore got with DC for Watchmen that has coursed so much kerfuffle? Well languages and other media aside which I have no clue about, but for the comic itself?

I think the difference is DC seem to have bought all rights, including the right to create derivative works, which could revert once it had been out of print for a specified period. If they'd just bought publication rights as per the book trade, they'd still have the rights to publish Watchmen, but they wouldn't have been able to make Before Watchmen without his cooperation, and that's really the only cause Moore has to complain. DC actually behaved pretty honourably over Watchmen for many years - apart from the spat over whether badges were merchandise or promotional materials, they acted as publisher, promoted the book, sold as many copies as they could, paid the creators the royalties they were due and that was about it. If Moore and Gibbons didn't get the rights back, it only was because the book was still selling and they were still making money out of it, same as any successful novelist. JK Rowling isn't going to be able to take Harry Potter to another publisher any time soon. If the big beard could have kept a sense of perspective he might even have been able to negotiate a better deal the way Neil Gaiman did over Sandman. Unfortunately that time has passed. The current regime at DC/Warners seems to be less publishers and more IP exploiters.

[Patrick]

And Parky's drawing is lovely, isn't it?

[TordelBack]

It really is.

And who knew that Big Dave of all things could spark such a polite iteration of this endless debate?

[hippynumber1]

And now all this talk of Steve Parkhouse has made me want to dig out my copy of 'The Hiding Place' for a re-read...