Pat Mills in The Times

[Richard]

Without Pat Mills, 2000AD would not exist.
Without Rebellion, 2000AD would no longer exist.
Mills has been brilliant, but he should give people a break.

[James Stacey]

I was done a while back cutting him slack for his past achievements. Don’t get me wrong—they are massive. Without Mills, etc. But. That is no justification for consistently and constantly slagging off other creators and frequently positioning Rebellion as some kind of modern-day evil.

Very much this. His services to thrill power can't be understated and Nemesis is still one of my favourite comics, but his bitter attitude and the fact his output for the last decade or so quite frankly has been largely unreadable (bar a couple of stand outs) kinda damages his legacy

[nxylas]

As with Alan Moore, I don;t agree with everything he says, but I believe his stance on creator ownership is basically correct. The idea of the rights to characters being owned by publishers rather than creators has been normalised in comics for so long that it's easy to forget how fucking weird it is. Without wishing to get into a debate about the merits or orherwise of JK Rowling, for example. could you even imagine her being asked to sign the rights to Harry Potter over to Bloomsbury Publshing?

[IndigoPrime]

I can imagine that, yes, because it’s pretty standard in an awful lot of publishing as well. I’ve signed away probably 90% of everything I’ve ever written as WFH. At best, some publishers revert non-exclusive rights to me after six months. Others don’t. Books vary. It depends on the contract.

Also, it’s not like WFH is your only choice in comics. Creators are welcome to self-publish or take a riskier offer from the likes of Image. The real question is whether the balance is right—and that’s something only those working for publishers can say. (Mills clearly thinks not. Others must be happy enough or they’d do something else.)

[Jim_Campbell]

I can imagine that, yes, because it’s pretty standard in an awful lot of publishing as well.

Yup. There are an awful lot of Star Trek/Star Wars/Warhammer/etc novels out there, and no one's getting a rights deal on those. For all that you can criticise work-for-hire* it has the advantage that you get paid to just write (or draw).

There's a lot of peripheral stuff involved in either self-publishing or going creator-owned with someone like Image — a huge amount of hustle and promotion is required, unless you already have heavy name-recognition in your chosen market, or there's a real chance that you'll make next to nothing.

* And I've said, repeatedly, that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to devise a contract that safeguards the publisher's investment but is more equitable to the creator(s). Publishers who insist on work-for-hire could offer a very modest percentage of secondary exploitation (foreign language editions, movies, TV, computer games, merchandise) it would probably be enough for the vast majority of creators.

[A.Cow]

it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to devise a contract that safeguards the publisher's investment but is more equitable to the creator(s).

True, but such injustices are not unique to comics.  In music, although a writer and a performer will get royalties, the arranger gets none.  As an example, Andy Sumner got £0 from 10 million sales when Puff Daddy replicated Sumner's distinctive guitar part from Every Breath You Take, yet "creator" Sting reportedly made $2000 per day from Daddy's track.

Copyright laws are practically medieval and need a firm overhaul for the modern age.  (Preferably without Disney flexing their muscle like they did with the DMCA.)  I'm with Jimmy Wales on this.