A circle around Pat Mills' characters

[paulvonscott]

"it's unfair on the poor buggers who buy the rights several years later who have to deal with some whiny ex-liberal who throws a tantrum"

Well, you're also slagging off Alan Moore and John Wagner with that.  Both have thrown 'tantrums' (some might say fighting for their rights), and behaved in a protesting manner.

How far you want to explode this very complicated matter is up to you. But originally artists were willing to work for work for hire, because their comics were sold and then forgotten about.  

Where all the rights issues of the 80's came from was that these companies were than starting to make extra money from the rights of the strips.  Reprints and merchandise suddenly added a lot of worth to the work they'd done.  Money they never saw.  

Now legally I'd have said they had no right to royalties, but we all think that morally they should.  This issue was very very damaging to 2000AD at arguably it's artistic and popular pinnacle.

There are no rights to produce fan fiction really.  If you want to do it regardless of the creators wishes then what respect and good will do you really have for them and their works and what do you deserve in return? Fuck all would be my guess.  So Pat Mills might not own Slaine, but neither do you.

[Matt Timson]

God- how many times will this one get trotted out?

"Just because one's rights are not available at a given moment in time, it doesn't follow that one shouldn't fight for those same rights at a later date"

Good point- I won't be signing any more contracts in future.  I mean, why bother?  In ten years time, the terms probably won't agree with the people I'm supplying artwork for right now.  They might decide that, actually, they don't like the deal anymore and that they want a better deal than was originally agreed- at my expense- or vice versa.

I think that Pat Mills, more so than most, WOULD have known the deal- the same way that I understood I'd only ever see a salary out of designs that went on to make an ex employer hundreds of thousands of pounds- possibly even millions by now.  Rather than bang on about it, or fight for my non existant rights, I accept the fact that I was being paid to do a job.

These days, I try not to sign away my rights unless I really have to.  When I DO have to, I have to decide whether or not I really want to take the job.  Nobody forces me to and I've got no comeback five, ten or twenty five years later if what I've created turns out to be the next Harry Potter.

That's just the way it is.

[Grant Goggans]

To see Pat Mills' concerns from other eyes, have a look at the fanfic market in Japan, where the "small press" can get quite large, and fanfic using other people's characters (called dojinshi) sells astonishingly well.  I've heard anecdotes about dealers at Japanese cons which sell nothing but fanfic, and you're starting to see this at American cons, people making a mint selling unlicensed Evangelion and Kare Kano comics.

If that's the wave of the future, Pat might have good reason to be concerned, regardless of who owns the rights.

[paulvonscott]

"God- how many times will this one get trotted out?"

I dunno, but I'll probably still get sucked into it, grud knows why.

[Bico]

In fairness, Pat doesn't miss a chance to drag Andy Diggle through the mud for what, morally questionable or not, was still an editorial decision to commission a series based on a copyrighted 2000ad/Rebellion character from the vaults.
And the fanfiction angle I feel is harmless, as no matter how good or bad it ever is, it will always be overshadowed in the minds of the reader by the original - it's akin to railing at kids for drawing Spider-Man and sending it in to the comic in the hope of getting published.  They don't expect a job to come from it, but then again, I will accept that it's possible that some editors - possibly ones with far too much time on their hands - will look at the readers' art in the hope the next Jim Lee or Simon Bisley will be in there somewhere.  As far as I'm aware, the creators and contributors to Zarjaz have respected Pat's views, whatever they may think of them personally, and have abided by his wishes, so you can hardly accuse them of lack of respect on that score.
As for the current owners of the rights hardly being a bad position, they still want Pat Mills writing Slaine, and they'd sooner have him writing the characters he created, all things considered, for exactly the same reason that all fanfiction is ultimately pointless - because it will always be in the shadow of the 'original' material that was written by the creator.
I'm certainly not saying that it doesn't suck that he doesn't hold the rights to characters that are close to his heart, but he did know the terms he was working under at the time (having worked extensively in the comics industry as it then was, it would be more assumptive to assume that someone in Pat's position didn't know where the legal ownership lay - in his letter, he stresses a moral, not a legal right) - if he was promised something verbally, that's another matter entirely, as that should have been honoured by the relevant people when they were in a position to do so - the sudden appearance of the reprint market in the 1980s, however, only means he's entitled to a share of the money made off his work.  That's only fair, but his missive, while well-written and apologetic, just reads like sour grapes over the whole Satanus affair.
It's only my opinion, but he genuinely does come off rather whiny in that letter.  I've been shafted out of credit and cash (the credit means little, the cash more so) while working for other people, but after a few years, it's just more healthy to let it go and accept that if I really felt that militant about it, I would have done more at the time.  Complaining about being hard done-by twenty years down the line would be a bit much.

[Bico]

Although it goes without saying - small press books that print fanfic as a bit of fun is okay, but someone churning out knock-offs purely for profit isn't on.  That dojinshi thing sounds a bit mad.

[Leigh S]

To be fair, if Pat was in such a strop about it, I'm sure he could have pissed off to Europe by now, in an Alan Moore Stylee.  He still turns in work for 2000AD, some I find good some I find  bad, but all of it from the heart.  

All I can see is someone who is resigned to the fact that he doesnt own these things, but would like a bit of consideration shown for the fact he created these cash cows for (insert Alan Moore description of Rebellion here) in the first place.

The fanzine thing seems a little harsh, but IIRC that does come from a time where relationships between editorial an Pat were at an all time low, and I can see how his mind might have been working.  And it is pretty polite - you might not agree with him but I cant see why people would say "its Rebellion who, through the power of Dollar, own these things, so bollocks to him".

I mean, in a cold logical legal sense, Pat has no legal right to the stuff he sweated on, just as i couldnt walk off with the work I've carried out where I work. But if I found that someone else had been given my job and where using all my old material at the same time, i'd not be best pleased, and I doubt theres many who would.  

Pat is pragmatic about the rights issue as far as i can see - he still creates under those conditions for rebellion.  All he seems to be asking is  a little respect when he comes home - just a little bit.

[Matt Timson]

To be clear, my beef today isn't with Pat Mills at all (although I can see it might be read that way)- it's with the people who keep bringing up arguments along the lines of "it's not fair".

It's a business arrangement- and if you agree to it, it's perfectly fair.

[Funt Solo]

:: "It's a business arrangement- and if you agree to it, it's perfectly fair."

That's such a simplistics viewpoint of a complex matter.  

Enron made business arrangements which aren't considered fair (even legally).  

Lots of companies have made pension plans, then spent the money and told their employees to go suck eggs.  That's not fair (morally; arguably).

My union (AUT/NATFE) goes on strike in two weeks, over a business arrangment that they consider unfair.

A business arrangment isn't some kind of morally or legally unquestionable god of righteousness set in stone, Mr Jones.  Like anything else in life, it's a bit more complicated than that.

[Dudley]

Enron & pensions funds are illegal.  If Mr Mills was in trouble over a company acting illegaly, this debate wouldn't exist.

[Funt Solo]

A lot of pension fund fandangos are perfectly legal - it's all in the small print.

Fair point about Enron.

[paulvonscott]

I don't know what this problem is with Pat Mills you and others share, and there is a problem of some kind here.  I'm not sure if it's the writing, the attitude, both or what.  But obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise, as has been shown by the cyclic nature of these bitching sessions, it's just such a distorted argument.

All I can do is appear on these threads, and put my argument forwards in the hope that your views aren't seen as a common consensus, and then leave again.  I've said everything once, is there really anything else for me to say?  

Until the next time, when I will appear and say it all again no doubt.

[Bad Andy]

Right. That's it.

I am invoking my powers as temporary moderator while Wake is off to LOCK this thread.

If you want to argue about Millsy then you will have to do it in a new thread rather than a three year old one.

[Eric Plumrose]

Despite its being a vague recollection of a perhaps unreliable source, I was under the impression that Pat developed 2000AD on the understanding that he, John, et al would own copyright of their respective creations.

[Bad Andy]

LOCK, dammit. LOCK!