Chris Roberson On Creators' Rights, "iZombie" & "Memorial"

[okpanic]

This is how I thought it works but I'm not too educated on the topic, so correct me if I'm wrong: if you're creating comics and stories as a writer/artist for hire in a company such as DC or Marvel, the rights are theirs.
You get paid for your work and you're noted as a creator if you launch something new for them but the company owns that property.

If that's true, it's not to disimilar to being a designer or freelancer in any form: if I create a mascot or new logo for Coca-Cola as a designer, I get paid for my work and that's about it. There's no royalties or usage fees, even though the concept was mine. That's the way it has always gone.

So based on that, where's the fire?

[DarkBeast]

How about respecting the rights of creators? How about giving them their due? How about paying them and treating them fairly? There's nothing stopping Hickman from playing around with Jack Kirby's old toys, but Marvel should at least show some damn respect to the King. People shouldn't have to petition Marvel to get Jack's name back on the books he helped create. And I LOVE how you cite Stan Lee as one of those creators amongst the others screwed over. Stan Lee, who has benefited probably more than anyone save Bob Kane by screwing his co-creators over.

I'm on your side of the ideological argument, but I think what you say in this part here is kind of subjective. Who's to say what's "fair"? Certainly, the creators themselves must have thought the payment, compensation, and rights were "fair enough" or else they wouldn't have signed the contracts in the first place.

That's not to say that I think Marvel and DC shouldn't give certain creators a lot more money than those creators have been given based on their initial, legally binding contracts. But that aspect is more of a moral issue, not a legal issue. "Fairness" is subjective, as are most morals. I certainly think that Marvel and DC should look back at their history and throw quite a few million dollar checks to certain creators whose work turned out to be the building blocks of so many of their movie franchises. I think they should do that. But just because they DON'T do that doesn't mean that the initial contracts weren't "fair". "Fair" is entirely subjective.

Secondly, in every interview I've ever heard with Stan Lee on these issues, he always gives Kirby and Ditko a lot of credit. And Kirby went BACK to work at Marvel multiple times after he was "screwed over" initially. So, again, don't get me wrong--I think Marvel should just cut the Kirby family a huge check--but I don't see how Lee benefited at Kirby's expense. Lee was a better businessman; he was THE businessman of Marvel. The reason Marvel paid Stan so much and kept him on for so long was because he was a great salesman and businessman. Lee's business savy is a quality in and of itself, not something that he leeched off of Jack Kirby. Personally, I think Kirby was way more creatively talented than Lee. But what's the monetary value of creativity vs. the value of business and marketing savy? By definition, business savy is worth more money. Lee had skills that were worth more money. To an extent, yeah, Lee was marketing stuff that was based on Kirby's artwork. But in a larger sense, Lee was marketing "Marvel" as a brand, and no one could do that job as well as Stan Lee could during those years, no matter who his artists were. Art isn't equivalent to money; business is equivalent to money.

I hope my argument here isn't throwing people off: I personally value Kirby WAY more than Lee; but in the scheme of business and money, it's pretty obvious that Lee's skills are more valuable in a monetary sense than Kirby's. To argue otherwise is like saying "Nurses are really important. So nurses should be paid billions of dollars a year." Well, the fact is there are a lot of people who can do what nurses do. And there are a lot of artists who could draw comics--but not a lot of businessmen who could bring comics to the masses like Stan Lee could. Was Kirby the best comics artist? Yeah. But that doesn't mean he should have been paid millions of dollars a year. Especially not when he signed a contract agreeing to be paid much less money. Again, let me say that if I was at Marvel, in 1980 or whatever I would have just written Kirby a check for like $5 million dollars. Because Marvel hasn't done this, it's to their eternal shame. But it isn't really "unfair" in a legal sense. Because "fairness" is too subjective and doesn't trump legal contracts that the creator in question decided were good enough to sign.

So...it probably sounds like I really disagree with you, but I don't. I pretty much agree with everything the pro-creator side is saying. I think Before Watchmen is atrocious. I'm very proud of Roberson. I'm buying fewer Big Two comics these days than I ever have. I think recent statements of DiDio, Lee and JMS are deplorable. I'm not buying AvX or seeing the Avengers movie because I'm sick of Marvel's hype machine. ...But I think there's a tendency for some on "our side" to go overboard with the "fairness of contracts" issue. If I were these creators, I would just hold out on better contracts. Maybe that's unrealistic, but it's what I'd do. The bottom line is that "fairness" doesn't even enter into it after the creator has deemed the contract good enough to sign.

[dupont2005]

This is how I thought it works but I'm not too educated on the topic, so correct me if I'm wrong: if you're creating comics and stories as a writer/artist for hire in a company such as DC or Marvel, the rights are theirs.
You get paid for your work and you're noted as a creator id you launch something new for them but the company owns that property.

If that's true, it's not to disimilar to being a designer or freelancer in any form: if I create a mascot or new logo for Coca-Cola as a designer, I get paid for my work and that's about it. There's no royalties or usage fees, even though the concept was mine. That's the way it has always gone.

So based on that, where's the fire?

Alan Moore had a special contract drafted to avoid that. He's not all that legal savvy though and DC easily loopholed the shit out of him. He fully expected the rights to that property to end up his.

[jpbl1976]

creators have rights...if they do it all themselves

When you work with a publisher, get help from an editor, get promotion, etc... isn't that a 2 way street?

smh.

If Roberson is so awesome, he can continue to write "Memorial" and have it read by 5,500 people.

DC > and more important than one writer. European "moral rights" are irrelevant, lmao. this is Umerica

Thanks for that, it serves to remind everyone else why the term "Ugly American" was coined in the first place...

... and if you were trying to be funny, I hope you aren't considering a career in comedy because you're going to face starvation.

By the way, your real name isn't Dan Didio, is it?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Chris Roberson needs to get with the program! Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Joe Simon, etc. All great creators but if their work was not expounded on, was not further explored, what would we have today? We need other creators to go in and discover new areas of characters that were never explored or thought out by the previous creator or creative teams.

Yeah, just because Kirby, Simon and Moore were lied to and stolen from, everyone should ignore it and get with the program - other people have stuff to say, and they can only say it using these guys work!
What the heck Roberson - you expect creators to create their own properties? Shame on you!

"What would we have today" - fanboy entitlement rears it's ugly head once again.

Roberson to me sounds like he can't commit to a position/job for very long without getting bored or he can't take constructive criticism from the people in authority over him (or authority in general). He needs to grow up and put his heart and soul into his creative experience or else eventually he's going to be one of those people you think to yourself, "Whatever happened to........".

You got all of that because he quit one other job on ethical grounds?

He also has a writing career outside of comics - he's grown up, and has put so much heart and soul into creating that he is successful enough to be able to walk away from something he thinks is wrong.
You should be looking up to him, not asking down about him.

Frankly, I'm struggling to buy the argument that he suddenly had an epiphany/breaking point two months ago.

He says himself he had it awhile ago, but only recently felt compelled to quit. Why is it so hard to believe that someone started feeling bad about something, and that grew within them until they felt the need to act?
That sounds like the basic story of every decision ever.

At the very least, he compromised his morals and principles already and, at worst, he did so to make a name for himself thanks to an in he got from his association with Willingham.

Yeah, he compromised his own morals and principles - that's why he made the change.
The at worst... It's doubtful. He has a name outside of comics, and he and his wife were known around comics before he worked with Willingham.

Dude took the dream job, and then realized it hurt his soul, so he gave it up. There's really nothing unbelievable to it at all.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

This is how I thought it works but I'm not too educated on the topic, so correct me if I'm wrong: if you're creating comics and stories as a writer/artist for hire in a company such as DC or Marvel, the rights are theirs.
You get paid for your work and you're noted as a creator if you launch something new for them but the company owns that property.

If that's true, it's not to disimilar to being a designer or freelancer in any form: if I create a mascot or new logo for Coca-Cola as a designer, I get paid for my work and that's about it. There's no royalties or usage fees, even though the concept was mine. That's the way it has always gone.

So based on that, where's the fire?

Start with David Brothers The Ethical Rot Behind Before Watchmen and The Avengers, then move on to the suggested reading list at the bottom of the article.
You'll see it's far from as clear as you think it is - the companies lied to the creators, and they breached contracts with the creators. You'll also note a key difference between designing a mascot or logo - when a designer does that, there is an upfront contract, signed by both parties, giving ownership to the person paying the money - that's to the case with these Kirby, and with Moore, he signed a contract he was told would give him ownership of Watchmen.
But seriously, read the article and check the links - you'll be amazed that other comic pros sit quietly on this one.

I know that this is not a "news" site, and I know that you guys are not "journalists" in the typical sense of the word. (I do not mean that in a disparaging way either, I enjoy the work you guys do) But, the first part of this interview concerning his departure from DC was sickening in its pandering to his side of the argument.

It's an interview with him - what did you want them to do? If you are concerned about them taking sides, they could hardly tell him he did the wrong thing. CBR has ran articles with Didio and Lee responding to the situation, giving their view, now they are doing the same for Roberson.

He is a talented guy who got self righteous and shot off at the mouth in a childish way.

Because children are known for taking ethical stands about the past treatment of others???

He spouted off and got himself fired, now he is a martyr for creator rights and apparently that is something to celebrate. Getting fired for being a baby does not change anything, it just makes you look bad and it cheapens the arguments for creator rights.

No he didn't - he publicly announced he was quitting. That's not spouting off, that's quitting. DC just terminated some Pre-contracted work - he had already publicly announced he was quitting.

I'd say getting facts wrong cheapens your argument against someone personally, but don't let that stop you!

Lets remember he was one half of a creative team, he didn't just lose his job, but his friends job as well.

Well there's an allegation! Who lost their job? iZombie was over, so Allred didn't. Who was scheduled for their Fairest arc? There's been nothing said that means they won't still be on it.

You plain made this up. Seems a childish thing to do, and it cheapens your argument even further... not that you had an argument worth a damn to begin with.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

, the creators themselves must have thought the payment, compensation, and rights were "fair enough" or else they wouldn't have signed the contracts in the first place.

What contacts? Kirby said there never was one, and Marvel have never been able to produce a contract signed by Kirby at the time.
There's a retroactive agreement he signed in exchange for money Marvel already owed him - he needed the money they had agreed to pay him for Captain America but hadn't paid him, and so he signed an agreement saying they owned the characters.

But just because they DON'T do that doesn't mean that the initial contracts weren't "fair". "Fair" is entirely subjective.

There was a contract for Captain America laying out ownership and payments. So Marvel his the profit from the character to not have to pay Simon/Kirby. Then just kept publishing Captain America without them.

And Kirby went BACK to work at Marvel multiple times after he was "screwed over" initially.

He went back twice.
He left after Captain America, and went back almost two decades later, when Stan Lee had become the head editor, and promised him it would be different. He then left after promises were broken and agreements not honored.
He returned in the late 70's because he had fallen out of favor wit DC, and he felt he had no other hope for employment. When he got a job in animation he left for the final time, never to return.

To an extent, yeah, Lee was marketing stuff that was based on Kirby's artwork. But in a larger sense, Lee was marketing "Marvel" as a brand, and no one could do that job as well as Stan Lee could during those years, no matter who his artists were. Art isn't equivalent to money; business is equivalent to money.

The Marvel brand idea came later, after the success of Kirby's work - success being something Lee never had until Kirby came back. When Kirby and Lee started on the superheroes, Kirby was the name, the star, not Lee.

Kirby the best comics artist? Yeah. But that doesn't mean he should have been paid millions of dollars a year. Especially not when he signed a contract agreeing to be paid much less money.

Did he sign a contract? It's never been shown. Even in court recently, the ruling went based on Lee and others assurances there had been one.
Lee didn't get millions at the time, but he did later. He just left Kirby out of it.

Again, let me say that if I was at Marvel, in 1980 or whatever I would have just written Kirby a check for like $5 million dollars. Because Marvel hasn't done this, it's to their eternal shame. But it isn't really "unfair" in a legal sense. Because "fairness" is too subjective and doesn't trump legal contracts that the creator in question decided were good enough to sign.

Well, it is unfair in a legal sense, or are we forgetting that they stole his artwork? That even once they acknowledged that artwork belonged to the artists - which was big of them, as legally it did - they held on to that art work and tried to use it as leverage to get Kirby to sign over his rights to the characters. That it came out recently that they still kept a bunch of his art, after telling him they had done the legal thing and returned that which they hadn't given away. That after reaching a legal agreement with Simon and Kirby over Captain America, they paid Kirby than agreed in the settlement, years later, only after he signed away character rights.

If there's a contact giving them ownership from the get go, if there ever was, why did Kirby sign away his rights, or was asked to, several times in the decades since?
I'm not making it up - throughout his life, Kirby signed a statement giving Marvel retroactive ownership, and was asked to again in exchange for his original artwork (at which point he refused). A weird thing to do if it was all clear cut and legal.

The bottom line is that "fairness" doesn't even enter into it after the creator has deemed the contract good enough to sign.

Except with Watchmen, the contract didn't do what DC told Moore and Gibbons, and bragged to the public, it would do.
Again, in Kirby's case, what contract?

[jpbl1976]

I'm on your side of the ideological argument, but I think what you say in this part here is kind of subjective. Who's to say what's "fair"? Certainly, the creators themselves must have thought the payment, compensation, and rights were "fair enough" or else they wouldn't have signed the contracts in the first place.

That's not to say that I think Marvel and DC shouldn't give certain creators a lot more money than those creators have been given based on their initial, legally binding contracts. But that aspect is more of a moral issue, not a legal issue. "Fairness" is subjective, as are most morals. I certainly think that Marvel and DC should look back at their history and throw quite a few million dollar checks to certain creators whose work turned out to be the building blocks of so many of their movie franchises. I think they should do that. But just because they DON'T do that doesn't mean that the initial contracts weren't "fair". "Fair" is entirely subjective.

Secondly, in every interview I've ever heard with Stan Lee on these issues, he always gives Kirby and Ditko a lot of credit. And Kirby went BACK to work at Marvel multiple times after he was "screwed over" initially. So, again, don't get me wrong--I think Marvel should just cut the Kirby family a huge check--but I don't see how Lee benefited at Kirby's expense. Lee was a better businessman; he was THE businessman of Marvel. The reason Marvel paid Stan so much and kept him on for so long was because he was a great salesman and businessman. Lee's business savy is a quality in and of itself, not something that he leeched off of Jack Kirby. Personally, I think Kirby was way more creatively talented than Lee. But what's the monetary value of creativity vs. the value of business and marketing savy? By definition, business savy is worth more money. Lee had skills that were worth more money. To an extent, yeah, Lee was marketing stuff that was based on Kirby's artwork. But in a larger sense, Lee was marketing "Marvel" as a brand, and no one could do that job as well as Stan Lee could during those years, no matter who his artists were. Art isn't equivalent to money; business is equivalent to money.

I hope my argument here isn't throwing people off: I personally value Kirby WAY more than Lee; but in the scheme of business and money, it's pretty obvious that Lee's skills are more valuable in a monetary sense than Kirby's. To argue otherwise is like saying "Nurses are really important. So nurses should be paid billions of dollars a year." Well, the fact is there are a lot of people who can do what nurses do. And there are a lot of artists who could draw comics--but not a lot of businessmen who could bring comics to the masses like Stan Lee could. Was Kirby the best comics artist? Yeah. But that doesn't mean he should have been paid millions of dollars a year. Especially not when he signed a contract agreeing to be paid much less money. Again, let me say that if I was at Marvel, in 1980 or whatever I would have just written Kirby a check for like $5 million dollars. Because Marvel hasn't done this, it's to their eternal shame. But it isn't really "unfair" in a legal sense. Because "fairness" is too subjective and doesn't trump legal contracts that the creator in question decided were good enough to sign.

So...it probably sounds like I really disagree with you, but I don't. I pretty much agree with everything the pro-creator side is saying. I think Before Watchmen is atrocious. I'm very proud of Roberson. I'm buying fewer Big Two comics these days than I ever have. I think recent statements of DiDio, Lee and JMS are deplorable. I'm not buying AvX or seeing the Avengers movie because I'm sick of Marvel's hype machine. ...But I think there's a tendency for some on "our side" to go overboard with the "fairness of contracts" issue. If I were these creators, I would just hold out on better contracts. Maybe that's unrealistic, but it's what I'd do. The bottom line is that "fairness" doesn't even enter into it after the creator has deemed the contract good enough to sign.

Your post made me think about how the whole Lee-Kirby dynamic is very similar to the Jobs-Wozniak dynamic, with Lee as the consumate and savvy marketing/sales professional who knew how to generate mass appeal for his products (a.k.a. like Steve) and Kirby was the creative/technical genius (like Woz). Those two pairs really changed the world with what they did -- and if you don't agree, you're ignoring how deeply ingrained Jack and Stans creations are in popular culture -- in much the same way that Apple's products are part of daily life.

It's funny because Steve is now universally regarded as a business genius, especially post-mortem, and Woz is sort of treated like a cool uncle but isn't really part of Apple in any meaningful executive capacity. Moreover, the financial parallels are similar: Woz is nowhere as wealthy as Jobs became just like Marvel cuts Lee big checks each year and Jack's estate gets basically nothing. Also, Stan like Steve had a period where they weren't seeing eye-to-eye with the company they essentially built -- but those differences were smoothed-over and are now really bygones. Nowadays, Stan is in nearly Marvel-related film, whether it's produced by Marvel studios or not -- and as we all know, Steve is virtually synonymous with Apple. Jack and Woz are still remembered but to the mainstream are secondary to their more famous collaborators.

Is all that fair? Certainly, from a creative perspective, one can argue that the artistic vision is what's important (it is, after all, pure and appeals to the soul). That said, many of the decisions that have a financial impact are decided by men in suits -- soulless men whose motivations are entirely driven by the bottom line (their own and their company's -- usually in that order) -- and it is easier for them to deal with people who speak that language (i.e. the language of money and markets and sales).

Having worked at a top level in a corporate environment (before deciding to start my own venture), I can attest that these sorts of people have a hard time coming to terms with "creative" types -- many of whom have their quirks. They just don't get them; business and art have a very uneasy co-existence. Business knows it needs to put out a product but the only way to do that is through the talents of creative individuals. Creative individuals, meanwhile, want to preserve the purity of their vision but -- guess what -- they have to eat just like you and I.

That said, it's just easier for business people to deal with known quantities (i.e. things and people that can be fixed by money) because these represent less risk/less potential for loss. The lawyers we detest so much are merely their agents; they're the ones who enable business people to use the law to screw the artists out of their moral rights. Frankly, it's disgusting that the world works this way.

Consequently, people whose motives are money and the bottom line will always favor the Dan Didio types in the world; they're not really talented but have just enough creative ability that business types mistake them as "artistic" types. More importantly, since they don't have a pure artistic vision, they're more malleable -- easier to buy-off, as it were.

What's funny is that the suits pay financial lip-service to the transcendence of art/literature/philosophy by lavishing vast amounts of wealth on works of art that they don't really "get" (hence places like Sotheby's) but cherish largely for the value it imparts on them in terms of social status. It's really sad; I've met and spoken to 70 year-old business tycoons who try too much to be "cool" just so their equally geriatric buddies will see them as that.

Tell me, do these sorts of people strike you as the type who'd give people like Jack and Ditko and Alan a fair shake? Of course not; these sorts of people see the world in terms of money and see artists as agents to be bought, bartered with and ultimately exploited. It's been that way since forever; men like Michelangelo and Da Vinci were never truly given their due when they lived. In a way, I think the fact that Alan Moore was very supportive of the occupy movement (as well as the anti-SOPA/SOPA variant movements) shows his implicit rejection of this status quo.

So being one of the 5,500 readers of Memorial, I have to say I have a great degree of respect for the stand Chris Roberson has taken. We all know that Alan can be a curmudgeon so it doesn't really matter whether he even knows who Chris is. The truth is that the moral rights that Chris is making a stand for transcend even Alan's best work.

[Mbast1]

But, the first part of this interview concerning his departure from DC was sickening in its pandering to his side of the argument. He is a talented guy who got self righteous and shot off at the mouth in a childish way.

If people ever need to know why comics will never be (to some people) more than escapist BS for people who care nothing about others, I'll point them to this.

[FAMESREVENGE]

If people ever need to know why comics will never be (to some people) more than escapist BS for people who care nothing about others, I'll point them to this.

HAHAHA, I am impressed that you were able to get such a complete view of me as a person from that part of my post. My impression of his actions were that they were not well thought out, and I have read a number of interviews with him about it so there is no need to direct me to whatever he has said to the contrary. The fact that I would like interviewers to do more than give him a platform to justify his actions does not mean that I do not care about others. It also does not mean that I am not sympathetic to his views either, I just feel that his actions reflect poorly on himself and his cause. I just care more about having a complete understanding of a situation, which I do not feel I have gotten so far. I do have sympathy for the creators and their fight, I just do not have sympathy for this man, nor do I feel that his actions were admirable in any way. I suppose when I need an example of a person who cannot handle their opinions being challenged, I can refer them to your posting.

[Paladin King]

He says himself he had it awhile ago, but only recently felt compelled to quit. Why is it so hard to believe that someone started feeling bad about something, and that grew within them until they felt the need to act?
That sounds like the basic story of every decision ever.


Yeah, he compromised his own morals and principles - that's why he made the change.
The at worst... It's doubtful. He has a name outside of comics, and he and his wife were known around comics before he worked with Willingham.

Dude took the dream job, and then realized it hurt his soul, so he gave it up. There's really nothing unbelievable to it at all.

Well, I sure hope that you've never come down on or judged against a politician for flip-flopping on an issue or "changing" his or her mind.

Dude sold out his morals and now wants to make a stand on those same morals. No matter how you try to slice it, while the message in itself may have resonance, it feels trite for HIM to be making such a glorious show of things and suddenly standing as some form of avatar for creator's rights. And indeed, if this wasn't his intention....well, he didn't have to go about this in such a public manner, did he?

[Superdog]

The thing with Kirby, to me, isn't just the contracts and payments that were signed at the time. I doubt either party knew what they were getting into, or how big it would be. What really gets me is that under US copyright law, the Kirby estate should be legally able to terminate their half of the copyrights. The checks Marvel sent to Kirby also included a provision on the back whereby endorsing it he gave up all rights forever. Some judges have tossed those out for being not legally binding. At this point, Marvel could just act like an adult and settle with the Kirby estate. But instead, they are going to fight tooth and nail to avoid giving the estate of the guy who built their company his due.

It's the same with DC and Siegel and Schuster. Under US law, they should able to terminate the copyright on the content of Action #1 and a few other stories. But DC won't settle with them, or reach a deal. They are going to fight them tooth and nail, even though this property has made them rich.

[Superdog]

TBH I am working on some comic scripts and if I ever hit the big leagues it would be hard to turn down work from DC or Marvel, even keeping their past behaviors in mind.

[Batmite2012]

That "Creator Owned" contract the Vertigo uses is a complete outrage. iZombie was an awesome series and Warner Bros doesn't want to make it so nobody can't either?! I knew the people in charge at DC (and Marvel for that matter) are scum, but this is really going too far.

What's worse is Scott Snyder signed a similar contract for American Vampire, which means there's no point in taking it to Image Comics anymore since he can't profit from it with TV deals unless Warner Bros chooses to do so. This situation is exactly WHY DC execs included that clause in the contract, they want to put as much pressure as possible on the creators to work ONLY with them.

DC, Marvel, Dark Horse THEY'RE ALL EVIL CORPORATE pieces of ____.

There's a reason why someone like Neil Gaiman hasn't done comics work since 2005. First, he has tons of money now. Second, why get into a ridiculous contract with these people where every clause solely favors the corporation.

[Mbast1]

HAHAHA, I am impressed that you were able to get such a complete view of me as a person from that part of my post.

Read into things much? I NEVER said word one about you as a person. My point was that people will never see comics as worth anything when even the fans don't care about anything but the books getting to them.
No need to direct you? Meaning you don't care, because you already have made up your mind? How can you say that you haven't gotten a complete picture after saying that you don't want to hear anything more from him?

My opinions weren't challenged.

I swear, it's as though people on the internet don't even read what's in front of them, but just wait to throw out a few stock phrases.