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

[Mbast1]

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.

So, once you make a decision, you can never make a better one? Interesting. Not that I haven't heard this before, mind you.

[Mbast1]

even though this property has made them rich.

Is this surprising? How often do we see stories of people who have money trying to make sure they get more, at the expense of anyone they can?

[Mbast1]

So based on that, where's the fire?

Stating, in general and not entirely correct terms how something currently is (ignoring history) doesn't tell you anything about how things ought to be. Or could be. Why on earth should comics companies own works they didn't create AS A RULE? Novel publishers don't. Why should comics companies?

[Mbast1]

... 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.

If it was meant to be funny, I've seen plenty of people who make the same point seriously.

[Mbast1]

- fanboy entitlement rears it's ugly head once again.

So much of this is JUST that very thing. Fans who want their comics (almost exclusively superheroes) and don't care about anything else. And your "morals" just get in the way of that, so you must be stupid, or ignorant.
Sometimes, I want this industry to die just to piss them off.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

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.

Only when it was a promise/stand they took that was key to their election.

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?

He took his dream job, writing Superman, but once he did, he found he couldn't live with it. There's like a zillion tv shows and movies with this exact plot.
He didn't do it in such a public manner - he did it over twitter, the same place he has been consistently knocking DC over these very issues without any public reaction. How was he to know this time would be any different?
He's a guy who took a job with a company, and then decided he couldn't reconcile himself with some things that company has done. Remember, when he was writing Superman, he didn't know of Before Watchmen.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The thing with Kirby, to me, isn't just the contracts and payments that were signed at the time.

What contracts?

There were no contracts.

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.

Back of the check contracts are shoddy - you've got to sign away your rights after you've done the work, to get the money for said work. And again, at the recent trial, Marvel couldn't produce any check with a contract from the early days with Kirby, let alone one signed by Kirby. The artists who gave testimony against Marvel said the contracts got put on the checks at a later date, and that none of them heard of Work For Hire until much later.

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.

The court ruled in favour of the Siegels on copyright termination. DC responded by launching a lawsuit against the Siegels lawyer - delaying their need to pay/reach agreeement, and also opening them up to get it so that the ruling in the Siegels family favour isn't binding.

[Superdog]

What contracts?

There were no contracts.



Back of the check contracts are shoddy - you've got to sign away your rights after you've done the work, to get the money for said work. And again, at the recent trial, Marvel couldn't produce any check with a contract from the early days with Kirby, let alone one signed by Kirby. The artists who gave testimony against Marvel said the contracts got put on the checks at a later date, and that none of them heard of Work For Hire until much later.


The court ruled in favour of the Siegels on copyright termination. DC responded by launching a lawsuit against the Siegels lawyer - delaying their need to pay/reach agreeement, and also opening them up to get it so that the ruling in the Siegels family favour isn't binding.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The whole issue is complicated and I can't always keep the threads straight. What was the actual basis then for Marvel winning over the Kirby estate?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The whole issue is complicated and I can't always keep the threads straight. What was the actual basis then for Marvel winning over the Kirby estate?

I'm still confused on how it was damning proof, but basically, the agreements Kirby signed in the 70's saying it was Work For Hire. Here's an only slightly confusing explanation of how it went down./
I believe these were the documents he signed to get the money that had been promised him as part of the Captain America settlement.*
The Kirby's are appealing the decision.

* The article linked to says the signed declarations are from 1972 and 1975. I thought it was 1969 and 1972 he signed them - the first time in an agreement as part of the Joe Simon lawsuit for Captain America (Jack thought he'd get a fair chunk of change for signing ownership to Marvel, but was only rewarded a small amount), and a second time in 1972, when Martin Goodman sold the company, he signed again in exchange for actually getting the money he had been promised the first time he signed.
I may be confused on the dates though, or getting different contracts mixed up in my head.

Interestingly enough, in the 80's, when Marvel was procrastinating over returning artwork to Kirby that was legally he is, they tried to get him to sign a third agreement that they owned everything, which he refused to do as it was for artwork Marvel had no right to be holding.
Back then, Marvel obviously didn't think the other two retroactive agreements were solid enough... and y'know, if everything was all above board, why did they keep needing Kirby to sign documents saying it was all theirs?

[okpanic]

Why on earth should comics companies own works they didn't create AS A RULE? Novel publishers don't. Why should comics companies?

Comic companies generally own the works because they're the ones hiring the artists and writers, right? They're putting the money forward because they want content to publish under their umbrella, not the other way around. It's just like being hired to do any other creative job as far as I'm concerned. If you want to create an original work instead of playing in somebody else's sandbox, you self publish or pitch and hope something hits which leaves you with enough slack. That seems pretty fair to me.

As for your novel comparison, don't forget there's aspiring writers out there penning articles for company owned papers, magazines and blogs to pay the bills too.

[FAMESREVENGE]

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.

Well man, I assumed that when you were quoting me, and then commenting that my quote is why "(some people)" will see comics as escapist b.s., that you were talking about me personally as well as people of my ilk. I guess I was mistaken. however, It is funny that you say it's as though people dont even read what is in front of them, because I thought the same about you. I dont need to be directed to additional articles about him because, like I said, the majority of articles that I have been reading have been pandering to him. I feel that I have a fairly complete picture of his side of the argument. I have not heard a lot from DC, I have heard a lot from fanboys who pretend to be contract lawyers, but that just isn't quite the same. I think we are both guilty of misreading each others posts, and I would be willing to bet our opinions do not differ all that much. As you can see by the number of posts I have made, I am new here, and I'm not really trying to make any enemies or upset any apple-carts.

[Superdog]

I'm still confused on how it was damning proof, but basically, the agreements Kirby signed in the 70's saying it was Work For Hire. Here's an only slightly confusing explanation of how it went down./
I believe these were the documents he signed to get the money that had been promised him as part of the Captain America settlement.*
The Kirby's are appealing the decision.

* The article linked to says the signed declarations are from 1972 and 1975. I thought it was 1969 and 1972 he signed them - the first time in an agreement as part of the Joe Simon lawsuit for Captain America (Jack thought he'd get a fair chunk of change for signing ownership to Marvel, but was only rewarded a small amount), and a second time in 1972, when Martin Goodman sold the company, he signed again in exchange for actually getting the money he had been promised the first time he signed.
I may be confused on the dates though, or getting different contracts mixed up in my head.

Interestingly enough, in the 80's, when Marvel was procrastinating over returning artwork to Kirby that was legally he is, they tried to get him to sign a third agreement that they owned everything, which he refused to do as it was for artwork Marvel had no right to be holding.
Back then, Marvel obviously didn't think the other two retroactive agreements were solid enough... and y'know, if everything was all above board, why did they keep needing Kirby to sign documents saying it was all theirs?

From reading that it sounds like one of the big points of conention is whether Kirby was coming up material on his own and then pitching it, so to speak, to Marvel and Stan Lee, or whether he was just doing what he was told. Every story of the history of Marvel comics or how the classic Marvel comics were written tells us that Kirby came up with a lot of ideas independent of Stan. For Smiling Stan to state that, contrary to everything he's ever said, that Kirby was just a hatchet man who did what he was told is obviously a lie.

[Alton]

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.
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........".

Dude you're on the wrong thread here.Your rant is over on the Rove/Limbaugh blog.Talk about people who people will not even care whatever happened to?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Comic companies generally own the works because they're the ones hiring the artists and writers, right? They're putting the money forward because they want content to publish under their umbrella, not the other way around. It's just like being hired to do any other creative job as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, the only way you get to own something someone one else wrote is with a contract stating that - that's what is standard in 'any other creative job'.
As has been mentioned, in the case of Kirby, there doesn't seem to be a contract, and with Moore, he was lied to about what the contract did, and what the companies intentions were.

If you want to create an original work instead of playing in somebody else's sandbox, you self publish or pitch and hope something hits which leaves you with enough slack. That seems pretty fair to me.

Neither Kirby or Moore were pitching for someone else's sandbox, were they? They were creating sandboxes, that others then claimed ownership of.

I know you aren't specifically talking about their cases, but that is why Roberson quit.

As for your novel comparison, don't forget there's aspiring writers out there penning articles for company owned papers, magazines and blogs to pay the bills too.

There is a difference between an article, and a work of fiction.
Also, the writers of those articles? They have more protections and ownership than most comic book creators.
Assuming that Marvel and DC operate like other creative enterprises, or that they operated 'all above board', shows some gaps in your knowledge of comic book history.

[The Adventurer]

The thing about comics, and comic publishing is that it spun out of the pulp magazines of the 20s and 30s, not the book publishing industry. The format they followed in those days was 'work for hire' where the magazines owned the stories they commissioned. Since then the comic industry has found this format lucrative, especially when the age of the shared universe came about, because it meant they could easily stock their respective worlds with characters that they could pull out and use as needed to drive sales. These shared universe concepts don't work when you don't own all the characters. So the work-for-hire practice has stuck for as long as the bulk of comic creations is tied to shared universes. If it wasn't for the Marvel and DC universes and the nessisity to tie eveything together as a single sellable package, the comic industry might have managed to outgrow this.