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

[Ed Love]

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.

Not seen a single article that has shown where DC lied to Moore. He admits to having not read the contract or fully understood it. But, that's his fault. DC gave him an unprecedented contract and he cried "foul" when ultimately it didn't work out to his advantage. But, DC has honored the contract and it has meant money for DC, Gibbons and Moore. Incidentally, other creators have had similar contracts for works definitely not work for hire where their creations did revert back to them after the allotted time passed with no further action on the character.

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

Completely false. WATCHMEN started off as a pitch for the Charlton characters that DC owned. DC Editor told Moore to re-work it with original characters. THAT is practically the definition of the key aspects of work-for-hire: It was for non-original characters, and the original characters were solicited by the company at the editor's behest. The contract then given to him was unprecedented in its generosity especially under those conditions which DC has honored. And, Kirby even while he was pitching new characters was also working on Jimmy Olsen which he tied into his Fourth World mythology (ie making Fourth World part of DC's sandbox), revamped Manhunter, Guardian and the Newsboy Legion, and Sandman, all properties of DC. When he was back at Marvel and creating the Eternals and Devil Dinosaur, Machine Man grew out of 2001, and he created new stories and villains for Captain America and Black Panther, characters he co-created but didn't own.

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.

As someone that worked for 20 years as a graphic artist in the newspaper business, that's false as well. I never signed a contract, but it was understood that everything I created that was published was owned by the company. I never got an extra dime for anything that got re-used beyond a single day's publication. There were some bonuses in place if you designed something that lead to NEW revenue, but anything you did for an ad already paid for, your paycheck was your reward. Writers and photographers likewise don't own their works that are published in the newspaper. They may get some kind of bonus if it's picked up for the wire service, and you win a pulitzer, well that leads to raises and better job offers. But, that work is still owned by the paper. And, as a Freelance designer, I've never signed a single contract concerning ownership of a logo design. On the other hand, as I understood copyrights and trademarks more than most that I worked with, I pointed out possible issues and abuses by advertisers such as having us create artwork not intended to be used in the paper or using copyrighted images in their advertising.

The one key difference is that many writers, editors, photographers, etc are full-time employees. They don't have better creator rights, but they do get a paycheck, vacation time, sick leave, retirement, etc. They are also expected to create work on time, a daily paper goes out regardless. You blow deadlines, you get fired. You don't get promoted or touted as being a great creator. Many of the fan-fave comic creators could not work for a newspaper, magazine or syndicate.

In fact, this argument began decades ago between Newspaper publishers and comic strip creators as in the early days, the cartoonists worked for a specific paper/publisher and not a syndicate. But, if the creator left the paper, the publisher asserted ownership of the strips which lead to some very familiar sounding lawsuits.

[jediracer]

Frankly I'm tired of creators whining and crying about their rights and how unfairly they are/were treated by "big publishers." Creators who work with DC or Marvel are not victims, and when they work with them for years and years and then suddenly cry foul and leave, it makes them look stupid, as if they were too dumb to understand what they were getting into in the first place, and now they are suddenly "enlightened." Give me a fucking break.

[okpanic]

Ed Love, you are a beautiful person.

[dupont2005]

Frankly I'm tired of creators whining and crying about their rights and how unfairly they are/were treated by "big publishers." Creators who work with DC or Marvel are not victims, and when they work with them for years and years and then suddenly cry foul and leave, it makes them look stupid, as if they were too dumb to understand what they were getting into in the first place, and now they are suddenly "enlightened." Give me a fucking break.

While I agree that all talent should know better than to work for those garbage publishers, some bright eyed kids aren't quite as cynical as they should be until they've been fucked by their childhood hero

[the goddamn batman]

I always like seeing people side with corporations over individuals. well played, gang.

fucking disgusting.

[The Adventurer]

Frankly I'm tired of creators whining and crying about their rights and how unfairly they are/were treated by "big publishers." Creators who work with DC or Marvel are not victims, and when they work with them for years and years and then suddenly cry foul and leave, it makes them look stupid, as if they were too dumb to understand what they were getting into in the first place, and now they are suddenly "enlightened." Give me a fucking break.

*removes pipe from lips* *strokes chin*

Go on...