Are Independent comics truly Independent?

[The Adventurer]

I think you're confusing the concepts of independent publishers and self-publishing. A self-publisher is an independent publisher, but an independent publisher is not necessarily a self-publisher. In the case of comics, an "indy" publisher would be any publishing venture not tied into an entertainment consortium, ie DC/Vertigo with Warner Bros, Marvel with Disney, etc.

In my opinion, it's kinda hard to consider a licensed comic like Adventure Time to be an independent comic when it's tied to an existing property produced by an entertainment consortium. So, while the company publishing the comic may indeed be independent, I'm not sure I'd rate the actual comic as independent.

Well put. These are my thoughts exactly.

I think Image is the only true indie publisher, the rest are semi-independent.

If you're only talking about the front of Previews. But there are all these other comics in the back you see....


Dark Horse and IDW are semi-independent. Licensed comics aren't really 'indie comics'. Since they are work-for-hire gigs. And many of these publishers have other in-house work-for-hire gigs (Dark Horse's GHOST for example)


Image is the only premier publisher that has NO in-house work-for-hire gigs. All their comics are controlled by their creators. But then you get into the various Studios who publish through Image. Many of those use work-for-hire models. Like Erik Larsen writing Supreme. Or Ron Marz on Witchblade.


Independent, Creator Owned, Self-Published, these terms all have fairly different distinctions. I'm generally of the camp that Independent simply means 'not Marvel/DC'.

Bendis's POWERS is creator owned/controlled, but its not 'Independent' for example.

[Blastermaster]

Even when Marvel wasnt owned by a media conglomerate though it still wasnt called an independent.

Some people who publish through DC and Marvel do own their creations - eg some parts of Vertigo, Marvel's Icon or the old Epic Imprint and many people writing for "independent" comics dont own the rights to the works eg the people writing for Image's Extreme relaunch are work for hire, and the whole slew of licensed comics published by firms outside DC and Marvel (eg star trek, star wards, tranformers, gi joe, bionic man, adventure time, etc etc).

Well yes, but aren't works that aren't licensed or creator owned usually part of a universe (DCU and MarvelU), and Image has their topcow universe(are those creations creator owned?) and dark horse had its own universe. And because of that they would belong to the publishers, because it's their universe and not to the writers/creator.
And wasn't Icon imprint created for the purpose of letting marvel writers write their own stuff so that they wouldn't go to other publishers? And vertigo was created to allow mature stories, which had no ties to the normal DCU, to be made?

[Blastermaster]

Dark Horse and IDW are semi-independent. Licensed comics aren't really 'indie comics'. Since they are work-for-hire gigs. And many of these publishers have other in-house work-for-hire gigs (Dark Horse's GHOST for example)


Image is the only premier publisher that has NO in-house work-for-hire gigs. All their comics are controlled by their creators. But then you get into the various Studios who publish through Image. Many of those use work-for-hire models. Like Erik Larsen writing Supreme. Or Ron Marz on Witchblade.


Independent, Creator Owned, Self-Published, these terms all have fairly different distinctions. I'm generally of the camp that Independent simply means 'not Marvel/DC'.

Bendis's POWERS is creator owned/controlled, but its not 'Independent' for example.

Yes, but Image has their various imprints(shadow line, top cow) just like DC and Marvel so they are also at least partially not independent.
I think dark horse doesn't have their own universe any more. Instead they have Mingolaverse and Buffyverse etc.
Personally I also think that calling everyone except Marvel and DC independent is okay because they are nowhere near as big as DC & Marvel are. Don't they also in the movie industry call small studios that aren't owned by other companies for independent?

[The Adventurer]

Yes, but Image has their various imprints(shadow line, top cow)

Those aren't 'Image's Imprints'. Those are the creator's imprints that Image publishes. Image has no ownership, control, or stake (outside of their standard publishing fees) in those Imprints/studios. Creators control those. Marc Silvestri owns/runs Top Cow, Jim Valintino owns/runs Shadowline. Robert Kirkman owns/runs Skybound. Image is not in control of any of that they just print and publish. That's it. At any time those imprints could move to sell publishing (as Top Cow has done) or move to a different publisher entirely (I can't think of an example, I'm not sure if Bendis had an 'imprint' when he moved to Icon)

Similarly, the 'Mingolaverse' isn't anything Dark Horse controls. That's all on Mike Mingola as head editor of his Hellboy and spin-offs. That's all on him, he owns it, he controls it, he hires and fires the people who work on it. Dark Horse just prints and publishes.

'Buffyverse' is largely handled by Dark Horse themselves though (because Dark Horse is a hybrid company that publishes licensed books in-house, and publishes creator controlled comics by other parties. But again, that has to do with it being a licensed property. Like Star Wars. Hellboy isn't licensed.

[Blastermaster]

Those aren't 'Image's Imprints'. Those are the creator's imprints that Image publishes. Image has no ownership, control, or stake (outside of their standard publishing fees) in those Imprints/studios. Creators control those. Marc Silvestri owns/runs Top Cow, Jim Valintino owns/runs Shadowline. Robert Kirkman owns/runs Skybound. Image is not in control of any of that they just print and publish. That's it. At any time those imprints could move to sell publishing (as Top Cow has done) or move to a different publisher entirely (I can't think of an example, I'm not sure if Bendis had an 'imprint' when he moved to Icon)

Similarly, the 'Mingolaverse' isn't anything Dark Horse controls. That's all on Mike Mingola as head editor of his Hellboy and spin-offs. That's all on him, he owns it, he controls it, he hires and fires the people who work on it. Dark Horse just prints and publishes.

'Buffyverse' is largely handled by Dark Horse themselves though (because Dark Horse is a hybrid company that publishes licensed books in-house, and publishes creator controlled comics by other parties. But again, that has to do with it being a licensed property. Like Star Wars. Hellboy isn't licensed.

Well,well I learn something new every day. I didn't it worked that way.
I check it up and Wildstorm, one of the original six studios, was bought by DC.

What I meant by Mingolaverse and Buffyverse was that instead of having their own universe like DC,marvel and Top cow, their series have their own.

If dark horse had a universe for all the comics they publish... Star wars meets buffy meets hellboy meets the Goon meets Conan the barbarian. That would be a spectacle for the ages.

[The Adventurer]

I check it up and Wildstorm, one of the original six studios, was bought by DC.

Doh! Of course. Wildstorm is the perfect example of a creator studio that moved around. Can't believe I forgot that one, its the perfect object lesson in what 'Image Imprints' are.


I see what you mean about the Buffyverse/Mingolaverse now. But that's sort of true about any property that spawns a franchise really. Boom studios had Mark Waid 'Irredeemable' and Incorruptible exist in its own 'universe', where no other Boom studios title existed. They aren't really 'universes' like the Marvel U or DCU, they're just spin-offs and side-stories that take place in the same world as the main title.

[Astonishing_Mr_Dante]

they aren't in it just to make money and nothing else(if they were then they probably wouldn't be very happy not being at marvel or DC) they love writing and drawing comics some of them have more creativity than some of the big name writers and artists working for marvel/dc right now

in the first place, i don't think that's true to say "non-indie" creators only do their job for money and, in the end, don't take real pleasure to make their job. no, when you're penciler and you've got a good and stable job at it, you're frackin' happy ! that's all ! and EVERYONE want to make money with his work ! if the guys fight for their copyright, that's because they don't like to work for free ! it's human and normal !

and to reply to the threat, when i say "indie comic", i mean "non-Marvel/DC comic" too, because it became a common expression. BUT, for me, an indie company/comics doesn't depend on who are behind it but how they do it ! it's a way of thinking, a way to work. a guy with an original idea, his own idea of a story he wants to tell, with his vision and go to a company that respect it and try make it realize without touching it in the name of commercial/marketing positioning. everything made with the respect of every interventors. and that doesn't mean throwing money in the toilet !

in the end ? maybe "independant comics", as a style, mean NOTHING ! when i see the currently ongoing "Dial H" by DC, if ONI Press put that out, everyone would find it normal and very "indie" ! on the other hand, some indie editor made real sup-hero bullshit. and all that isn't a question of good and wrong ! it's a question to make good story and bad story... the problem here is exactly the same than in music. you know, there is always guys who spit on "bankable" and "commercialize" music and thinks he listens to the only real music cause it's indie. in fact, he listens to a pale copy of U2 but that doesn't matter, y'know, till it's indie.

the final word go The Adventurer :

Independent, Creator Owned, Self-Published, these terms all have fairly different distinctions. I'm generally of the camp that Independent simply means 'not Marvel/DC'.