I could never be a politician because I can usually see both sides of a story. We can decry what has happened to creators in the comics industry who have created valuable (and super-valuable) stories and characters over the years. The work-for-hire standard under which most of these past creations were first published was in many ways unfair, but at the time it was the only way to have such work published . We can't judge the past by present standards. First, a couple of definitions (from Dictionary.Com):
Editor: (1) a person who edits written material for publication (2) a person in overall charge of the editing and often the policy of a newspaper or periodical
Publisher: (1) a person or company whose business is the publishing of books, periodicals, engravings, computer software, etc. (2) the business head of a newspaper organization or publishing house, commonly the owner or the representative of the owner.
In the 1970s and before, writers and artists (and writer/artists) apparently wanted or needed to work in comics. Unless they could go into suspended animation and wake up when creator-owned comics were common, they either did work-for-hire or found a different industry in which to work. So to put food on the table they did it.
Publishers such as Martin Goodman and others used their instincts and whatever trends they spotted to roll the dice and invest in the work of the creators and in the overhead created by renting offices, obtaining equipment and in paying editors and creators to put out the material the publisher wanted to put out. If a book sold like gangbusters or if nobody bought it they still paid the people involved. If a creator today has a contract to get a percentage of the profits I'll bet that same creator doesn't get a bill for the losses when a book tanks.
Editors such as Stan Lee, Julius Schwartz, and Mort Weisinger were EMPLOYEES who did not have the ability (whether or not they wanted to) to give better contracts than the publishers were willing to support. As we know, before Marvel started printing credits for the creators it was seldom done at all. At one time I had delusions of writing comics. I discovered that the standard at the time was to write a full script in the manner of a movie script providing dialogue and description of the action to occur in each panel. Before the "Marvel Method" this is the way it was done. As I understand it, the Marvel Method was developed because of the increasing volume of work on two(?) scripters, one of whom was also the editor. This was a brand new way of working and when the credits were appended to the pages (which they were not obligated to do) they probably weren't sure how to express the way they worked. Later they added "Plotted By" to help to clarify this; however, we don't know how much authority editors had to assign these credits.
Now that I've thrown the red meat into the arena, what do you think?
Replies
Well, the comics companies themselves don't - and didn't - seem to find it as cut and dried as you do above, Richard.
For instance, when they were trying to establish the rules for who had the right to profit from creators ideas going forward, and to what extent, in the early 80s, they presented Jack Kirby with a very different, lengthier document to sign than what was presented to his colleagues. Ergo they seemed to think he might have some legal claim to profit from his ideas over and above what you outline above.
Your outline doesn't refer to how the creators' ideas were used beyond the initial pages of comic stories that they were paid for. They were paid for those comics pages, but not for the use of the story ideas in cartoons, films etc.
Figserello said:
Your outline doesn't refer to how the creators' ideas were used beyond the initial pages of comic stories that they were paid for. They were paid for those comics pages, but not for the use of the story ideas in cartoons, films etc.
It would be interesting to see one of these actual contracts. Was a distinction made between writing/drawing a story about pre-existing company characters and stories containing new characters created by the "contractor". Since movies and cartoons were already part of the culture when comic books began, did these contracts refer to these media? Were the contracts derived from newspaper syndicate contracts? Certainly the contract would give the publisher the right to use any new characters in subsequent comic books. Obviously publishers of prose books had different contracts. The publisher of "Casino Royale" didn't own the James Bond character just because they published the first book.
I don't think most of them actually had contracts, it was more informal than that. Seigel and Schuster, along with Bob Kane, ultimately got contracts, but I don't think many others did.
They mostly got checks that essentially said, on the back, "endorsing this check indicates you agree that we own what you did."
That left all kinds of room for interpretation, and it was possible courts wouldn't accept that at all if it came to that. So the companies tried to get creators to sign away rights after the fact, and that's pretty tough. OTOH, the artists didn't have much leeway, since they weren't in a position to sue large corporations, either.
In a lot of cases, the publishers would say, "create an interesting character, and I'll pay you to produce his stories." So they'd come up with these guys to keep working, never thinking that the characters would still be around 70 years later. They were created for throwaway kids magazines, here today and gone next month.
Nowadays, things have reversed. Unless there is an explicit contract saying the company owns everything, they own one-time rights. So they're good at getting things in writing. I've done prose work for both Marvel and DC, and they both have a Work for Hire agreement for that stuff. Marvel's at least used to be in the form of a voucher that you sign, with a little contract on the back. No doubt, that's for the peons, and those doing regular work or a series have a different, longer agreement to cover specific details.
I always like the contracts that say the publisher owns the property now and forever throughout the universe in all media, including those not yet invented.
Of course, back then, nobody wanted their original art back for the most part. What the companies didn't give away, they burned to a large extent so it wasn't a storage problem. It was deemed to be the stuff that produced the comics, like the stats and coloring guides. Those stories that Marv Wolfman and Len Wein tell of cutting up original art to burn (and trying to save some pieces) are pretty gut-wrenching.
Freelancers are running their own businesses, and a lot of the SA creators didn't understand that, because they worked for one company and thought there was loyalty and morality. There never is, unless it's in the contract.
Editors can always fall back on having to do what the publisher tells them to do, but they often have leeway. I've negotiated contracts where I immediately got certain points because the editor was allowed to concede on those--but only if I brought them up. I've also heard editors say, "We'll do it that way, but we can't put it into the contract because the language is all set and it'll be hard to get it changed, etc., etc."
There definitely are two sides. We never know when the editor was trying to protect his freelancers and ran into resistance, and when he was being a budget hero to get a raise (and just told the freelancer he fought for him). Freelancers face the paranoia of not having face time and not knowing what's going on around the water cooler. Relying on anyone else in the chain to protect your interests out of good will isn't a good approach.
Artists are seldom good businessmen. Good businessmen take advantage of that. They're' supposed to, that's how business usually works.
-- MSA
Mr. Silver Age said:
In a lot of cases, the publishers would say, "create an interesting character, and I'll pay you to produce his stories." So they'd come up with these guys to keep working, never thinking that the characters would still be around 70 years later. They were created for throwaway kids magazines, here today and gone next month.
As they say, hind-sight is 20-20. Not only did the creators not know how valuable some creations would become, but the publishers didn't know either.
I had forgotten to include the fact that Goodman (and the others?) had previously been involved in pulp magazines and that some characters created therein had already become popular enough to have radio shows and movies.
Of course, back then, nobody wanted their original art back for the most part. What the companies didn't give away, they burned to a large extent so it wasn't a storage problem. It was deemed to be the stuff that produced the comics, like the stats and coloring guides.
Back then there was such a thing as microfilm that would have pretty much solved the storage problem, but first someone would have to have the epiphany that the original art had value. Your point that it was just considered a means to an end and thus disposeable sounds true.
There definitely are two sides. We never know when the editor was trying to protect his freelancers and ran into resistance, and when he was being a budget hero to get a raise (and just told the freelancer he fought for him).
This reminds me of the gag where the car salesman pretends to go and fight with his boss out of earshot. They really discuss sports or what to have for lunch. He then returns to the customer and either says the boss wouldn't budge or concedes something that would have been conceded anyway.
Artists are seldom good businessmen. Good businessmen take advantage of that. They're' supposed to, that's how business usually works.
This reminds me of the observation an art teacher made to my wife. The practical, business-like abilities flow from one side of the brain (the left) while the artistic abilities flow from the other side (the right). Most artists are "right-brained". It's a rare person who is both a good artist and a good businessperson. My wife is more right-brained and I am more left-brained. I appreciate creative writing and art but can't do it to save my life.
with a multi-verse, all bets are off
I always picture my articles being thought-cast into people's brains on Venus and me saying, "Man, I wish I'd negotiated better."
-- MSA
Richard Willis said:
Well, you're both better off than us "no-brained" types.
Richard Gagnon on STEVE DITKO.
Not only did the creators not know how valuable some creations would become, but the publishers didn't know either.
Yes, the other side to creators getting cheated is that the publishers had all the risk. The creators got paid whether they created a monster success or something that fizzled--and in the early days, with anthology titles, it was hard to tell which was which unless it was on the cover. There are a lot of super-heroes and other types of stories in those anthologies that are long forgotten, except when complete-comic archives are produced.
I think the big problem is that they were paid as if everything was a filler story, and when something broke out, the creators didn't get much of a bump. So there was shared risk, since the creators weren't making much, but the rewards of a breakout hit only went to the publisher.
Comics aren't alone in guys wanting big money for successes--in sports, a guy signs a six-year contract for his family's security, and four years in is having great years and holds out until they renegotiate a better contract because he's being "disrespected." He ends up getting a signing bonus and extension. I've never heard of a guy who has crap years giving some of the money back. Then, he's got a contract that should be honored.A contract should benefit both sides and share the risk.
I had forgotten to include the fact that Goodman (and the others?) had previously been involved in pulp magazines and that some characters created therein had already become popular enough to have radio shows and movies.
There was some precedent, but that was different (or so they thought). Those were for adults, and comics were for kids. They probably didn't think there was much chance their kiddie character was going to be that big. They were just looking to create something so they could get some work.
A lot of the creators were embarrassed to be working in comics. I don't think that was true for pulp writers.
This reminds me of the gag where the car salesman pretends to go and fight with his boss out of earshot.
I think that still happens a lot of times. Negotiating your own contract can be a distasteful experience, especially when you feel like you walked away leaving money on the table but not really knowing because you didn't push enough. They were going up against guys who did it for a living, and they were happy to have work. That's not a strong position.
And in most cases, if they'd hired a rep, the publisher would've found someone else. It's tough when the supply far exceeds the demand in an industry. Comics still has that!
Artists are seldom good businessmen. Good businessmen take advantage of that. They're' supposed to, that's how business usually works.
Will Eisner was one that stands out. Bob Kane was smart enough to know what he was good at and work it to his advantage on both sides. No matter how good of businessmen the creators were, the publishers had the upper hand and they knew it. There was some competition among publishers, but a lot of it was based on relationships.
It's not coincidence that a lot of early comics creators were Jewish--they were the outcasts who couldn't get "respectable" work. That didn't leave them many options.
What I can't explain is why so many comics creators have the initials J.S.
I appreciate creative writing and art but can't do it to save my life.
I think the left/right brain ideas hold true, but I think it's possible to train yourself to do better at the other. I can take classes in either type and work to improve my weaker skill. But it really helps if you have a talent for art or math to start with, and few people have both.
-- MSA
Publishers are in the business to publish. It's their JOB to take risks.
I am really sick of reading the view that creators should take the risks. If they did, they would be Publishers. Like I've been.
Comics began with a gangster mentality, because many of the early cvompanies were started by those connected to organized crime, as one more way to launder illegal money. The attitude never changed with some of them. Interestingly enough, in 1968, DC Comics was bought out by a company that got its start in the parking lot business-- and, in fact, had known established organized crime connections.
Yes, I think that is very true especially for the Golden Age creators. I remember reading in Plastic Man Archives vol.2 in the introduction, for Jack Cole's little autobiography, or resume (sorry I don't have it on hand I am at work). His sole mention of his comic book work was one sentence: 1940-1953 work in comic books (again dates made up, but you get the gist of it). That was it.
Also so many of them did think of it just as job back then, not trying to create deep meaning art with some kind of message. I remember in an issue of Alter Ego in one of Mark Evanier's round tables from San Diego one creator's answer to every question was,"I don't remember. It was just an assignment and I did it." Or some variation of that.
I think creators are getting better at it now with the advent of the web, and them running their own business through websites, and hocking their wares at all of the conventions available to them now. Someone like Scott Kurtz has done very well with his web presence.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next