John Byrne speaks sense SHOCK!

Eamo71

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20813&PN=1&TPN=1

4 pages but good ones. I think Byrne is right about what the likes of Kirby deserved vs what some of their respective camps think they're entitled to... they were adults and knew the rules...

Fysh

Heh, as if it's not a thorny issue already without then throwing in the "John Byrne of all people is right about this!" comments

It's an awkward issue. From a strictly legal standpoint, the response would be "tough sh*t, you signed the contract". And I understand that. But as someone in that thread pointed out, it was the only deal in town at the time and if a tradition is rotten, change the tradition.

If someone does work for a company at an agreed rate, then yes, they should expect only that agreed rate. If the work they create, however, goes on to become a long-term earner for the company both in terms of its core concept and the original work (in the form of reprints, etc) then the situation can be considered different. The company is not obliged to offer anything different, but a gesture of goodwill in the form of, say, renegotiating a new contract for royalties on sales of reprints, or a one time payment for the now-known-to-be-profitable concept, might be in their best interests. It keeps the talent happy (since they know that if their work does extremely well, they'll eventually see some share of the big bucks) and it avoids potential legal minefields (such as, say, the legality of creating a cartoon featuring a character conceived of by writer X, but of which the rights of ownership are only clearly defined in the context of a comic book).

I wouldn't argue that there was a legally justifiable case for Kirby et all to be given lump sums, but I would argue that the way the Big Two handled their talent in a changing period was pretty crummy compared to the ways they could have gone, in terms of keeping good relations with talent whose creations had proven to be very lucrative. Said crumminess wasn't exclusive to the Big Two or to comics (if you look at it in more general terms), but is in a way pretty much intrinsic to corporate companies and how they operate. The fact that it is a widespread situation, however, doesn't make it right.

Earthhorse

Actually, I think it was John Byrne made the point about it being the only deal in town at the time.

And the counterpoint to what you're saying (also made in the original thread) is that if they start paying people again for what they did years ago - either one off payments or royalties - then they'll have everyone who every worked on a successful comic come knocking on their door.

I think the best thing they can do in a situation like this is offer an artist or writer more work but that might not be entirely practical either.

Fysh

I get the impression that John B's view on things is that it was the only deal in town so everyone knew where they stood. Which is correct. Whereas the whole "change the tradition" perspective as I understood it was "it's the only game in town and all the boss-men seem to think this is fair but it's not, so we're gonna have to fight to change the situation". Both of which are understandable positions, but which aren't easy to reconcile with each other.

As regards the point of the chain of writers on succesful titles - make the royalty agreements related to the sales of reprints of their work, rather than the title as a whole. Thus if writer X penned the definitive run of Title Y, and his run of Title Y sells a hojillion copies of its 5 collected trades every year, then he gets Z% of the profits from the hojillion sales. If another Writer Q wrote an unmemorable and crap run of Title Y whose collected trades sell about 10 copies every year, then Writer Q sucks it up and gets Z% of the profits from 10 sales. Straightforward. Hell, the publisher has presumably already recouped its costs by the time it's reprinting the issues thus it still stands to make a higher percentage of profit than on the first run, so I don't see why it's a problem. With a suitably tailored contract the artist is getting recompense for the subsequent resale of their work but only their work. I don't get what's so terrifying or doom & gloomy about this scenario (and, were I a member of the JBR forum I would've posted so there to ask for clarification. But I'm not so I didn't, and I'm not really pushed to sign up there just to make one post...).

The thing about more work is that, yeah, in the short term it means they've got cash, but in the long term it's only perpetuating the problem. I mean, say you're a great artist and for 30 years you worked like a dog on a work for hire contract because it was the only thing going (unless you happen to be pretty damn lucky and called Will Eisner), and you watch the company that hired you start to make serious money out of ideas you came up with, and you feel that you've never been adequately rewarded for the long-term revenue generated by your ideas and as such are nearly broke. Sure, in the short term more work gets you out of the poorhouse but beyond that next paycheck it probably just adds to yet more work that you feel you're getting jipped on by an employer who is, from your perspective, doing a small amount of the work and reaping the lion's share of the benefits. I don't necessarily see the artists being that keen on it. (Incidentally, this isn't meant to be an objective description of comics publishing, just a description of how an artist might see things).

Eamo71

Fysh wrote:

Heh, as if it's not a thorny issue already without then throwing in the "John Byrne of all people is right about this!" comments

It's an awkward issue. From a strictly legal standpoint, the response would be "tough sh*t, you signed the contract". And I understand that. But as someone in that thread pointed out, it was the only deal in town at the time and if a tradition is rotten, change the tradition.

If someone does work for a company at an agreed rate, then yes, they should expect only that agreed rate. If the work they create, however, goes on to become a long-term earner for the company both in terms of its core concept and the original work (in the form of reprints, etc) then the situation can be considered different. The company is not obliged to offer anything different, but a gesture of goodwill in the form of, say, renegotiating a new contract for royalties on sales of reprints, or a one time payment for the now-known-to-be-profitable concept, might be in their best interests. It keeps the talent happy (since they know that if their work does extremely well, they'll eventually see some share of the big bucks) and it avoids potential legal minefields (such as, say, the legality of creating a cartoon featuring a character conceived of by writer X, but of which the rights of ownership are only clearly defined in the context of a comic book).

I wouldn't argue that there was a legally justifiable case for Kirby et all to be given lump sums, but I would argue that the way the Big Two handled their talent in a changing period was pretty crummy compared to the ways they could have gone, in terms of keeping good relations with talent whose creations had proven to be very lucrative. Said crumminess wasn't exclusive to the Big Two or to comics (if you look at it in more general terms), but is in a way pretty much intrinsic to corporate companies and how they operate. The fact that it is a widespread situation, however, doesn't make it right.

I agree with all you write here. Some sort of goodwill gesture would've went a long way. But I suspect the interference of lawyers did a lot of damage. "If you give Kirby and Ditko this or that then you'll have all the others knocking at your door."
Also didn't Martin Goodman make promises to the likes of Kirby then feck off and sell the company?

Eamo71

Speaking of others coming knocking at your door. John Romita spoke on the Ditko Doc by Jonathan Ross. Now there's a guy who made Spider-Man even more popular than Ditko's run and for many (such as Sam Raimi) he's the definitive Spidey artist. So should he get a cut? In fairness JR has been well looked after by Marvel as have his family.

Earthhorse

That's a good suggestion Fysh and could work.

With regard to your point on an artist or writer's work helping establish a company, well that isn't a complaint unique to comics. I'd wager most people feel they are underrewarded by their employer for the work they do which helps establish the company in both the short and long run. It's just more obvious to the public when someone's made a contribution in artistic industries.