 |
| SUPERMAN's first issue of his own comic |
Consider, if you will, fellow Criv-ites, the following scenario. A person buys an orna-ment for £2 from a charity shop. Later, upon reflection, they decide that they don't really like it, so when someone collecting for a jumble sale chaps their door, the ornament is handed over to help raise funds to repair a leaky church roof.
Ten years later, the first person is watching ANTIQUES ROADSHOW and sees "their" ornament declared as being worth £20,000. Do they have a moral or legal claim on any of that money if the current owner decides to sell?
Now consider this scenario. An artist is asked to paint a picture of someone's house and gardens. He charges £300 and is extremely pleased at the amount he has secured for himself. Five years further on, a visitor to the purchaser's house is so enamoured of the painting that he offers them a whopping £5,000 for it. Over the years, it changes hands for increased amounts until it's worth £50,000. Does the artist have a moral or legal claim on any of the money it has changed hands for over the years?
The answer is surely "no" - isn't it?
So - what's the difference between those two examples and what happened to SIEGEL and SHUSTER over SUPERMAN, or JACK KIRBY and the many char-acters he created or co-created for MARVEL or DC COMICS? Or the work LEO BAXENDALE (or any artist you care to name) did for D.C. THOMSON or IPC/FLEETWAY? I would suggest none at all.
 |
| BATMAN's first issue of his own comic |
If you consent to sell something outright for an agreed fee, then it's really nothing to do with you what the purchaser does with his purchase or how much he profits from it in the years to come. If you buy a house for £80,000 and then sell it for £100,000, the previous owner (even if he built the house) is neither legally nor morally entitled to a share of your profit. And, back in the day, that's the way it was done in the world of comics.
That's not to say that I have anything against present-day creators' rights, profit-sharing, copyright ownership, artwork return, or anything like that - because that's the way things are done nowadays.
However, back in the 1930s (until the late '70s, early '80s), comics were just a job to the writers and artists - 'twas the publishers who took the financial risk in launching a new comicbook, so why shouldn't their share of the profits proportionately reflect that risk?
When a publisher bought a character, they bought it outright - if it was a success, they made money, if it was a failure, they didn't. It's a safe bet that there were a lot more failures than successes in those days. That was just the way the cookie crumbled back then.
Anyone got any thoughts on the matter? Let's hear them.
2 comments:
I think you'll find the value of intellectual property is now viewed more highly than jumble sale purchases or art commissions.
If somebody creates a new concept (as opposed to writing or drawing episode 247, or even an art commission) the onus is on how good a negotiator the creator is, some would argue. Many accept the same flat rate they would get for writing/drawing episode two, simply to get a regular commission. Others, in stronger positions negotiate a deal.
With the valuable spin-off merchandising and licensing now firmly in place for toys, film, TV and syndication, I'd say creators are far less naive than even a few decades ago.
Sadly I have discovered first hand how few creators have any respect for "publisher's rights" when they sell a property and have a split profit agreement in place. Some have been covert about it, others blatant.
To take legal action or learn from experience, that is the question...
Dez Skinn
(16 times bitten, 17th time hopefully shy)
Thanks for your thoughts, Dez, which are always pertinent and worth considering.
For myself, I don't draw much distinction between "intellectual" property and an "item" of property - I think the same principal applies in each case. If the creator consents to sell the "property" for an agreed sum - regardless of whether or not he is aware of the spin-off potential at the time - then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on if someone else exploits his creation to levels undreamed of by himself.
Otherwise there would be countless people claiming that their ignorance of an item's value which they sold for 20p - and which later realized £20,000 at auction - should not debar them from a share of the profits. As I said, I think the same principle applies in both circumstances.
Having said that, the fact that Ray Cusick only received £100 bonus for designing the DALEKS (which virtually created the merchandising arm of the BBC) sits uneasy with me. And no doubt there are countless similar examples of such seeming unfairness. However, that's an emotional reaction - it was the job for which he was paid and he made a living from it.
Interesting that, in days gone by, nobody seemed interested in their creations beyond earning a wage from them - at least not until they saw someone else making money from them.
Shades of the ANTIQUES ROADSHOW scenario I described earlier, eh?
Sorry to hear that some people didn't honour their commitments to you, Dez. Hopefully you'll have the last laugh.
Post a Comment