Here's that crackin' little cutie from
down under, GABRIELLE MILLER,
to put a smile on your face, Crivvies. And
doesn't she do a great job on her whites?
I wonder what her ironing's like?
Sunday, 7 August 2016
RUMINATING REPOST: A COMICS CONTROVERSY - CARE TO COMMENT?
 |
| SUPERMAN's first issue of his own comic |
Consider, if you will, fellow Criv-ites, the following scenario. A person buys an ornament 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. Someone asks an artist to paint a picture of their house and gardens. The artist charges them £300 and is extremely pleased at the amount he has secured for himself. Five years later, a visitor to the purchaser's house is so enamoured of the painting that he offers them £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 characters 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.
Anyone got any thoughts on the matter? Let's hear them.
BABE Of The DAY - HEATHER THOMAS...
Here's a pic of me and stunning
HEATHER THOMAS (from TV's
The FALL GUY) in her bath. Where
am I, you may be asking? I'm under
the water, retrieving the soap.
KEN REID'S QUEEN Of The SEAS - PART FIVE...
 |
| Copyright REBELLION |
It's been a while since we looked at any KEN REID art, so here's an episode of QUEEN Of The SEAS from SMASH! #5, cover-dated March 5th 1966. Reid's artwork was a delight when he was at the height of his powers, and he was certainly firing on all cylinders when he drew this strip. Sadly, towards the end of his career, while he was still capable of rendering the fine detail for which he was famous, the 'life' somehow seemed to have gone out of his drawings, leaving his pages somewhat stilted. However, by then he'd done more than enough to ensure his place in the top tier of British cartooning greats. All hail the mighty Ken Reid!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)