Digital Comic Museum > Welcome and Introductions
'Bleeding Cool' and 'boing boing' Readers
thefishyartist:
Now THIS is what an online comics museum should be! I'm glad you're here and I'm glad I found it.
It's a good thing I'm single, because I'm going to log many many many MANY hours in here.
CHEERS!
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: bchat on September 23, 2010, 08:31:14 AM ---
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on September 22, 2010, 10:14:45 AM ---If money wasn't involved how many would REALLY care about their long lost relative twice removed? How many times would they go and visit their grave or light a candle for them?"
--- End quote ---
In my opinion, if money wasn't involved, how many creators would care about not having ownership of their characters? Does Joe Simon care about not owning "Ranch Dude"? Did Paul Gustavson ever say "I wish I would have hung-on to Twister"? Has Martin Filchock ever said that he wished he had self-published all his superhero stories instead of selling them to Hardie & Kelly? Did Siegel & Shuster ever fight to get ownership of Dr Occult back?
In every other business, when you're working for someone else, you accept that an idea you come-up with & the work that you do that helps the company make money (or save money, depending on the idea) are only going to benefit the owners in the long-run. It's a part of the job you accept when you take a paycheck. When a comic creator works for a publisher, they're also working a job, and creating new characters for that company is a part of the job sometimes. Sometimes a publisher gets lucky and they have a character that will make them millions of dollars, but more often than not they get a character that nobody (including the creators) cares about. If a creator can't accept that something they did is making a lot of money for someone else, "that's a shame" but that's the job they chose to do in order to make a living. They got paid more money than most people made (no matter what year you're talking about) to do nothing but draw all day, so I can't really feel too bad for them.
--- End quote ---
So you're saying now that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action? I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.
And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing," particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else. If it's nothing, then why did they pay them anything to do it in the first place? Yes, drawing all day is a job, ask any draftsmen (if there are any left... in America, that is) but it's still one that not everyone can do, and moreover not every draftsmen can be an architect either.
bchat:
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on September 23, 2010, 12:49:48 PM ---So you're saying now ...
--- End quote ---
My stance hasn't changed. I feel the same way "now" as I always have.
--- Quote --- ... that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action? I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.
--- End quote ---
If someone owns a Copyright (like Kirby & "Captain Victory" or Todd McFarlane & "Spawn") then I feel it's right that their children & grandchildren are able to benefit from that. Kirby's work-for-hire production at Marvel belongs to Marvel. Are you trying to argue the point that Kirby didn't know what he was getting into by working for someone else? He was working a job to pay his bills and I don't think it was any big secret who the Copyrights belonged to on the work he created during his time there.
--- Quote ---And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing,"
--- End quote ---
I didn't say it was. Way to misquote me. I said "do nothing BUT draw all day". I would have thought the meaning there was pretty clear.
--- Quote --- ... particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else.
--- End quote ---
That's the price you pay for working for (and getting paid by) someone else, plain & simple. Don't like it, don't do it. These people chose to draw comics for a living. They could have applied their talents in other ways, by doing portraits, creating murals * paintings, working in advertising, or any number of fields that require artistic talents. They chose to work in comics and they chose to work for someone else rather than self-publish.
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: bchat on September 23, 2010, 01:27:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on September 23, 2010, 12:49:48 PM ---So you're saying now ...
--- End quote ---
My stance hasn't changed. I feel the same way "now" as I always have.
--- Quote ---And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing,"
--- End quote ---
I didn't say it was. Way to misquote me. I said "do nothing BUT draw all day". I would have thought the meaning there was pretty clear.
--- End quote ---
I'm not trying to misquote you, I'm just trying to discern where you stand on the issue... it seems pretty obvious to me now.
--- Quote from: bchat on September 23, 2010, 01:27:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on September 23, 2010, 12:49:48 PM ---... that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action? I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.
--- End quote ---
If someone owns a Copyright (like Kirby & "Captain Victory" or Todd McFarlane & "Spawn") then I feel it's right that their children & grandchildren are able to benefit from that. Kirby's work-for-hire production at Marvel belongs to Marvel. Are you trying to argue the point that Kirby didn't know what he was getting into by working for someone else? He was working a job to pay his bills and I don't think it was any big secret who the Copyrights belonged to on the work he created during his time there.
--- End quote ---
No, if anything, I'm trying to argue the point that most of the GA of comics was built on slave labor. I'm sure Kirby knew the situation he was in... and infinitely more so than any of us here (it was his life after all, he lived it, we didn't)... and that was (IMO) one of being exploited by his professional "family." The work-for-hire system that was put in place IMO was a form of slavery... just as the sweatshop system that most of these comics came out of was.
--- Quote from: bchat on September 23, 2010, 01:27:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on September 23, 2010, 12:49:48 PM --- ... particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else.
--- End quote ---
That's the price you pay for working for (and getting paid by) someone else, plain & simple. Don't like it, don't do it. These people chose to draw comics for a living. They could have applied their talents in other ways, by doing portraits, creating murals * paintings, working in advertising, or any number of fields that require artistic talents. They chose to work in comics and they chose to work for someone else rather than self-publish.
--- End quote ---
How would they self-publish? And how would they paint murals and portraits? All I have to do is read your comments to know that such work isn't valued by society at large... and when it is, it's usually done by artists whose work is valued by people who don't read comic books. In fact, with that last thought in mind it probably hurt these people even more to do what they did in comics.
John C:
Uhm...first, everybody relax a bit. I'll turn this car right around if you can't behave.
Anyway, I object rather strongly to the idea that working for someone is slavery. Kirby could have (and did) produce other material. He could have left the industry. He didn't. Therefore, he was getting some benefit that, in a world where every idiot whose name we know is an oppressed folk hero or mustache-twirling villain by fiat, nobody wants to tell us about, because it spoils the legend (or because he never mentioned it). I guarantee it's not because he loved the people.
Before you accuse me of not knowing what it's like, I'm a programmer. I sit in front of a computer for eight hours a day producing code--innovating on demand, so to speak--for someone in exchange for a salary. The code is written on my employer's behalf, for the company, and they own the rights to every bit of it. I, on the other hand, don't. In fact, at my previous job, I was asked how I wanted code (which was to be released to the public) to be licensed, and I explained that it wasn't mine to decide, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "work for hire;" it's just the deal you make. Why would anybody pay me to make stuff that I'll then own!? (And if you know why and who, why haven't you sent me their number?)
(Also: Everything in software is named after some guy, like there's some land grab going on, which is what I refer to above with folk legends--do you care that the Shell Sort was named after a guy named Shell? Does it help you understand how it works?)
I think that's appropriate and fair, because, if it becomes popular, it's probably because of the marketing muscle brought to bear, not my genius and artistry. Let's face facts: If Action Comics had been published by Nicholson-Wheeler as (I believe) planned, Superman probably wouldn't be much more known than the aforementioned Dr. Occult. If Siegel and Shuster had self-published, Superman would probably be as popular as Jon Juan or Funnyman. I imagine that most of Kirby's creations, likewise, would have fared about as well as Silver Star or Captain Victory, without the backing of Timely/Marvel or DC. If it weren't for shrewd (even if unethical) businessmen pushing the product, none of these trademarks or copyrights would be worth a thing to anybody!
However, as a human being, you're perfectly free to refuse to work for anybody who doesn't grant you the rights you want. If I wanted partial ownershiip of my software, I could actually semi-successfully approach prospective employers and find such a position. If I wanted full ownership, I can sell it myself...and I do, in fact, run a small business where I do exactly that, but that's more about me not being able to find a position where I can pursue those ideas than about me owning them. It works just like shopping around for flexible hours, a higher salary, fringe benefits, or any other "perq."
I won't say that you shouldn't believe as you do, of course, but you do need to understand that a lot of people see the "loss" of rights (to something you might not have created otherwise) is more than a fair price to pay for a paycheck and being able to skip past the part where you build your own business and distribution infrastructure to get your work (and your name) into the hands of appreciative consumers. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with making that decision or with a company holding you to that decision if you later decide you shouldn't have traded ideas for rent.
There is, however, a problem (in my eyes) with kids trying to convince the country that the big bad company owners are evil and should be punished for, y'know, having upheld their end of the bargain and profited by it, and that they, instead, should be allowed to make gobs of money from something that they had nothing to do with. (The endless copyright extensions and reclamation laws are going to bury this country in lawsuits and stalled innovation, as far as I can tell.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version