Frank Miller got me thinking...

Above photo (Left to right): Klaus Janson and Frank Miller at the School of Visual Arts’ “100 Years of Genius: The Life and Legacy of Will Eisner” event in April 2017. Photo by (DC Comics editor and SVA faculty member) Joey Cavalieri.

Frank Miller got me thinking.

On April 4, 2017, during his chat at the School of Visual Arts’ “100 Years of Genius: The Life and Legacy of Will Eisner,” Frank Miller talked a bit on the topic of Will Eisner and comic book Creators’ Rights. Miller explained Will’s views on comic book Creator’s Rights and contracts:

The most frequent business advice [Will Eisner] gave me was: ‘Stop whining.’ Because I would go in saying: ‘Creators’ Rights this, Creators’ Rights that, Creators’ Rights this.’ And he’d say: ‘Look, if you sign the contract, it’s over. Stop complaining about anything.’ His point of view was simply that if you’re working on other people’s material, then you don’t have that much of a claim. And so, clearly, his whole point was that the future of comics was for people to be introducing new material.

(You can watch the entirety of SVA’s “100 Years of Genius: The Life and Legacy of Will Eisner” event here on Youtube.)

In the book EISNER/MILLER, Will stated:

Take a look at the marketplace and understand what its realties are. I never subscribed to this Creators’ Bill of Rights because I believe that there was no reality to it. In the marketplace, moral rights are often disregarded.

And…

Well, there is no ingrained right, there are no God-given rights here. The rights are what you negotiate.

Now, it’s true that Will was a very savvy business person. (And you really have to be if you want to have a successful career in the arts.) I don’t think that Will would have needed to be reminded by something like (the very important) Creators’ Bill of Rights. However, the vast majority of young artists do need to be reminded and told about the Bill and about Creators’ Rights.

(I lecture on all of this in my Sequential Art: Comics Illustration class at SUNY Orange.)

In an interview on the Creators’ Bill of Rights and Creators’ Rights for THE COMICS JOURNAL (No. 137, September 1990) by Gary Groth and with Steve Bissette, Scott McCloud stated:

Whatever crimes are going on at companies where Creators’ Rights are not honored become pretty quickly irrelevant because essentially it’s your own damn fault if you decide to work there… if there is an alternative… yeah, if you went in with some knowledge. ‘What’s smoking?’ As long as the warning is there.

(A must-read and/or must-listen interview with Stephen Bissette and Scott McCloud.)

Over the years, I’ve been quite outspoken about comic book Creator’s Rights.

In 2005, I began becoming more vocal and more public about my views on Creators’ Rights. I started conversations with folks like Steve Bissette, Dave Sim, Rick Veitch, Scott McCloud, and even with Denis Kitchen, Erik Larsen, and Fernando Ruiz.

(All of these discussions are collected and posted at www.yacanteraseink.com)

Dave Sim had suggested to me that my eventual departure from Archie Comics may have been due to my public outspokenness on Creators’ Rights. Dave could very well be right.

In 2010, I officially ended my contributions toward work-made-for-hire.

(Two weeks ago, for about an hour, I was on the phone with a publisher and trying to convince him that I had no interest in working on their work-made-for-hire project.)



Above photo: This photo was taken in June 2014 during the "Creator-owned Comics (vs. Corporate-owned Comics)" panel at the Special Edition: NYC comics convention which was held at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City. I was joined on the panel by Mike Allred and Kurt Busiek.

In 2014, I was on the “Creator-owned Comics (vs. Corporate-owned Comics)” panel held at the Special Edition: NYC comics convention. The panel featured a discussion between myself, Michael Allred, and Kurt Busiek. That panel pretty much summed up my view on Creators’ Rights in regards to Creator-owned Comics versus Corporate-owned Comics.

Simply put: Comic book publishers have a horrible history with treating their writers and artists. If you’re interested in playing in the work-made-for-hire sandbox, then know the environment in which you’re working and know what your rights are. For me, now, creator-owned comics are the only thing that I’ll be doing in comics.

The topic of comic book Creators’ Rights does still interest me a great deal. I still believe that, at the very least, the Creator’s Bill of Rights is a must-read for professional comic book creators and for young artists who wish to have a career in comics and/or in animation.

It’s just that, now, I don’t know if we can actually change the policies of comic book publishers that promote work-made-for-hire. Maybe it’s just best to ignore the likes of Marvel and DC. There are more creator-friendly publishers out there. Why keep flogging a dead horse?

My opinion hasn’t changed, exactly. I like to think that my focus has just evolved. I don’t care what the corporate comic publishers are doing anymore.

I’m wondering if Will Eisner was more often correct about Creators' Rights than I previously thought.

Stan Lee on Creator’s Rights...

Above: Comics legend, Stan "The Man" Lee.

In an interview, Stan Lee shares his opinions concerning comic book Creator’s Rights:

Then I ask him if he feels, in general, that the comic-book industry has been fair to comic-book creators.

"I don't know," Stan says. "I haven't had reason to think about it that much." Five-second pause. "I think, if somebody creates something, and it becomes highly successful, whoever is reaping the rewards should let the person [who] created it share in it, certainly. But so much of it is — it goes beyond creating. A lot of people put something together, and nobody really knows who created it, they're just working on it, y'know? But little by little, the artists and the writers now are a different breed than they were, and most of them, if they create anything new, they insist that they be part owners of it. Because they know what happened to Siegel and Shuster, and to me, and to people like that. I don't think it's a problem anymore. They make much more money than they used to make, when I was there. Proportionately.

"Everybody thought that I was the only one that was getting paid off, but I never received any royalties from the characters. I made a good living, because I was the editor, the art director, and the head writer. So I got a nice salary. That was all I got. I was a salaried guy. But it was a good salary. And I was happy."

Podcasting: The Avengers Movie and Creator's Rights...

The Avengers movie is taking over the world. A new video by Mike Kitchen and Blair Kitchen "talk about conventions, and The Avengers Movie, and Creator’s Rights, and other comic stuff." At the 22-minute mark, the Creator’s Rights website,"Ya Can't Erase Ink...", is mentioned. For me, in regards to comics, there’s nothing more important than the treatment of comic book creators.

For more information about comic book Creator’s Rights, visitYa Can't Erase Ink... Here, we will feature conversations and interviews with Scott McCloud, Dave Sim, Steve Bissette, Rick Veitch, and others about The Creator’s Bill of Rights and other Creator’s Rights issues.

Steve Bissette talks about Marvel/Disney, Jack Kirby, and THE AVENGERS film...

Above photo: Kirby toughness… comics legend, Jack Kirby. (I swiped this photo from Bleeding Cool. Thanks, Rich.)

The great Steve Bissette talks about Creator’s Rights, Work-for-hire, Marvel/Disney, Jack Kirby, and THE AVENGERS film in "Marvel/Disney v Kirby: Do Avengers Avenge… Or Not?":

DC Comics, Paul Levitz, and Jenette Kahn started working out ways to work royalty shares with Kirby while he was still alive (using Super Friends as the initial vehicle).

Marvel hasn’t. Marvel has repeatedly demonstrated, from the late 1960s to today, that they’re not even remotely interested in "working out ways" to resolve this.

Fine. It’s their business.

And they’re getting no more of mine.

For me, it’s simple: the judgment of 2011 was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Do what you want; I’ve had it with Marvel as a consumer at this point.

I won’t be seeing The Avengers movie. I will encourage others to avoid it, if and as I can.

The thought of sitting through another bloated multi-million dollar-budgeted charade about how "it’s right to fight for justice" when Marvel/Disney can’t cough up the equivalent of, say, one day’s shooting budget for catering or grips to toss a bone to Jack’s heirs—well, that act of enduring that film isn’t at all attractive or appealing to me any longer on any level.

THE AVENGERS? It’s a sham.

And…

Work-for-hire does not, ipso facto, mean a creator or co-creator benefits not at all from their creations earning (in this case) billions for the parent corporation. I earn royalties on Swamp Thing to this day. Every quarter, they show up. I earn more royalties for John Constantine, Hellblazer; when the movie option yielded a movie, we each banked a $45,000 check from our fraction of a percent of our co-creator shares.

Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane settle...

Above: The cover to SPAWN #9 which introduced Angela, Cagliostro, and Medieval Spawn.

Several news outlets are reporting that Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane have finally settled their dispute over Gaiman’s contributions to SPAWN.

The NY Daily News reports:

Fantasy industry giants Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane finally called a truce in their long-running legal feud over who owns which characters in the Spawn universe, according to court documents.

Gaiman and McFarlane have been sparring for a little more than a decade over royalties from a handful of characters from the Spawn comic book series. Their attorneys filed a joint notice Friday in federal court in Madison saying they’ve reached a deal.

Jeffrey Simmons, one of Gaiman’s attorneys, said terms of the agreement were confidential. A jury had already found Gaiman a 50 percent owner of content in two Spawn issues and the first three issues of a Spawn spin-off. Simmons said reiterating that declaration would block any appeal.

"This is intended to put an end to the whole thing. It’s fair to say both parties are pleased to have this resolved," Simmons said.

For all of the hub-bub, check out "Neil Gaiman versus Todd McFarlane feud".

Problems in Riverdale...

Above: Partial cover artwork to ARCHIE & FRIENDS #138 by (penciler) Fernando Ruiz and (inker) myself.

Bleeding Cool continues to report on the events concerning Archie Comic Publications’ dispute with the co-Chief Executive Officer of Archie Comics, Nancy Silberkleit, accusing her of sexual harassment and bullying.

I was debating whether I should blog about this because of some of the more adult language involved in the story… which is why I’ve waited until now.

I’ve spoken to Nancy Silberkleit only once. She called me a couple of years ago to contribute to a documentary that she was working on at the time (which I decided not be involved). To me, Nancy seemed like a very friendly person.

Still, if the allegations are true, I suppose you shouldn’t point at men while in the work place and say "penis."

Over at The Beat, Archie co-Chief Executive Officer Jon Goldwater once stated:

I can’t speak for things prior to my being here, but things that have gone on previously with how artists were treated has nothing to do with where we are now. We support every artist, every writer, every employee of Archie. They are valued. They are treasured.

I find this all very ironic considering, as Steve Bissette put it recently:

...and arguably no comics publisher with that company's longevity has badly used and ill-treated more creators than Archie...



Above: Artwork from ARCHIE ALL-STARS VOLUME 3: THE CARTOON LIFE OF CHUCK CLAYTON by (penciler) Fernando Ruiz and (inker) myself.

Ken Penders moves forward with his SONIC characters...

Ken Penders continues to claim ownership of stories and characters that he wrote and penciled during his time on SONIC THE HEDGEHOG. Penders states that he never signed a work-made-for-hire contact with Archie Comics. (See "Who owns Sonic?" and "Ken Penders versus Archie Comics..." for more details.)

And NOW, Ken Penders is planning to produce new stories and graphic novels featuring the characters that he created while working on the SONIC franchise.

From Ken Penders at the Ken Penders Forums:

Ever since I registered my copyrights for all my stories, characters and concepts that had played a part in one of the most popular comic series ever published in the modern age, I've been planning how to answer numerous reader requests regarding how I eventually intended to continue those stories, resolving many if not all of the plot points that were left dangling due to unforeseen circumstances.

While my current legal situation with three well-known companies is still an ongoing matter, I've decided now is the time to finally launch the continuing saga of the Brotherhood of the Guardians and Dark Legion in graphic novel format, starting with the first image of one of the story's major characters, whom I first introduced to the world in the REUNIFICATION storyline several years ago.

And…

I own the copyrights to my work, I'm defending them, and I'm going forward with projects utilizing the intellectual property that is legally mine. If I didn't own the copyrights, I wouldn't have standing in a court of law to prosecute those rights. The Federal Government recognizes the documents I have, therefore I have standing. ACP is not suing me for the copyrights because they have no standing in that regard, which is where a lot of people get confused over this matter.

Let me make this explicitly clear: ACP does not, has never and will never own anything published within the covers and pages of any SONIC or SONIC-related comic except for the actual books themselves. They have no claim to any of the characters, concepts and stories that the fans enjoy. There is no © Archie Comics anywhere on any of those books for precisely that reason.

VLA at SVA...

Above photo: Outside the School of Visual Arts.

The School of Visual Arts (located at 209 East 23rd Street, New York, NY) is hosting a guest speaker from Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA).

Press release from the School of Visual of Arts:

Business and Legal Issues for Visual Artists

Tuesday, November 29, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Amphitheater, 209 E. 23 Street, 3rd floor

This presentation will provide an introduction to some of the more pressing legal concerns for artists today, such as copyright and trademarks; contractual agreements; the use of appropriated material; websites and the internet; and employment issues such as work-for-hire.

Guest Speaker, Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts

RSVP by logging into www.collegecentral.com/sva and viewing "Upcoming Events Programs."

I constantly tell my students that professional artists have to be businesspeople as well as artists. We spend a good deal of time discussing the business side of the comics industry. We go over how contracts work, the differences between a copyright and trademark, and other work-for-hire issues. So, the above-mentioned event would be worthwhile for anyone not-in-the-know who would want to work as a professional creative person.

What’s occupying Frank Miller’s mind?

Above photo: Comics creator Frank Miller (DAREDEVIL, SIN CITY, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and HOLY TERROR).

Frank Miller shares his thoughts on the "Occupy" movement which started (at least here in the United States) in New York City's Zuccotti Park.

From Miller’s blog, Frank Miller Ink:

The "Occupy" movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. "Occupy" is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.



Above artwork: Over the many years, Frank Miller has been very vocal concerning hot topics like Creator’s Rights, Censorship, Hollywood, and terrorism.



Above: Artwork from Frank Miller’s recently-published graphic novel, HOLY TERROR.

It’s refreshing to see an opinion from our industry, the comics industry, that is not so (typically) Liberal. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is made up of Socialists and Anarchists whose views are not the same as those of America’s Founding Fathers. You can’t just move into a privately-owned park, smoke dope, assault police officers, and commit rape (news that I have not seen reported by the media).



Above: Cover artwork to Frank Miller’s DAREDEVIL #188.

Strange visitor from another planet...

Above: Cover art to DC Comics’ rebooted and renumbered ACTION COMICS #5 by Andy Kubert and Jesse Delperdang.

ACTION COMICS #1 was first published in April 1938 (which had a cover date of June) by National Allied Publications (know known as DC Comics). It has been reported that Superman creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, were paid $130 by National for this first Superman story. My understanding is that the payment covered only publishing rights. It did not include rights to copyright or trademark of the Superman property.



Above: The cover to 1938's ACTION COMICS #1 featuring the origin and first appearance of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s Superman.

In March of 2008, a federal court awarded Jerry Siegel’s heirs fifty-percent of the copyright to the Superman material that appeared in ACTION COMICS #1.

Federal District Judge Stephen G. Larson stated:

After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in ACTION COMICS Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster should have retained ownership of Superman. Other than the folks at DC Comics (and DC Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Entertainment, and Time Warner), I don’t think many, nowadays, would disagree with this. It only makes sense to me since Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster drew the Superman origin story that appeared in ACTION COMICS #1 before ever being hired by National Allied Publications.

Recently, DC Comics has relaunched ACTION COMICS. It looks like with (the new) ACTION COMICS #5, the story of the infant Superman’s escape from a doomed Krypton will (again) be retold. This sounds to me like the same origin story that first appeared beginning in (the original) ACTION COMICS #1.

ACTION COMICS #5 solicitation from DC Comics:

As the assault from an alien threat takes a turn for the worse for Metropolis, keys facts about Superman’s past are brought to light for the first time! And how can certain elements from The Man of Steel’s future help to prevent the theft of the millennium? Don’t miss this awesome issue from series writer Grant Morrison and the guest art team of Andy Kubert and Jesse Delperdang!

If DC Comics retells Superman’s origin in ACTION COMICS #5, will the Siegel family be compensated? Does the Siegel family have any say or control over the content in ACTION COMICS #5? Do they have reprint rights to the original ACTION COMICS #1? If they own half of the copyright, can the Siegels be ignored? Are they even making a stink about this?

Now, I’m not interested in DC Comics’ new rebooted and renumbered universe. But, I do care about how creators are treated.

For more on this topic, check out "Siegel and Superboy" and "SUPERMAN: SECRET ORIGINS?"

Do we still need Diamond Comic Distributors?

Above: A couple of panels from Scott Kurtz’s PvP.

I’ve never had any problems with Diamond Comic Distributors. But, I know some small press guys and gals who have had problems with Diamond Comic Distributors.

The Direct Market was a big help to comics back in the late 1970s and 1980s. But, now, having only one comic book distributor shipping to comic book stores and with the advent of profitable downloadable digital comics, do we still need Diamond Comic Distributors?

PvP creator Scott Kurtz doesn’t think so:

You know, I sold PvP in comic book shops for seven years and I love all the retailers I met. But it makes no sense for me as an independent creator to sell my books to readers through a publisher/distributor/retailer chain when I can just sell directly to them. Diamond is a huge pain in the ass and they take 60% of my cover price. Because my business model skewed to the online side of things, and I decided to do what’s best for my business and my livelihood, now I’m an enemy of brick and mortar stores.

And seeing Diamond Comic Distributors trying to get a piece of digital comics' sales really makes me laugh. They’re seeing the writing on the wall (so to speak). For years, the larger comic book publishers didn’t care about webcomics. But, now that there’s a way to make money from downloadable digital comics, they’re all over that.

DESTROY and DESTROY again…

Above: Cover to Scott McCloud’s DESTROY!! which was published in 1986.

From Scott McCloud:

I got the idea when I first heard people complaining about a Marvel comic called SuperBoxers and claiming that it was "nothing but senseless violence from beginning to end." I thought this sounded cool, but was disappointed, upon acquiring a copy, to discover that SuperBoxers included a plot, characterization, and other distractions. It wasn't PURE. Destroy!! was my attempt to get it right.



Above: Cover to Marvel Comics’ forthcoming DESTROY by Carlo Pagulayan.

Scott’s DESTROY was a very funny parody. And Marvel’s more serious use of the title name makes me wonder if the publisher can’t come up with some new ideas.

Who wrote what...?

Above: Cover to Mark Evanier’s most-excellent KIRBY: KING OF COMICS.

I’ve been rereading Mark Evanier’s KIRBY: KING OF COMICS to get Mark’s insights on the issue of who wrote what in the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby collaborations.

Mark, also, addressed this in "Who did what on the Lee-Kirby collaborations?"

Mark Evanier states:

I do think Stan has been unfairly maligned by those who've said that all he did was retype and polish Jack's notations. I also think Jack was wronged to some extent by credits that gave him no credit for anything other than drawing because he certainly did more than that.

That seems believable and reasonable to me.



Above photo: Two inside pages from KIRBY: KING OF COMICS.

D.J. and Al talk Kirby (and Jack Kirby talks, too)…

Above photo: The King of Comics at his drawing table.

Here’s a recent e-mail exchange between D.J. (Drawer O’ Stuff) Coffman and myself concerning Jack Kirby:


Al, you know what might be cool? If someone emailed this MP3 of Jack Kirby's own voice stating that HE and HE ALONE created the comics and how the process worked.

http://djcoffman.com/Kirby.mp3

I think that kinda using his own voice, it's testimony from beyond the grave that counteracts the horsecrap Stan Lee said.

Good day!

DJC


Hi DJ,

Thanks for the mp3. I love these old Jack Kirby audio interviews.

I’ve heard and read similar comments by Jack Kirby about he being the sole writer of the comics that he drew. Kirby made such claims to Will Eisner in SHOP TALK and Gary Groth in THE COMICS JOURNAL.

The problem I have with that is (and I’m sure you’re going to disagree with me) that it contradicts the opinions of others like Stan Lee (who I know you dislike), Joe Simon, Roger Stern (who found the Stan Lee plot for FF #1), and even Steve Ditko.

I love Jack Kirby’s work. I believe that he was lied to and screwed by Marvel. I very much doubt that Marvel would exist without the contributions of Jack Kirby. And I think that Marvel/Disney should honor such contributions. But, I have such difficulty believing that Jack Kirby was the only writer of all the comics that he worked on when others say otherwise, especially when at the time of those interviews, Kirby’s memory was quite poor. Am I wrong here?

I hope you don’t think this is a slam against a man that you and I both greatly respect. I just have my doubts.

Does Mark talk specifically about this topic in KING OF COMICS? I don’t recall. I’ll "Cc" this e-mail to him.

Glory to God.

best,
Professor Al Nickerson


Hey AL, no worries there. I just thought in light of how the judge tossed out expert testimony, and basically said well, Stan was there so his testimony was superior... that maybe they'd want to hear Jack in his own words. Because, ultimately he was there too. :)

Nothing against those other guys, they're all great! But they weren't "there" to witness the actual creations either.

I never take anything personal Al! I love you man! :) Thanks for keeping this issue out there and people talking about it!

DJC

Kirby estate files appeal...

Above: Still the comics legend, Jack Kirby.

Deadline.com reports "Jack Kirby Estate Appeals Loss To Marvel:"

The notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal was filed today. Specifically, the estate of comic book superhero legend Kirby -- co-creator of Captain America, The Fantastic Four, The X-Men, The Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, The Silver Surfer and Thor -- sent notices terminating copyright to publishers Marvel and Disney, as well as film studios that have made movies and TV shows based on characters he created or co-created, including Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures.

Creators continue to speak out about Kirby vs. Marvel decision…

Above: Steve Bissette’s Tyrant.

Steve Bissette discusses further the Kirby versus Marvel/Disney verdict in "Honoring A Fallen King, Part 2". In addition, Mr. Bissette writes about Copyright, work-for-hire, Stan Lee, John Byrne, and contracts:

However, some of the worst abuses of creators I have seen in this and other fields are linked to work-for-hire language and contracts (specifically, the worst I have ever seen came out of Archie Comics, Disney, and various gaming companies, none of whom I have personally worked for under such contracts, though I have copies of those contracts in my files).



Above: Dave Sim’s Cerebus.

Also, thanks to Steve Bissette, as he posted a link to Dave Sim’s recent fax concerning Dave’s thoughts on Jack Kirby, Marvel, and work-for-hire.

For more insights to Steve and Dave’s views on comic book Creator's Rights, visit Ya Can't Erase Ink...

And Colleen Doran continues with "MUST READ: Copyhype on the Kirby Case":

Creators, the lesson was hard won by our forefathers. Don’t sign away your precious creations without the full understanding of what you are doing. I’ve signed many work for hire agreements, and have never had cause to regret it, because the work for hire contracts I sign with DC Comics are substantially better than anything creators got 50 years ago.

Creators speak out about Kirby vs. Marvel decision…

Above photo: The comics legend, Jack Kirby.

Several comic book creators have spoken out about the recent court ruling between the Jack Kirby family and Marvel/Disney.

Stephen Bissette calls for a boycott of Marvel:

I don’t question the legal logic Marvel’s attorneys made, and the court decision reflects. However, nothing is being said about the conditions under which Kirby signed, and was pressured to sign, the contracts presented. I don’t think "extortion" is too unfair a word to use, particularly in the very public case of the Marvel artwork "return" contracts.

and…

I suggest, for starters, simply pulling the plug on all individual support for any and all Kirby-derived Marvel ANYTHING (comics, movies, videogames, merchandizing).

Now.

Today.

D.J. Coffman writes:

And the Kirby Estate loses to Marvel. So much for Marvel doing the right thing.

Colleen Doran takes a close look at the court papers:

The expert opinions of Mark Evanier and John Morrow on behalf of Kirby were roundly dismissed as hearsay.

And John Byrne says:

Difference being Siegel and Shuster were able to show EXACTLY that, that Superman had been created independently and SOLD to National Periodicals, and was not a "work made for hire".

Everything Kirby did for Marvel falls squarely within the latter category.

Work-for-hire was a sucky system, but it was the only game in town, for most people. It was also not a secret, and, perhaps most significantly, it was how Kirby ran his own company, in the 1950s.

Kirby vs. Marvel decided...

Above: This Jack Kirby piece was used in "The Art of Mickey Mouse."

Both Bleeding Cool and The Beat are reporting that the court has decided that Jack Kirby’s work for Marvel was work-made-for-hire. Thus, the Kirby estate is entitled to zero money and zero ownership to any characters that Jack Kirby had co-created while at Marvel.

This is no surprise to me. I didn’t think the Kirby estate had any chance of winning this one.

There’s nothing wrong with being compensated for your services. I don’t even have a real problem with work-made-for-hire IF A) you know what you’re getting yourself into, B) you don’t create any characters for someone else, and C) if you're treated fairly.

Hopefully, the Siegel family will clean Warner Bros. clock over Superman.

For more information about comic book Creator's Rights, visit Ya Can't Erase Ink... Here, we feature conversations and interviews with Scott McCloud, Dave Sim, Steve Bissette, Rick Veitch, and others about The Creator’s Bill of Rights and other Creator’s Rights issues.

ARCHIE WORLD TOUR...

The ARCHIE WORLD TOUR trade paperback is now on sale. I was one of the inkers of these comics when they first saw print in ARCHIE & FRIENDS.



Above: Artwork from ARCHIE & FRIENDS #119. Pencils by Rex Lindsey and inks by me.

Although, I don’t expect to see any royalties from the sales of this book. Now-a-days, royalties paid to creators is fairly standard in comics. Marvel pays royalties. DC pays royalties. Why are some other comic book publishers so horrible when it comes to royalties and the return of original artwork?



Above: Panel from ARCHIE & FRIENDS #118. Pencils by Rex Lindsey and inks by me.

Ken Penders versus Archie Comics...

Above: SONIC THE HEDGEHOG writer and penciler, Ken Penders.

Ken Penders continues to claim ownership of stories and characters that he wrote and penciled during his time on SONIC THE HEDGEHOG. Penders states that he never signed a work-made-for-hire contact with Archie Comics.

Bleeding Cool reports that "The Ken Penders/Archie Comics Lawsuit Continues."

From Bleeding Cool:

But despite this Ken [Penders] is stating that he never signed any such contract and is asking for the original documents. He also cites Scott Shaw and Elliot Maggin as previous Archie freelancers that weren't given a contract to sign, despite multiple requests in Shaw's case.

In a declaration, Archie Comics president Mike Pellerito states that Maggin has "no relation whatsoever to ACP" despite the fact that he has credits for the company. Mike does question why Ken has only got statements from so few creators rather then the vast majority.

Well, that’s because the Archie Comics' work-made-for-hire contract that we signed (however unfortunate) states that creators can not discuss Archie Comics business outside of Archie Comics. Of course comic book creators will be hesitant to speak out against a publisher if they think that their statements might become actionable. It’s not because such creators support that particular publisher or that they feel some sort of loyalty to that particular publisher. It’s just that these creators don’t want to be sued. And comic book creators are sued more often than you think.

As Colleen Doran once stated:

I’d be even happier if Archie Comics actually did value and treasure its creators. They have one of the worst work for hire agreements I have ever seen. I refused to sign. Because I have too much respect for myself, not to mention Dan DeCarlo.

I first blogged about Ken Penders’ problems with Archie Comics with "Who owns Sonic?".