Mon Sep 1, 2008 7:46AM21 comments ›
Mon Sep 1, 2008 — by Mike Gold
Getting Screwed, by Mike Gold
Brainiac On Banjo
We’re all familiar with the story of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. They created Superman but nobody would buy it so it sat in a drawer for a few years until an editor remembered seeing the submission and thought it would fill out the first issue of a new title that was lacking a lead story. Siegel and Shuster signed away their rights for something slightly in excess of a hundred bucks, although over the next decade they earned hundreds of thousands off of the property. The trouble is, the publisher was making millions.
Siegel and Shuster were getting screwed. They raised a stink about it and found themselves out of jobs. Later, after several publishing failures Siegel limped back to the offending publisher to work-for-hire for page-rate; Shuster was blind and couldn’t work for anybody.
Batman co-creator Bob Kane saw what was going on and offered to negotiate a contract that would: a) cover himself financially, b) somehow guarantee him sole creator credit, and c) screw the people who made Batman truly unique, people like co-creator Bill Finger and artists such as Jerry Robinson and Dick Sprang. This scenario was repeated by a number of creators who became publishers or intellectual property owners years and years later.
So the moral standard is rather flexible. That’s business. That’s human nature – most businessmen aren’t all that different from Al Capone, who, in fact, was generally more appreciative of his end-users than he was of his competitors. Now, everybody cooperates benignly, being careful to operate out of a sense of mutual self-interest instead of an actual conspiracy that might constitute anti-trust. We’ve just endured eight years of a government that was totally dedicated to this concept.
I would have rather had Al Capone running things.
Today, most freelancers really aren’t much better off than their counterparts in the so-called Golden Age. Perhaps they’re a bit better paid; a few most certainly are, but such is always the case. No retirement, no health insurance, few benefits; you can be at the top of the heap one day and, as John Ostrander pointed out last week, you turn 50 and are considered “too old” to know what’s going on.
Hell, folks, these comic books are barely attracting 10,000 buyers. By sound financial logic, NOBODY knows what’s going on. Japanese publishers wouldn’t get out of bed for these kind of numbers, and Japan’s a much smaller nation.
The smaller publishers have serious cash-flow problems and probably always will. Producing comic books is a very money-intensive proposition: it takes a long time for publishers to recoup their page rates, and not everything is going to make a profit. So, inadvertently, they are going to screw the freelancers simply by doing their business.
Because the comic book world, well, the American comic book nation, has allowed itself to be reduced to the size of a donut shop, rumors and outright lies are rampant. There’s a lot of folks who don’t get out much, and it’s easier to cover one’s own inadequacies with thick green smoke. Freelancers compete for the same jobs; despite several efforts, they’ve never been able to organize. Freelancers screw themselves, and it’s the owners who have the orgasm.
Will this change? Can this change? Well, you can’t change human nature, but maybe someday writers and artists will be able to get together and organize. Maybe publishers will develop new markets – certainly, that’s what we’re trying to do here at ComicMix. But we’ve got to learn the lesson that it takes more than a love for the medium to make things work – it takes cooperation, innovation and, most of all, something we don’t see much of in businessmen today.
It takes ethics.
Mike Gold is editor-in-chief of ComicMix.
Jump to comments (21) 
More News from ComicMix
- Review: 'Justice League the Complete Series'18 hours ago, 0 comments
- The Point Radio: Life on the set of 'Law & Order'1 day ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Two Girls and a Guy' on Blu-ray1 day ago, 0 comments
- Add ComicMix to Twitter lists and get entered to win a free graphic novel!1 day ago, 0 comments
- 'Kick-Ass' posters revealed1 day ago, 0 comments
- J.J. Abrams takes on the Micronauts1 day ago, 1 comment
- Remember, remember, the fifth of November, and the inspiration for 'V For Vendetta'3 days ago, 1 comment
- Review: 'Zorro' The Complete First and Second Seasons3 days ago, 3 comments
- Crazy Sexy Geeks: Celebrity Wonder Woman Debate!3 days ago, 1 comment
- Happy 20th anniversary, Wallace and Gromit!4 days ago, 0 comments
Comments (21)
Elayne Riggs (8:40 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Hear hear. The most basic obligation for any company that contracts with freelancers is to pay them what they're owed.
Instead, not only do some of these publishers not pay, but they turn nasty when someone blows the whistle.
Alan Coil (10:36 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Some may read the blog about CrossGen and say, "That is old news.", but it is pertinent today. The same things continue to happen with other publishers, and their responses always seem to be the same. They apologize for the inconvenience, make promises they know they will not be able to keep, then when called on that, get defensive--then abusive--and threaten lawsuits, etc., etc., etc.
I guess human nature, at least in the comic book industry, is all too predictable.
Tony Isabella (10:43 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
How dare you, Mike? Everyone knows that the comics publishers are the only ones who care about the characters as much as the fans do. It's the greedy freelancers who expect the publishers to honor their agreements and to pay them and unrealistic, unprofessional shit like that. Freelancers should be happy for the opportunity to get published. DC is mother, DC is father. I think I'll have some more of that fruit drink, Rev. Jim.
John Ostrander (10:50 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
It's all just "product" and the creators are all just "widgets". In any business deal, who is more important -- the one with the ideas or the one with the money? According to the guys with the money, it's them. So far as they're concerned, ideas are a dime a dozen; it's the one who puts together the financing that is the real genius. They risk capital, thus they are deserving of the biggest payback. I don't think there's any value differentiating between good ideas and bad; it's still just product. NEW is bad because if it really is innovative, it's more risky. Doing the same stuff again and again or doing something LIKE you've been doing has a proven history and is thus less risky as an investment. At the very least, the one who approves the project can cover their ass by showing that there is a track record for it -- even if it doesn't work THIS time.
It really comes down to marketing; they believe more in marketing than they do in product, I think. Of course, marketing believes in selling something that is already likely to sell anyway. That's how they cover THEIR ass.
"Ethics"? Can they sell that? Can they SPELL that? Oh well. I'll stop now and go write MY column.
Martha Thomases (11:37 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Not to be contrarian (I do write fiction myself), but there are some publishers/producers who are creative – Selznick and Cerf, for example. In an ideal world, the money people find creative talent, who produce work that the marketing people then introduce to the audience.
And then, of course, there's the world we live in ...
Mike Gold (11:40 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Yep. I love that part about "marketing." Although I hear more complaints from writers about the art directors... and I've got one of those, myself.
Martha Thomases (12:25 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
And, similarly, I'm amused when people say that the way to market comics is to publish good books. That's not a marketing function, it's an editing function. When the book is completed to the satisfaction of the publisher, then it's marketing's job to find the audience that is most likely to enjoy the book.
Every comic is someone's favorite.
mike weber (12:19 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Willie Nelson said it: "..and if you think that's easy, Mr Music Executive, why don't you write your own songs?"
Mike Gold (12:27 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Do they all deserve money
from a song that they've never heard
They don't know the tune
and they don't know the words
But they don't give a damn
-- Ray Davis, "The Money-Go-Round"
mike weber (1:26 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
That was the lyric that came to mind when i read the article about Fox trying to torpedo "Watchmen".
Howard Johnson (11:09 AM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
To me, nothing underscores all of this more than sitting through The Dark Knight and seeing the credit reading "Batman created by Bob Kane." Where is Bill Finger? Where is a credit for Jerry Robinson for co-creating the Joker? Most comic fans know the Kane credit for the very sad joke that it is, but one has to feel for Finger's family (not to mention Jerry, who, fortunately, is still here to appreciate it)...
Aaargh! My blood is boiling!
Delmo Walters Jr. (4:14 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
Are there any surviving members of Finger's family? I know he had a son, David, who has passed away.
Mike Gold (4:45 PM on Mon Sep 1, 2008)
That's true. To DC's credit, every time we reprinted a Batman story with an unidentified writer (I handled the original Greatest Batman and Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told volumes, so I was around that block several times) that had been published while Bill was around, his son would get the reprint check, as if Bill had written the story. A nice gesture to a man who got stiffed, badly, by a previous ownership.
Vinnie Bartilucci (9:35 AM on Tue Sep 2, 2008)
"Where is a credit for Jerry Robinson for co-creating the Joker?"
Two things - IIRC, the Kane estate has been adamant about not allowing other creators' names to appear on batman creations, tho DC has tried to get them added. Also, Jerry Robinson now has an editor emeritus position at DC and (I believed) received a sizable honorarium before Dark Knight Came out, just as Neal Adams and (I believe) our own Denny O did just before Ras Ahl Ghul got used in Batman Begins. They're doing what they can with who they can. Whether or not they're doing enough is open to debate. (I can hear Tony Isabella's teeth grinding from here...) The whole Siegel/Superboy mishegas has got them re-thinking their decades old policies.
I've said it many times; there's a marked difference between what's Right and what's Required. As obvious as some actions are to people watching from the sidelines, there will ever be a battery of white-lipped attorneys commenting that any payments made or credits given to a writer or artist could be used as leverage later for a full lawsuit to gain control of their creations, so it's legally more prudent to deny any credit.
There's guys out there who know damn well what they signed, and are at peace with it. The story goes that Steve Ditko has refused any payments by Sam Raimi as a thank for the co-creation of Spider-Man. He knows it was work for hire, and makes no attempt to get what others would say he's owed.
Jim Shooter told an interesting story at Baltimore last year. Many years after writing Legion, when he was at marvel, he saw someone who used to work in DC's legal department. "I used to work with your father" she said, referring to the writer of Legion. He explained that was indeed he, and she told him something interesting. He was a minor when he wrote the Legion stories; he could, if he so chose, claim that any contracts and transfer of ownerships he signed were voic, and he could OWN the characters he created for Legion. But he knew full well what he was signing when he did, he saw no need to take advantage of a loophole, and never made sich claims. Of course, as soon as Bob Wayne heard this story, he calmly asked if Jim would meet him in his office on Monday to sign a few papers backing that up...
Mike Gold (9:44 AM on Tue Sep 2, 2008)
"the Kane estate has been adamant about not allowing other creators' names to appear on batman creations, tho DC has tried to get them added."
I think that's a myth. I've seen the contracts signed by Kane while he was alive. Fact is, there ARE signed agreements with Bob Kane that allow DC to full use of the character. If the company were to acknowledge that Finger was co-creator, the whole deal could unravel as there is no signed agreement with Finger or his estate. Why should they take such an enormous risk?
"Jim Shooter ... was a minor when he wrote the Legion stories; he could, if he so chose, claim that any contracts and transfer of ownerships he signed were voic, and he could OWN the characters he created for Legion."
Another cute story, but technically, Jim could own them anyway. There were no contracts, just an agreement on the back of the check. By endorsing the check, you were, in theory, signing that agreement. However, the Supreme Court subsequently ruled such agreements to be illegal.
I wonder if Jim reads ComicMix?
Russ Rogers (2:39 PM on Tue Sep 2, 2008)
Speaking of uncredited and under-compensated creators, is Michael Davis getting paid anything in the new deal with Milestone and DC?
Mike Gold (3:06 PM on Tue Sep 2, 2008)
We'd have to ask Mr. Davis.
Personally, I haven't seen him lighting cigars with $50.00 bills lately...
Michael Davis (3:36 PM on Wed Sep 3, 2008)
OH HELL NO,you have not seen me lighting cigars with $50.00 bills lately.
I light Euro's baby.
Michael Davis (3:42 PM on Wed Sep 3, 2008)
Russ,
I never talk money specifics of any deal in public. To me that's bad form. I will say this about creators, have a lawyer.
Russ Rogers (3:51 PM on Wed Sep 3, 2008)
If only Lennon and McCartney had that advice before signing away the publishing to all their Beatles songs!
James Hudnall (1:01 PM on Wed Sep 3, 2008)
As someone who has both been a creator and a publisher, I've seen all sides of the business. It's very hard for small companies to make it in this business. Creators rightfully expect to get paid for their work, but when there's no money, the publisher is the one holding the bag. They can lose thousands, upon thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands, even) when they go under. And the freelancers will go around the business cursing their names as crooks and so on, when really, they're just businessmen who had a failed venture and ended up in serious debt.
I'm glad I was never in the kind of mess some of the 80s publishers I knew got in, but I've lost money in publishing. It's hard being on the other side of the desk. I haev a lot more empathy for publishers than I did when I was just a freelancer looking to get paid.
But, as for the way people were treated back in the day, there are a lot of really disgraceful stories. Epic. And there's no excuses for some of what went on.