Zuda, Zuda
One of the panels I was most looking forward to at Wizard World Chicago was the Zudacomics panel, where Richard Bruning and Kwanza Johnson were going to show off the reader and answer questions. Sadly, their demo wasn’t working at the time, so it just turned into a lot of questions and answers. Jason Fliegel was there and covered many of the thing I wanted to, but there are a few points to add and emphasize.
Jason points out the issue of the contracts: "First… DC didn’t brief the panelists on the legalities of the deal that is being offered to creators. Or DC hasn’t figured it out themselves yet. Or both. During the panel, Bruning noted that DC would own the trademarks in the characters. I asked whether the trademarks would be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office, and if so, in what categories. Bruning and Johnson looked flabbergasted, then bullshitted me for thirty seconds before moving on to the next question. Clearly they had no idea."
Let me add: DC/Zuda will let the creators keep the copyright to the work, but they will retain the trademark. If you think that’s not a problem, let me refer you to Chris Butcher: "Trademark is interesting, it’s why the KRAZY KAT collections that Fantagraphics are doing are called Krazy & Ignatz and why the GASOLINE ALLEY collections that D+Q are doing are called Walt & Skeezix. The copyright on those early works may have fallen into the public domain, but the titles (marks) used in business (trade) haven’t, and are still owned by the syndicates." Or think Captain Marvel instead of Shazam.
Continuing on, from Jason: "Speaking of legalities, Bruning and Johnson mentioned that they would be putting the contract online for everyone to see. Makes sense, since you ought to know what kind of deal you’re getting before you sign on to the deal. Bruning and Johnson also said they would be putting an English translation of the contract online, since lawyers don’t speak English. This peeved Mike Chary and me; we are both lawyers, and I’m pretty sure we both speak English. In point of fact, a good lawyer won’t put anything in a contract without a reason. I’m assuming DC has good lawyers, so I therefore assume that all of the contractual language has a purpose. Dollars to donuts, the "English translation" they post will be close to what the real contract says but not exactly right in some of the details. I wonder what will happen if someone sues Zuda over one of those differences?"
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of lawyers, two more notes: the contract will be a one-size-fits-all contract, take it or leave it. Bruning also noted that satire & parody strips might have to go past DC’s legal department. Won’t that be fun.
The big stunner is that DC wanted to keep complete control in-house, and not leverage the corporate wisdom of parent company AOL. This makes exactly as much sense as DC saying "We don’t want to leverage the knowledge of Warner Brothers when we make our TV shows and movies, we want to do it all ourselves, so we can learn." For that matter, DC isn’t keeping it all in house, as they’ve subcontracted the building of the reader (and presumably the site) to IBM.
Also in the control category: Zuda will be keeping complete control over negotiations for all tie-in rights– movies, TV, action figures, and so on. Ask the fellows at Milestone how well that worked out for them– or for that matter, ask DC why there were never any toys for Static, and still aren’t.
The most interesting things about the competition is that it’s completely open, so if, say, Mike W. Barr or Tony Isabella wanted to enter the contest, they could. And the winner of the contest, as of now, doesn’t actually have to take the deal for the following 52 weeks. Of course, this is based on a contract that no one’s seen yet, so it may change between now and September.
Finally, Zuda is expecting to launch sometime in October. Here’s hoping.
Careful, your bias is showing.
There were Static Shock toys. They did a Burger King promotion.
You're right; I should have clarified– Milestone toys for sale.
And those toys were based on the cartoon not the comic, there weren't any toys in the 90s when the books weere being published.
Pretty much, it sounds like DC doesn't expect to deal with too many legally savvy creators, which is why they plan to keep the contracts fairly straightforward. Odds are if they get no takers, that policy will change. But odds are they'll get lots of takers. And out of them, maybe a fraction of one percent will ever rise to a level of popularity that challenging the generic contract will ever be an issue."Ask the fellows at Milestone how well that worked out for them– or for that matter, ask DC why there were never any toys for Static, and still aren't."Well, can YOU tell us why there were no Milestone toys for sale? Or better still, can Michael Davis? Or are you just assuming there was some reason or action (or lack of action) that kept there from being Milestone toys, as opposed to just no one being willing to take the chance to make them? New things are a risk, and not everyone is willing to take a risk.
One of the reasons you pick up intellectual property is for its exploitation value. However, you do have to actively exploit those properties. A great many IP holders tend to back-burner certain properties that are creator-owned or partially creator-owned in favor of those properties which they own outright or in which they own a larger share. For example, Matt Groening and his people have made such claims against Fox with respect to their Futurama teevee show, which was punted all over Fox's schedule despite its continued popularity. It took them this long to convince Fox that there was D2DVD potential — and it took Viacom's Cartoon Network underwriting it all to get it off the ground.Plenty of comics, from time to time, have been kept alive because of their merchandising and licensing revenue. From time to time, those creators who felt short-shrifted pursued legal action, and sometimes they've won.
Doesn't Creative Commons also do the plain-English/lawyerese two-versions thing? Has it been a problem for them?