Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,923 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Apr 28, 2015 19:46:02 GMT -5
I wasn't quite sure where to put this post, but since it involves classic characters, creators like Gerry Conway, and the infamous Siegel and Shuster lawsuit against DC over rights to Superboy, this seemed like the best place for it. Conway has just written an inside look at how DC's new corporate regime is rolling back the clock by aggressively screwing creators out of the royalties that were negotiated for them back during the Jenette Kahn and Paul Levitz days. The post is pretty long and detailed, but here's the upshot, using the Flash TV series supporting character Caitlin Snow, aka Killer Frost. This is the second version of Killer Frost, the first having the secret identity of Crystal Frost, who was co-created by Conway. DC is refusing to pay the creators of Caitlin Snow any royalties for the TV show because they say this version of Killer Frost is derivative of Conway's original creation. However, they are also refusing to pay any royalties to Conway, because he didn't create the Caitlin Snow identity being used on the show. As a result, DC is essentially claiming that nobody created the character, and therefore nobody is due any royalties for her use on the TV show. As Conway points out in his essay, this claim by DC that they don't owe rights because the characters are "derivative" of earlier characters was disproved decisively decades ago when Siegel and Shuster sued DC over the rights to Superboy. DC used this same defense in that case but lost, as the courts declared Superboy to be a new creation. However, the court costs from the case were so high that S+S were forced to sell Superboy's rights to DC in order to pay the court costs. DC seems to be applying that lesson here, assuming that creators can't afford to take Warner Brothers to court over the royalties they are due now. In other words, DC is a bunch of complete soulless a-holes. Which I think we knew just from reading the product they have been putting out over the past few years. But if you were still wondering, here you go. www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/131478-dc-using-spurious-logic-to-screw-creators-out-of-royalties-and-credit.html |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Apr 28, 2015 19:53:10 GMT -5
Every character is derivative of another to some degree.
I could see citing one angle, but you can't have it both ways.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,451
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2015 19:55:38 GMT -5
Wow. Upon actually reading the article, there's a consistent pattern on DC's part of doing far more than even mentioned in the OP. Incredibly distressing. I'd boycott DC, but, well, I haven't bought or watched anything of theirs outside of the films for the past ten years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Apr 28, 2015 20:15:00 GMT -5
It's times like this that make me wish Levitz and Kahn were back in charge again.  |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Apr 28, 2015 20:19:35 GMT -5
I guess the legal end around on this is that the Caitlin Snow on The Flash hasn't been (and perhaps will not be) depicted as Killer Frost. However, unlike the case with the new Felicity Smoak, who is basically a completely new character with an established name, this Caitlin Snow does actually share characteristics with the original incarnation, ie works at STAR Labs and has a connection with Ronnie Raymond. Whether that's enough to say that she is not a distinct character, I don't know.
It does seem like a dick move to me, though, but I think we all had a sense stuff like this was going to happen when Paul Levitz was offered his golden parachute. How did it take before DC started pressuring Dave Gibbons for his Before Watchmen blessing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 28, 2015 21:02:10 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what was missing from this comics renaissance, screwing over the creators! How's that for nostalgia? /s
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 28, 2015 23:05:37 GMT -5
I haven't spent a dime on anything DC's done since they put Orson Card on one of their Superman titles and I never will, but...wow, this is sickening. Even for these animals. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 29, 2015 0:52:52 GMT -5
Another justification that I made the correct choice with no longer supporting both DC (and Marvel as well) these last few years. Its time for these corporate entities to go belly up. These character creations from the 1960s and before should be public domain by now |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 29, 2015 7:00:29 GMT -5
This is the sort of thing that makes one angry. If you think about it too long, you get lost in bitterness. Ugh.
Anyway, my hope is that one day the big corporations and publishers are phased out completely. It is possible, given the fact that people are producing web-comics all by themselves. Better yet, we need to advance as a society and implement basic morality and ethics into the laws in a serious way, as opposed to the useless lip-service that's rendered ineffective by legal loopholes that currently passes for the real thing. In my mind, the very concept of a corporation gaining complete monetary control of someone else's creative output shouldn't even be a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 29, 2015 10:43:15 GMT -5
I read that Len Wein earned more royalties from Lucius Fox being in Batman Begins than he had from both of Wolverine's film appearances at the time.
Obviously that was under the Levitz regime.
This behaviour is typical of the increased corporate atmosphere at DC and it is what will ultimately kill the relevancy of DC (as well as Marvel). Theres just no incentive for creators to actually create anything at the Big Two.
The only real appeal of working in the Big Two is, as Alan Moore said, to play with the toys from their childhood. Those two factors combined are why so many of the Big Two's stories are based on old stories. Digging up old villains, bringing back old supporting characters, reverting to old status quos and making incestuous crossover events like Blackest Night. New ideas are mostly limited to taking an old characters and brands and giving them "indie" style or making them a minority. The last three noteworthy Batman villains have been the Court of Owls (2011), Professor Pyg (2007) and Hush (2003). And of course, the other major style of storytelling now is "Lets make the comics bend to corporate needs," which is why Nick Fury now has a black son who looks like Samuel L. Jackson, is named Nick Fury and is the head of SHIELD, and why Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Inhumans, and why creators are outright banned from creating new mutant characters.
Aside from that, working in the Big Two is close to being a dead-end job. If you're lucky you'll advance high enoughu that you don't have to draw or write comics anymore (like Joe Quesada and Geoff Johns have in the last few years and like Stan Lee and John Romita before them), getting yourself a salary with benefits and a pension. A "proper" job. If you're actually creating the comics then you get no benefits, no pension and no rights to what you make, all at low rates (it's common advice to artists that if you can work in any other artistic field do that instead because they all pay better than comics). The benefit to working at the Big Two is exposure. It's an opportunity to make a name for yourself, which with luck can be parlayed into successful creator owned work. Artists at least can take advantage of their names with commissioned work to fans.
There is no happy ending to this, not for the Big Two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 29, 2015 11:08:48 GMT -5
I think this is actually worse for the older creators like Conway, who have hundreds of characters in the DC back catalog, and for whom enforcement of any kind of ownership rights or equity payments is largely a retroactive matter. I'll bet that for current creators, and in particular the ones who have a lot of leverage due to sales or popularity, they go in with terms a priori spelled out on any characters they've created (or will create in the future) and payments that are due. I'd wager that guys like Scott Snyder or Charles Soule had very specific terms made clear in their contracts to ensure they'd get paid for characters they create. Snyder is probably very happy that the Court of Owls is being adapted to the Batman animated productions.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 29, 2015 11:11:53 GMT -5
I haven't spent a dime on anything DC's done since they put Orson Card on one of their Superman titles and I never will, but...wow, this is sickening. Even for these animals. I don't think that OSC on Superman thing ever happened... they cancelled it (do to backlash or something else I don't know. I was sad about that, actually, while his politics are pretty despicible, he's a great writer, and if he kept his politics away it would probably be pretty awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 29, 2015 18:14:10 GMT -5
I think this is actually worse for the older creators like Conway, who have hundreds of characters in the DC back catalog, and for whom enforcement of any kind of ownership rights or equity payments is largely a retroactive matter. I'll bet that for current creators, and in particular the ones who have a lot of leverage due to sales or popularity, they go in with terms a priori spelled out on any characters they've created (or will create in the future) and payments that are due. I'd wager that guys like Scott Snyder or Charles Soule had very specific terms made clear in their contracts to ensure they'd get paid for characters they create. Snyder is probably very happy that the Court of Owls is being adapted to the Batman animated productions. Yes, my ultimate falling out with John Byrne on his forum had everything to do with the notion that Kirby, and other creators including Byrne himself, particularly those still alive, should retroactively benefit from the new status quo. We don't tolerate the idea of only those born after certain progressive milestones to benefit from specific rights in most areas of society, so why should this be the case with royalties? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 29, 2015 22:16:35 GMT -5
I haven't spent a dime on anything DC's done since they put Orson Card on one of their Superman titles and I never will, but...wow, this is sickening. Even for these animals. I don't think that OSC on Superman thing ever happened... they cancelled it (do to backlash or something else I don't know. I was sad about that, actually, while his politics are pretty despicible, he's a great writer, and if he kept his politics away it would probably be pretty awesome.
It didn't happen, but only because of the backlash. DC had every intention of putting their flagship character into the hands of the type of bigot Superman was created to fight against in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 1, 2015 7:12:55 GMT -5
After reading Conway's blog post in some detail I'm even more infuriated by this. What I don't fully understand is if DC is still technically operating under the Levitz system or not? If so, what DC is basically saying is; "We currently don't have someone in an analogous position that possesses Levitz's strong moral and ethical center, so good luck getting what you're owed, suckers!"
|
|
