|
|
Post by MDG on Dec 19, 2023 9:31:30 GMT -5
Today I learned that Mac Raboy was paid $300/week when he took over the Flash Gordon Sunday in 1949. That’s $3870 in 2023 money. Or just over $200,000 a year. That’s pretty good money. Well, he may have had to pay assistants out of that, and a writer as well (unless the syndicate provided scripts), but as MWGallaher says, it was a desirable job and a lot of folks were livin' the good life in Fairfield County. Magazine illustrators, too, were well paid and often showed up in ads and articles, though a lot of folks today seem to think every magazine cover from 1939 to 1950 was by Norman Rockwell.
Today, I think the biggest benefit seen by cartoonists doing legacy strips is that they know they have a steady gig, though the pay is nothing like it was in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 19, 2023 10:09:23 GMT -5
Today I learned that Mac Raboy was paid $300/week when he took over the Flash Gordon Sunday in 1949. That’s $3870 in 2023 money. Or just over $200,000 a year. That’s pretty good money. Well, he may have had to pay assistants out of that, and a writer as well (unless the syndicate provided scripts), but as MWGallaher says, it was a desirable job and a lot of folks were livin' the good life in Fairfield County. Magazine illustrators, too, were well paid and often showed up in ads and articles, though a lot of folks today seem to think every magazine cover from 1939 to 1950 was by Norman Rockwell.
Today, I think the biggest benefit seen by cartoonists doing legacy strips is that they know they have a steady gig, though the pay is nothing like it was in the past.
The syndicate provided scripts. He did, initially, pay an assistant (the same guy that did backgrounds for him at Fawcett), but after they parted company there’s no evidence he had another assistant. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 19, 2023 12:24:50 GMT -5
Today I learned that Mac Raboy was paid $300/week when he took over the Flash Gordon Sunday in 1949. That’s $3870 in 2023 money. Or just over $200,000 a year. That’s pretty good money. Well, he may have had to pay assistants out of that, and a writer as well (unless the syndicate provided scripts), but as MWGallaher says, it was a desirable job and a lot of folks were livin' the good life in Fairfield County. Magazine illustrators, too, were well paid and often showed up in ads and articles, though a lot of folks today seem to think every magazine cover from 1939 to 1950 was by Norman Rockwell.
Today, I think the biggest benefit seen by cartoonists doing legacy strips is that they know they have a steady gig, though the pay is nothing like it was in the past.
I think it was Mike Grell I saw quoted saying he was paid the same as one of the previous Tarzan artists, when he did the strip; but it was two decades later and not adjusted for inflation. Either that or Gray Morrow on Flash Gordon. Either way, its not the same income, but it was the same dollar amount. It also doesn't help that those legacy adventure strips are syndicated in so few newspapers. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 1, 2024 6:30:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 1, 2024 12:46:52 GMT -5
Also an artist on Modesty Blaise, the Dark Horse mini-series James Bond: Silent Armageddon, and Sable & Fortune, at Marvel. Great illustrator.
I seem to recall reading that he could be a bit hard to work with, if he didn't like the feature or story, which was part of the reason Silent Armageddon was never finished. He stopped doing it, for some reason, and that was that.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jan 2, 2024 1:12:18 GMT -5
Also an artist on Modesty Blaise, the Dark Horse mini-series James Bond: Silent Armageddon, and Sable & Fortune, at Marvel. Great illustrator. I seem to recall reading that he could be a bit hard to work with, if he didn't like the feature or story, which was part of the reason Silent Armageddon was never finished. He stopped doing it, for some reason, and that was that. Burns had the second shortest run of all the artists on Modesty Blaise: illustrating two and a half stories after Romero quit the strip. (His successor Patrick Wright had the shortest run; one and half stories.) Burns also did the cover art for the 1985-90 Titian Books reprint series. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 2, 2024 9:28:07 GMT -5
So I was looking through some scans of Golden Age ACTION COMICS to acquaint myself with a particular backup feature and discovered, to my surprise, an extensive run of The Black Pirate, namely, issues 23-42, April 1940-November 1941. Why did that surprise me? Because I was pretty sure that The Black Pirate was a feature that ran in SENSATION COMICS, and sure enough, I was right about that; it appeared in issues 1-51, January '42-March '46. After that it moved to ALL-AMERICAN COMICS, running in issues 72-73 and 83-102, April '46-October '48 (with a 9-month hiatus in '46-'47). The feature also turned up in a few issues of COMIC CAVALCADE during that time frame.
OK, a pretty substantial run, it's not surprising that a feature like that hasn't garnered a lot of attention given that it was outside of the genres like superheroes, that are of more interest to modern-day fans and historians.
Here's what surprised me: ACTION COMICS was a DC title, while SENSATION, ALL-AMERICAN, and COMIC CAVALCADE were from All-American. Yes, the two companies did have some cross-pollination before and after their full merger, most notably in ALL-STAR COMICS and some of the special editions, but otherwise, the companies' properties--or so I had thought--were pretty jealously guarded within their respective companies' titles. But the Black Pirate defected from DC to All-American, where it remained for most of its run.
The only similar case I found was "Red, White, and Blue" (which I disparagingly and with zero actual evidence like to refer to as "no one's favorite feature, ever"), which was an All-American property featured in ALL-AMERICAN COMICS and COMIC CAVALCADE, and which closed out its run in WORLD'S FINEST (BEST) COMICS issues 1-7, a DC publication. WORLD'S BEST COMICS #1 was one of those special event comics that was then transformed into the ongoing WORLD'S FINEST, so having RW&B appear in that first issue was not unusual. Perhaps the WORLD'S FINEST issues were burning off material that All-American was willing to sell after canceling the feature?
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 2, 2024 17:20:01 GMT -5
To save me visiting websites and their crappy, ubiquitous pop-up ads (which ruin any attempt to read anything), is there anyone who could please sum up the whole Mickey Mouse copyright expiration thing? I presume he isn’t totally free for every studio, publisher and person to use, there’s got to be something more detailed than that, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 2, 2024 17:34:10 GMT -5
To save me visiting websites and their crappy, ubiquitous pop-up ads (which ruin any attempt to read anything), is there anyone who could please sum up the whole Mickey Mouse copyright expiration thing? I presume he isn’t totally free for every studio, publisher and person to use, there’s got to be something more detailed than that, right? might be the best person to weigh in, but I'll do my best. Keep in mind I'm a criminal defense attorney, not an intellectual property attorney. Two Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy entered the Public Domain on Jan. 1, 2024. That means that those two films, and only those two films, can be distributed by anyone, used on TV or in other movies, etc. It also means that derivative works can be made from those films. But, that doesn't mean that MICKEY is just up for grabs. Mickey and most of this known accoutrements are trademarked and many are still under copyright. So what is available is basically Mickey 1.0. No white gloves. Small ears. You can't use Fantasia Mickey or Mickey Mouse Club Mickey, etc. This really gets in to the interplay of Copyright and Trademark law, as trademarks don't expire as long as they are used. So it's very possible for litigious owners of trademarks with deep pockets to essentially do an end run around the public domain by filing spurious trademark suits. So you might get away with using Steamboat Mickey in a work (though you might not) but you need to avoid anything that will likely run afoul of Disney's trademarks. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 2, 2024 18:01:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 2, 2024 18:39:50 GMT -5
Filming on my Steamboat willie / Tarzan team up starts next month.  |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jan 2, 2024 19:30:50 GMT -5
To save me visiting websites and their crappy, ubiquitous pop-up ads (which ruin any attempt to read anything), is there anyone who could please sum up the whole Mickey Mouse copyright expiration thing? I presume he isn’t totally free for every studio, publisher and person to use, there’s got to be something more detailed than that, right? might be the best person to weigh in, but I'll do my best. Keep in mind I'm a criminal defense attorney, not an intellectual property attorney. Two Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy entered the Public Domain on Jan. 1, 2024. That means that those two films, and only those two films, can be distributed by anyone, used on TV or in other movies, etc. It also means that derivative works can be made from those films. But, that doesn't mean that MICKEY is just up for grabs. Mickey and most of this known accoutrements are trademarked and many are still under copyright. So what is available is basically Mickey 1.0. No white gloves. Small ears. You can't use Fantasia Mickey or Mickey Mouse Club Mickey, etc. This really gets in to the interplay of Copyright and Trademark law, as trademarks don't expire as long as they are used. So it's very possible for litigious owners of trademarks with deep pockets to essentially do an end run around the public domain by filing spurious trademark suits. So you might get away with using Steamboat Mickey in a work (though you might not) but you need to avoid anything that will likely run afoul of Disney's trademarks. I think this pretty much sums it up! The only thing I might add -- and I am definitely not a trademark expert -- but my understanding is that you need to actively defend your trademark or you risk losing it. Disney has some of the most robust trademark protections around, plus almost unlimited funds for lawyers, so doing anything that could infringe on their trademark is playing with fire. And I've already seen some stuff that I think is really dicey and ill-advised and could easily bring lawsuits. However, I think the risk of using the original Mickey who is now in public domain is actually pretty small if you're careful to avoid trademark infringement, which means using the character in a way that might confuse consumers into thinking it's the official Disney version. Part of the reason why I think using 1928 Mickey is less dangerous than it might seem -- and actually less dangerous than some other characters in similar situations like Zorro --is because Mickey entering the public domain has gotten so much publicity. And as a result, tons and tons of people are using him, including some more important, prominent figures. Most famously so far, John Oliver has begun using Mickey Mouse as his show's mascot in an explicit attempt to challenge Disney's trademark defense. If Disney doesn't take action against Oliver for trademark infringement, it would be hard to justify legal action against much smaller companies and individuals using the same likeness (not to say they couldn't or wouldn't, but if they did it would definitely feel like nuisance lawsuits designed to harass poorer people in giving up rather than anything else). Again, I'm no expert, but if they don't defend against the use of Mickey by major national brands, they would seem to be ceding the argument, as that kind of widespread public use by a large brand obviously would have a much bigger impact on Disney than you or me publishing, say, our own comic featuring Mickey. Early days, but my gut feeling is if you're careful, it will be fine for anyone to use 1928 Mickey. Let's say you're doing a comic. Using the name Mickey Mouse (or god forbid Disney) on the cover is trademark infringement. Using the image of 1928 Mickey Mouse on the cover but not calling him by name is... probably okay, though it might be risky. Using him inside the comic but not using his name or likeness on the cover? That should be just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 2, 2024 20:06:56 GMT -5
Time for my Rickey Rat kickstarter.
|
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jan 2, 2024 22:25:39 GMT -5
Early days, but my gut feeling is if you're careful, it will be fine for anyone to use 1928 Mickey. Let's say you're doing a comic. Using the name Mickey Mouse (or god forbid Disney) on the cover is trademark infringement. Using the image of 1928 Mickey Mouse on the cover but not calling him by name is... probably okay, though it might be risky. Using him inside the comic but not using his name or likeness on the cover? That should be just fine.Looks like it's high time for the clowns at DC to roll out a new super-powered rodent character "Steamboat Shazam" #1.
I've made a quick parody cover to go along with this concept, but I'm not too keen on poking the bear with a stick until the dust settles. Let John Oliver take the first blow.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 3, 2024 1:07:50 GMT -5
Is the Comic Strip PD yet or does Disney still own that (remembering the controversy over The Uncensored Mouse)?
|
|
