(I lied about not posting about comics issues for a few days, I had to get this off my chest.)
In response to the Zuda Card that was being given away in San Diego, the one that had a little bullet-point that said “ZUDA CREATORS WILL RETAIN THEIR COPYRIGHT!” and their website even has an updated statement that says as much. It also says that the work will be published “…under fairly conventional publishing agreements…” which is what you really need to pay attention to.
First and foremost, DC Comics may be benevolent enough to grant you the copyright to your own work, but they haven’t said anything about the Trademark (basically, the title of the work). 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)Â used in business (trade) haven’t, and are still owned by the syndicates. So does Zuda own the trademark to your series, or do you?
Secondly, “…fairly conventional publishing agreements…” is what keeps WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA in print at DC Comics against their creator’s wishes. You can own the copyright to the work, as Alan Moore and his collaborators do, but those “…fairly conventional publishing agreements…” could say pretty-much anything. Moore’s says that the publishing rights for WATCHMEN only revert to him once the book is out of print for a set period of time. That book will never be out of print, so for all intents and purposes he’ll never have control of that project again. Could you live with that? Your work generating massive ammounts of income for a company that you feel both personally and professionally wronged you (and continue to do so to this day)?
Everyone knows the Alan Moore story, so here’s one that’s more personal. A few years back I was hired to completely re-colour SKREEMER, a six-issue limited series originally published by DC, and written by Peter Milligan with art by Brett Ewans and Steve Dillon. Scott Brown at Cyberosia worked out a deal with Milligan and Ewans and was going to publish the long-forgotten (but ahead-of-its-time) series as a graphic novel. Retro-sci-fi-gangsters in the future, it woulda been fun. I turned in four or five pages of colours that were approved (and looked pretty sharp if I do say so myself). All of the sudden, DC steps in and says “What? No, we’ve been planning to do a trade paperback of this for a while now!” Now, I can’t legally say that they’re liars, but everyone involved with the project at Cyberosia (including the legal authors of the work) were… under a different impression. You see, if they announce their intention to reprint the series, that ‘counts’ and the publishing rights don’t revert to the authors, as specified in their contract, despite the fact that Milligan and Ewans “own the copyright”. Four or five months later DC releases a SKREEMER collection, pretty obviously rushed out the door, and in their next special sale to retailers they also offer a substantial discount on that trade paperback to try and move some copies out the door too. In short, they didn’t particularly care about the project, they heavily discounted the book to retailers less than a year later, they just didn’t want to lose their rights to the IP (intellectual property-ancilliary rights like movies, tv, action figures, etc)Â (they’re in the movie-business, donthcaknow?).
How’s that for your fairly standard publishing contract?
Here, I’ve got two more things for you. The first is a very good publishing industry blog called EDITORIAL ANONYMOUS. It’s written (anonymously, of course) by an editor in the Children’s Book industry, and is a fantastic source of information on publishing and particularly contracts and rights assertion. Seeing an Editor admit (paraphrasing)Â “yeah, our standard contracts are pretty terrible, no one should sign them if they don’t feel comfortable, HIRE A LAWYER” will quite likely be an enlightening experience for you. Publishing corporations do not have your best interests at heart, they have THEIR best interests at heart, because they’re corporations and that’s what they’re legally obligated to do. So, if you’re curious about the big bad world of publishing, spend some time on that blog there and find out what it’s really like, particularly before you go and sign a bad contract (or compete for the chance to sign a bad contract).
The second thing I’ve got for you is… Scott Kurtz. I don’t particularly like Scott Kurtz, he goes out of his way to say some stupid, hateful things (and in the most obnoxious way possible). I am… reticent… to even link him at all. But what he’s just said recently on his blog about the Zuda/Platinum/”American Idol” style of “breaking into comics” is incredibly relevant and correct. You, as a comics creator, are not a “contestant” for your own success:
“We are NOT contestants. You don’t need to “win†your success in some foolish contest where a media corporation dangles a contract over your head. You are a creator. You may not have much, but the one thing you do have (maybe the ONLY thing you do have) is the internal spark that allows you to create a character or a universe out of thin air. If the one thing you have is the dignity of being a creator, why would you give that one thing away so eagerly?”
– Scott Kurtz, PvP
It ties into my thoughts on other, similar projects (whether corporation-driven or fan-driven or whatever) and I think it’s worth reading for all the creative folks out there, if for nothing else than a reminder that what you do is important and has value, and you shouldn’t be quite so free to give it up for “fairie gold”.
Now, back to work.
– Christopher
“Moore’s says that the publishing rights for WATCHMEN only revert to him once the book is out of print for a set period of time. That book will never be out of print, so for all intents and purposes he’ll never have control of that project again.”
I assume he’s still getting paid royalites for every copy sold, so what’s the problem? If he had signed a contract with Harper-Collins instead of DC the same thing would of happened.
I’m all for creator rights but this really is the standard in the Book Publishing industry. Your alternative to signing a publishing contract with this clause in it is to never get published.
I’m sure DC will screw them the creators over in other ways, but I don’t think this is one them.
Scott- The “problem” is do you want control of your property or don’t you? Sometimes creator rights extends farther than royalties, into “I don’t want another shitty movie made out of story.”
As for standard in the book publishing industry, again, I disagree with you because there are all kinds of rights-reversion clauses out there that can be built into contracts other than “we’ll give it back when we feel like it”. Harper Collins in particular, since you mentioned them, is ammenable to discussions on the subject as far as I’m aware. Besides that, contracts can be set for a number of printings, a number of years, etc.
This is not the only way in which the unwary can be taken advantage of, I agree with that, but it certainly is an obvious (and easily-illustrated one). Unless the reader doesn’t particularly care if the publisher, in your eyes, degrades your work considerably through shitty movies and action figures as long as the royalty cheques keep rolling in.
To each their own, I suppose.
It’s the flavor of the month to dis DC’s deal and call into question their ethics, but it’s also worth nothing that, for all the SKREEMER examples you can name, there are others like 2020 VISIONS and OUTLAW NATION, where the publishing rights and trademark successfully reverted and the book was re-published elsewhere. It can, and does, happen.
b
Bri- I get that you’re loyal to your publisher and all. I know all about 2020 Visions (I coloured the covers on that) and OUTLAW NATION.
Pushing for creators to be aware of what they’re signing away is not a flavour-of-the-month thing for me, anymore than it was a few months back with PROJECT ROOFTOP or over the past few years with Tokyopop’s abysmal contracts. You read the blog and you know that. I know the reasons you’re pissed, you think this kind of talk makes it sound like anyone who signs with DC doesn’t know what they’re doing. It’s just the opposite–it’s about knowing what you’re doing and hearing the cautionary tales so you can make an informed choice. Because DC? They’re not exactly stepping up to the plate to tell you this stuff, and they have no reason to do so either.
DC’s got enough money to make sure that their message is out there. The rest of us who may disagree with that message, we’ve got blogs and message boards and precious-few other resources. I personally haven’t posted any misinformation. What I have is a different point of view, and one I don’t particularly appreciate being written off as ‘trendy’.
– Christopher
We agree on creator’s being aware of contracts, Chris… everyone agrees on that. No arguments there. The implication of unethical behavior on DC’s part is off-base, in my opinion, but that’s just my 2 cents.
I really just wanted to post the Delano thing. And I’m not pissed…? Not sure where that came from, or the “trendy” thing, or the “writing you off” thing. DC/Minx/Zuda does get a lot of online “press” these days, not just from you. It’s out there, and I really did not mean to single you out, up thread. The Delano thing is fresh in my mind having explored the reversion process with Fight For Tomorrow, and those are great books.
b
Hey Brian-
Sorry I came off a little aggressive there, I was referring to the “Flavor of the Week” thing. I’m glad your time with DC is working out for you (and dozens of other creators, obviously).
I don’t presume unethical behaviour so much as I extract from an overall track record. DC has their best interests in mind, and sometimes that coincides with a creators’ and sometimes it doesn’t. I post about stuff like this as much so that creators (and aspiring ones) don’t “feel” screwed by their contracts anymore than they actually are “screwed”. We’re in agreement that education about contracts and ownership is important, and I like to think my attitude is more in line with taking a defensive driving course than entering a war zone; Smart and Cautious rather than Combatitive.
Anyway, thanks for commenting here, you’re welcome any time.
Christopher:
“The “problem†is do you want control of your property or don’t you?”
This seems to me the sticking point about Zuda. Everyone is talking about control. Kurtz, for one, seems to be under the impression that *everyone* can make a living doing webcomics and quit their day jobs and live their dreams. Bullshit. Zuda offers a chance of exposure — what kind of exposure? Enough that people are blogging all about the damn thing and it hasn’t even launched! So just imagine how many eyes will fix on your work, should it be featured, once the site *does* launch.
Joe Quesada harps that Zuda will take away creator’s rights (even though I have to wonder if even top-flight writers like Bendis own anything they write for Avengers and Spider-Man) and what’s the point when anyone can make their own webcomic… oh, unless of course they want to get PAID?
Why do we keep glossing over that issue? Who wants to work 40 hours a week at a crappy day job and come home at night to squeeze out their webcomic? Who wouldn’t rather get paid for it?
Damn near every artist starts off as a corporate monkey and works his/her way up (ideally) to creative and financial independence. But you’ve got to trade something for that paycheck.
Neil Gaiman’s revamp of DC’s Sandman character was practically an invention from the ground-up — but he doesn’t own the character or, really, anything he wrote for the series that made his name. But do you think he regrets writing Sandman for Vertigo for 10 years? Betcha he doesn’t.
Alan Moore can bitch and moan about how DC stole his creations all he wants, but the fact is Watchmen and V for Vendetta made his name and enabled him the financial independence he enjoys presently to pursue such projects as Lost Girls. Without that start, he wouldn’t be where he is today.
That’s all Zuda offers: a start.
Mark- Man, I’m not quite sure to begin. I think the key problem here is that you aren’t differentiating between WFH on ‘derivative’ concepts like Avengers, Spider-Man, or Sandman, and original creations like PVP or the kind of stuff the Zuda is asking for. They don’t want you to do Batman, they want you to create something original and then take a piece of it, for as long as they like. A lot of artists do have to go through the ‘corporate monkey’ stage of their lives, sure, but that time usually isn’t spent generating movie pitches for other people, it’s spent drawing better hamburgers/superheroes/cute bears to sell toilet paper.
Brian Wood’s in this thread here, and he knows about ‘trading something’ for a paycheck. But you know what he’s traded? His time and his effort, not his intellectual property. CHANNEL ZERO, COUS COUS, FIGHT FOR TOMORROW, POUNDED, DMZ, etc. is all his (and his collaborators’) and not the publishers.
Scott Kurtz doesn’t assume everyone’s going to make it any more than I do. Some people, regardless of time or talent or even promotion will never crack the public consciousness, that’s the way it goes. His point is about dignity, and it’s a good one.
If you think you need Zuda for a “start”, what you really need is to grow a pair and put your work out there.
– Chris
It’s all fine and good to say you’ve got to trade something for a foot in the door.
But if the comic does well, will *you* still be working on it? Or will the party who own and can enforce the trademark remove you from your comic? Change elements to make it funnier/sexier/scarier/more profitable? If it does poorly, and the trademark owner shuts it down, can you simply host it yourself? Is there a “sunset clause†on the trademark? All of these issues (and more) are ones I was completely unaware of, but many people keep pointing these things out for the uninitiated. And for that I’m grateful.
If you know these are the risks you’re taking, and you still don’t like the results, at least you went into these deals informed. Far too many people see the shiny lights, and are blinded by their own ambitions. But if they want to have an idea of what legally binding agreements they are entering, the information is out there.
The relative fairness of Zuda’s particular contract aside, the issues Chris highlights are concerns most green creators (and sometimes even veterans) would not have thought to consider, nor would companies divulge with much enthusiasm… they certainly weren’t readily apparent Zuda’s website. So as an informative reminder to all creators to carefully consider this and any contract, bravo.
Since they’re being used as examples here, I think that it should be pointed out that Moore (and Gibbons & Lloyd) don’t own the copyright on Watchmen or V for Vendetta. They’re both trademarked AND copyrighted by DC Comics. So any agreements for the rights to revert to Moore at some point are external to copyright. This makes them quite different from the Vertigo creator-owned deal that Brian Wood and others are working under today.
The key here to accepting ANY contract is to negotiate.
Most creators have difficulty with this themselves. There are a couple of reasons. One, we like to think we can trust who we’re doing business with. The problem with this is we can’t. A corporation is a legal entity that removes any legal responsibility away from individual human beings. And two, we can’t make heads or tails out of all the legal mumbo-jumbo.
Attorney Stu Rees helped me negotiate my syndication contract. He knew the points that were important and made sure I understood what I was signing. There is no such thing as a perfect contract, and ultimately the creator is responsible for what he or she agrees to. But having a knowledgeable attorney sure helps.
Speaking of Stu, he is a Harvard Law grad who did his thesis on comic strip syndication contracts. He ultimately became The rep for negotiating with syndicates on cartoonists’ behalves and made a positive change in the industry. Comic books could use somebody like him, or maybe him himself.
Definitely DON’T use just any attorney. Even one who specializes in intellectual property rights might have trouble with the specialized field of comics. Stu has a website that has plenty of free legal advice, http://www.starvingartistslaw.com, which is a good place to start. I don’t know if Stu is still representing cartoonists or not, but couldn’t hurt to give him a call if Zuda gives you a call.