WHAT?
I generally agreed with commentary to the effect that TPop isn't really "taking a gamble," beyond the understood risks of any publisher.
HOWEVER, when Heidi writes "...publishing literally scores and scores of books by new and untested creators," not only does it sound like a gamble, it sounds like a really bad idea.
Cheers to all the cartoonists involved for getting started on their careers, though.
What this story needs is a punchy title, something that ends in "-gate".
Of course, the manga purists will insist on pronouncing it "gah-tay", but that's why I keep a Louisville Slugger in the back seat of my car.
Abhay: OKAAAAAAY!
And considering how horrible these contracts are, I'm actually surprised this didn't get out sooner.
Dan: TP contracts have been the elephant in the room for some time.
"Cheers to all the cartoonists involved for getting started on their careers, though."
Yeah: soon you too will be bitter alcoholic cranks. You've all taken a first step in a lifetime of being doormats. What a noble profession. Well played, kids...
royalty caps!
"Yeah: soon you too will be bitter alcoholic cranks."
You didn't think you could hold onto that monopoly forever, did you?
Sure, I'm bagging groceries, but think of the exposure, man...
Lea: I knew they were bad, but THIS bad?
I know that many if not most young creators cannot afford counsel, but has none of them a father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, college classmate who is a lawyer? No one to read a proposed contract without "I need to get my name out there, come what may" anxieties?
Sigh. Heavy sigh.
Is it really so hard to believe that clear-headed adults read these contracts, weighed the risks, and decided they were worth it? People still sign record deals, too, I believe.
I don't think these contracts, as reported (I haven't actually seen one) sound like a good idea. However, most of the arguments against seem pretty obnoxious and condescending. God forbid the raft of (mostly) women over at the Engine claiming they know what they're doing actually be taken at their word.
Dan- YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
I think it will be interesting to see what comes of this as well. People do have different reasons for signing contracts though. What if they are using TP just to get their name out there with one set of works and then when the contract is over they take their other works somewhere else.
Just to be a tad sarcastic here (but real) within both the European magazine and advertising industries there's a current trend to have young journalists actually PAY the company to have the honour of serving a three- to six month internship. I myself have seen this happen numerous times over the past two years.
Or, as one managing director once told me in a meeting we were having on the development of a new magazine: "Writing is bullshit. Everybody can write. I'm writing letters every day".
This was when I proposed him the editorial budget for this mag. True story.
There is an inherent notion in many of the "creative" industries that creation itself is worthless and can only become something "valuable" through market positioning and advertising. The actual product and the people who designed it is in itself worthless and could very well come from the slave factories of modern China.
Just compare that to the apparent thought process to JRR Tolkien's first publisher of the Lord of the Rings. If I remember that interview I once read correctly (and I might not), he said something along the lines of "I thought it was a good story. My son (?) thought it was a good story. I published it."
Shane if TP gets an automatic first option on your next ideas (ad infinitum?). If that is true, then the creators are in a situation way beyond their own control.
There have been similar high-profile cases in the music industry, involving both George Michael at the height of his career as well as Prince.
Both, from what came out in subsequent trials, had what I call slavery contracts that stated, in Prince's case, that even his artistic name belonged to Warner at the time which was the birth of "Symbol", since it was his very creative way to say "fuck you" to the industry bosses.
With George Michael hell, the man spent the better part of his creative high battling in court instead of doing music.
So, nothing new then, eh?
Thomas - Well, folks like Warren Ellis have been pushing for the comics industry to become more like "respectable" media industries, such as music, movies and television, for the better part of a decade now. I guess they've gotten their wish.
Dan: they're not all bad. A few creators actually negotiated good contracts.
But the ownership issue has been out in the open since January, the royalty caps I heard about earlier this year, too.
"God forbid the raft of (mostly) women over at the Engine claiming they know what they're doing actually be taken at their word."
And God forbid that those with more business experience at the Engine, claiming they know what they're doing, actually be taken at their word.
Gender has nothing to do with it, on either side.
James: have you missed that a number of posters commenting on the side of ownership at the Engine are women? Myself, Lisa Jonte', Heidi?
These creators are not getting shouted down because they're women. They're not getting shouted down at all.
Please note, in fact, that the denigrating comment about the "tiny" size of companies I publish with came from Rob Valois, male editor at TP, directed at me, female creator. And he said that twice.
Thomas - Well, folks like Warren Ellis have been pushing for the comics industry to become more like "respectable" media industries, such as music, movies and television, for the better part of a decade now. I guess they've gotten their wish.
Now that's funny.
Thomas: As sad as it is, look at some of the more successful products of other media in the last five years and it is easy to see where companies are coming from on this one. Backstreet Boys? Utter banal crap dreamt up and assembled by some promoter. Jessica Simpson who, besides being hot, is a marginal talent at best and a product of a well planned marketing machine. Look at her record sales before her show and after her show. I would even go so far to say that The DaVinci Code is more a product of marketing than actually being a good book. Not to take anything away from Dan Brown, but he is no Umberto Eco, and people I didn't even know knew how to read were reading the DaVinci Code and recommending it to me because they knew I was a reader.
Having said that I totally don't agree with the idea that QUALITY creative product can be made in sweatshops in China, clearly they have to be located in India.
I must confess as someone who has worked extensively with both contractual and more general strategic and operational commerical I'm quite sad how naive quite a few of those creators seem to be. I'm not going to comment on the specific tokyopop matter because the details provided are too vague for that.
However comments such (I've been up since 5am and cannot be bothered to find the actual quote) as "I'm sure the contracts will get better once they start making money!" seem to be a pretty good indicator of how creators still have their eyes closed when it comes to the business side of what they do (and it's understandable to an extent, who wants to be a boring beancounter like me 
).
Remember:
1) The coporate entity is NEVER your friend. Don't fool yourself that because you have good relationships with various organizational champions that automatically translates into a ongoing relationship with the entity ("the business").
2) From what I can gather there is not enough money in comics for most creators to be able to afford legal advice? As a bare minimum, you should never sign a contract until you have got the views of at least two people you trust (hopefully someone with at least a little legal or contractual experience).
* In general terms.
Regards
Charles
James BWAHAHAHAHA. Probably India, yes.
As for products like, let's see N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson et al.: It's a type of marketing that has worked for a couple of years, primarily through the almost absolute power of media conglomerates, pushing those people down the audience's throats through all of their combined channels.
But you know what? Over here in Germany, those are exactly the type of artists that get illegaly downloaded. It's a self-destructive business model that cannot look further than the next marketing push.
It's the same type of model big Hollywood studios uses with the "opening weekend" model keeping everything under wraps, hype, hype and hype again...knowing they HAVE to recoup all of their money within the first week, because after that, word of mouth goes out and kills your "blockbuster".
Only thing is: It ain't working no more. Audiences today are smarter when it comes to pop culture. They now look at the trailer and go "hell, no.."
"Please note, in fact, that the denigrating comment about the "tiny" size of companies I publish with came from Rob Valois, male editor at TP, directed at me, female creator. And he said that twice."
Lea I'm sure the "tiny" comment and the repetition thereof says more about the size of Mr. Valois penis than about anything else.
It's either that, or I have mis-remember my psychology 
I completely agree with you Thomas, however how many corporate entities do you know that are fast moving when it comes to getting out of a particular operational mode? They'll cling to this crap until the returns have diminished to zero, or close enough, and then they will find some other way to operate.
I also suspect there is a generational component to this and that it is actually cyclical. Growing up I remember New Kids on the Block being HUGE and yet crappy, with Tiffany and Debbie Gibson (so hot) not being much better and yet they were marketed to the max. Same with the Spice Girls about 10 years ago.
It makes me sad that it works and I am curious to see what the next paradigm shift will be.
Kirk strangely enough I can't say too many bad things about the movie industry. When I sold my first screenplay (STILL in development hell LOL), it was quick, painless and even with me being allowed the final draft and that as a newcomer from Germany.
But then, my producer is Julian Krainin, and he's from a different era. He's old and wise and tells you stories about Cary Grant...
I've had a few dealings with a couple of TV networks as well, and in general, I found the Development Execs I talked to there to be a lot more accomodating and more professional than most comic book people I have ever talked to. For instance, I have no problem (remember: me still being unproduced) to get the Development Exec of the Nick on the phone and talk to her about ideas.
I have an almost impossible time to get a comic book editor to even reply to an email.
James the last crash within the music industry spawned Grunge.
It is cyclical (I agree with the generational component), because most industry leaders today lack a very important thing: vision.
Now, one can bitch and moan (as I do) about Bill Gates and Microsoft or Steve Jobs and Apple. But there is one thing the people in those industries have the vision to at least TRY and extrapolate what will work in one year, three years, five years. They have to in order to keep their moloch fed.
"God forbid the raft of (mostly) women over at the Engine claiming they know what they're doing actually be taken at their word."
If there are royalty caps, I don't think they can be, no. What are they receiving in consideration to allow for a royalty cap?
An option I can justify: "We're helping to build your career so you shouldn't just run off first chance." The right to sue creators? Absolutely TP needs that clause if advances are involved, depending on the nature of the advance.
But what does a royalty cap say besides "we're the reasons your book will attract potential licensors, not the inherent quality of your work, and we're the ones who should profit from those derivatives, not you." Royalty sharing's one thing; a royalty CAP is a different strata entirely. As bad as the music business is (and it's worse than you've heard), I've never heard of a royalty cap in the music business-- hell, mechanical royalties are built into the copyright laws for music.
There was a line in deadwood last season: only way to be certain is contract to be fucked.
I want to hear someone who tried to negotiate that specific provision away, and what happened when they did-- i.e. what TP asked in return, if anything.
(Is TP really the agreed upon abbreviation for Tokyopop? That's lovely).
And it's not just about them-- like Chris points out at his blog, it's about the people who come after them, and the water level for contracts for the marketplace.
An option I can justify: "We're helping to build your career so you shouldn't just run off first chance." The right to sue creators? Absolutely TP needs that clause if advances are involved, depending on the nature of the advance.
but the actual threat of legal action seems to revolve around:
"There are clauses in certain creator contracts at Tokyopop that leave open the option for Tokyopop to sue the creators of the book if the book 'underperforms'. There is no sales figure attached to the phrase 'underperforms'.
The problem here (as pointed out) is the vague nature of underperformed - if it is measured in units, then the writer may have a case to argue that the amount specified is unreasonable. However if concerns profit or the like - the creator could be in real deep water.
It's not a particular difficult affair to make most profitable ventures appear lose-making on paper. Yes you could fight it out in the courts but it would likely cost you more than the amount you would be owned (or own).
Lea-- no I didn't miss that at all. I've been agreeing with you for the last two days.
Abhay-- That's a good question. Why ask it if you assume any choice you wouldn't make is a mistake?
Like I've said, the contracts as reported sound like poop to me; the debate is worth having so that people can make informed choices; and the setting of precedent is indeed important. It just seems incredibly dickish to assume that some people who actually have business experience outside of comics are suckers because they've made choices you wouldn't.
All good advice here, read your contracts, get advice, etc...
on the other hand: you are an unpublished creator, you have actually the chance to get your first gig where you even don΄t have to pay money to get published, your FIRST book or whatever ... do you really have the balls to say no, I΄ll wait for a better contract?
Or do you say what the hell?
I am not defending the publishing industry, which especially in the comic field has a truly reprehensible history of screwing its creators. But I can understand people who sign the dotted line.
I was the anonymous who said "And it's not just about them"-- sorry.
I just checked with my boss-- we mostly see music contracts and we're not the biggest players in town or anything, but we've dealt with a range of contracts over the years.
"You ever hear of a royalty cap that works like x, y, z?"
"Uh, yeah, I think Suge Knight tried to do something like that."
So there you go. Wonderful company to be in...
And yes, undefined terms is spooky but the flipside is someone tries to get out of a contract by doing plainly subpar unsellable work, or taking an advance and not delivering pages, or "changing their style" after signing to some style like Ron Rege's evil twin- in all those contexts, I'd expect TP would be justifiably unhappy. Advances complicate things.
" It just seems incredibly dickish to assume that some people who actually have business experience outside of comics are suckers because they've made choices you wouldn't."
Yeah... you're absolutely right, actually.
But: wow, that's one choice I'd sure like explained to me slowly, with pie charts. Sock puppets. Musical numbers. Fireworks. A gay pride parade float. Maybe a pinata. Wait, losing my train of thought...
"The flipside is someone tries to get out of a contract by doing plainly subpar unsellable work, or taking an advance and not delivering pages, or "changing their style" after signing to some style like Ron Rege's evil twin"
That's easily written into a contract, in a very explicit way, for those who know how to draft one. It comes with a range of "breach of contract" fines, i.e. you sign on to deliver x amount of pages in y amount of time. Taking out circumstances beyond your control (i.e. illness, living in New Orleans right now etc..), you can control a creator's output that way.
Using "underperformance" is a rubber band term that can be stretched by a company in every shape, and with enough lawyering money to back it up, you have hardly any chance to fight that.
Going back to what Charles Knight said: a company is never your friend. It's a business partner. You may be friends with an editor (you might leave, get fired or die), but what is in a contract is legally binding...
Oh and Anonymous | 10.13.05 - 3:09 pm |
was me as well.
You should always go in with a clear picture of the worse case that could occur. That's not because you expect it to happen but so you are PREPARED. I've just seen someone comment over at the Engine "I'm sure it will be all right".
No..no..no..
"Using 'underperformance' is a rubber band term that can be stretched by a company in every shape, and with enough lawyering money to back it up, you have hardly any chance to fight that."
Sure: the accountant we use? He's like magic. Wonderful guy-- smart as a whip.
"That's easily written into a contract"
There are ways too, yes, but if I were Tokyopop I'd want specific language about the recovery of the advance in there. It depends too much on the language of the provision in question to judge it, though you're right-- lack of definition for ANY term of art is cause for concern, and there are always other potential ways to resolve any concern...
"Sure: the accountant we use? He's like magic. Wonderful guy-- smart as a whip."
But the point is the young creators who are likely to sign this don't have the cash for an accountant. Moreover what if your accountant says "geez! they actually made a profit of $100,000 rather than the lose they claimed". I think we both knows that means shit unless you've got the resources to fight it out in court.
regards
Charles
Slight digression:
Does anyone know what the bookstore buyers think of OEL manga? (I really want "wanga" to work, but I know it won't). What I mean is, if it turns out to fail, could the fallout conceivably hurt all manga in the bookstores? Or even just all TPop manga?
That's what seems so dubious to me about the huge roll-out they have planned, but I'm willing to be disabused of that notion.
Abhay we're in total agreement.
A contract has to be as specific as possible and definitely not use any language open to any type of interpretation. That will benefit everybody.
Obtuse language should always be the first warning sign.
(like I said: I'm German and we love order. ORDER, I say!)
I am very happy with my Tokyopop contracts. Their details are none of your goddamn business, but I knew exactly what they contained and its ramifications when I negotiated and signed them.
In any case, no matter how one negotiates a contract, I also can't see getting too precious about an idea early in your career. It's like, what, you won't have more? I'll start acting like a diva only when I have the sales track record to back it up. Tokyopop is an important route for me to that sales record. Plus, they've been lovely people to work with. I can't understand the hate they're getting thrown right now.
I'm new here and I know the rep this place has BUT I'd said the discussion on this thread has been pretty even-handed - I don't detect any "hate".
RANDOM HOUSE RUZ!
(Loved Smoke but the spotter in me says "D-notices were scrapped years ago" - god it sad that I noticed but it's the little things in life.... )
De Campi wins!
James that's a fascinating question.
I personally don't believe in a corporate push, because it denotes control of forces you don't control i.e. readership.
I'm sure some of those books will be good and have the chance to be successful. Some, er, well... probably not.
Alex- There's no hate at all here, and characterizing it as such is very unproductive.
(conspiracy! Haloscan won't post this)
For an example of what happened when someone refused the royalty cap and comments on how OEL manga might be being received, here's another interesting comment thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/users...zchan/
7219.html
Or loses. We'll see.
>>>>In any case, no matter how one negotiates a contract, I also can't see getting too precious about an idea early in your career. It's like, what, you won't have more?
Tell that to Marv Wolfman, Jack Kirby, Carmine Infantino, Brett Lewis, Dave Cockrum and Chris Claremont.
And Sigel and Shuster. Who were so happy just to have SOMEONE publish their idea they sold it for $130. And spent the rest of their lives regretting it. In fact that regret became the defining motive of their lives.
I'm not saying Tokyopop is planning to be the next Jack Lieberman. And yeah, if you don't have more than one idea, then you aren't really going to have a very long career, after all. But those who forget the past are doomed to quote Nietzsche.
I'm sorry Alex, but to merely discuss a subject does not, by an definition of the word, "hate".
Any discussion about contracts, intellectual property and best business practices have to be by their very nature unemotional to be valuable.
You seem to state that this very discussion is "hate". How odd...
It's like, what, you won't have more(ideas)?
Nothing Siegel and Shuster did subsequent to Superman surpassed that singular creation. Not everybody is Jack Kirby.
You can't predict an audience's reaction, either: what if Idea One is the thing that captures people's hearts, even though you might think it a mere trifle?
The spectre of neophobia, one-hit wonders and artistic typecasting looms large. Sovereign Seven, anyone? Danger Unlimited? Herman Melville's The New Schmoo?
"Arr. Call me Billy Joe."
I'm not sure that it's a good reason to avoid Tokyopop - or any other publishing house, for that matter - but you shouldn't ever let yourself be sold short.
Self-deprecation's for Hugh Grant movies and retirement parties.
//Oo/\
Oh, and Heidi. I love you!
But then, I love everybody who quotes Nietzsche. Or Immanuel Kant. Yes, I shall go and find an appropriate quote by Immanuel Kant.
The right to sue creators? Absolutely TP needs that clause if advances are involved, depending on the nature of the advance.
I may be way off the mark here, but I was under the impression that tradionally the advance can only be recouped if the product performs well enough to pay it back out of royalties or if the creator defaults and does not deliver the product. If the book or whatever underperforms to such a degree that the advance cannot be recouped out of the creator's share of the royalties then c'est la vie.
The next step would be for a line in the contract to allow the publisher to recoup ALL expenses from the creator if the book underperforms, including promotions etc.
Its a scary line of thinking (unless you're Stephen King or Tom Clancy.)
"In any case, no matter how one negotiates a contract, I also can't see getting too precious about an idea early in your career. It's like, what, you won't have more? "
And yet, if that early idea is the one that makes millions, and as the result of a crappy contract with royalty caps and the like, you get comparatively little of that cash, it's gotta be kinda grating. See: Dave Cockrum, Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, Steve Gerber, Jack Kirby, Siegel and Shuster, et al.
Obviously you're going into your own contract with eyes wide open, and good on you for that, but I think it's only natural for the comics community at large, which remembers the examples I just cited, to fret, in general terms, when they hear about other people's contracts with Tokyopop that are weighted so heavily toward the publisher.
Or, to put it another way, what Heidi said while I was typing.
On the other hand. Say someone creates a character today. Is it possible without strong financial backing to make your character or story into a world wide icon the likes of Superman or Batman? Not only do you need a great idea, but it takes strong marketing and/or money to do that. Not only that, but most likely you'll need to not only publish your work, but break into other markets via licensing as well. Would Superman be the icon it is today without all the marketing and money behind it over the years? I don't think it would. There are tradeoffs. I agree that Superman's creators got shafted, but on the other hand you could argue that it wouldn't have reached anywhere near the level it is today without DC/Warner Brothers as well.
I would echo that creators today look at the positives and negatives of each individual contract before signing anything, which should go without saying.
You have to look at the positives and negatives as creators become more and more of a "brand" themselves. People pay for a "Steven King" book over a "Gunslinger" book. This same thing is starting to happen in comics with people like "Morrison", "Bendis", and others. It takes time to have your name become a "brand" and work for hire (even under opressive conditions) is one way of acheiving that.
Sometimes hard choices have to be made and sometimes people have to do things they might not want to do for rewards (or to eat every day in some cases) down the road.
I am comfortable that the situation in my contract in no way resembles that of people like Kirby, Siegel & Schuster, etc.
But as Tom Spurgeon says, we'll see if my gamble pays off.
I'm not sure if anybody here knows Simon Fuller. For those who don't, he's the one who managed Annie Lennox and the Spice Girls, before he went ahead to create the ultimate in music slavery: Pop Idol
If somebody would like to look at THAT contract, please click:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/...9/05/
204941.php
But then, one might make the point that everybody who signs up to Pop Idol gets exactly what they want: celebrity status, if only for a while. They're out there, for a while. And most of them are not really artists to begin with.
LOL. And I'm STILL looking for that Kant quote.
Man, I would love to say you "Kant" find the quote, Thomas, but I'm not prepared for the tar and feather session afterward.
"Say someone creates a character today. Is it possible without strong financial backing to make your character or story into a world wide icon the likes of Superman or Batman?"
Wait, let me just invalidate that argument by saying: TINTIN and ASTERIX.
Creator-owned, both of them.
Immanuel Kant:
Do what is right, though the world may perish
Very true. LOL.
(and people wonder why us Germans started World Wars? BWAHAHAHAHA. We are ALWAYS right!)
Also, by Kant:
Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.
>>Say someone creates a character today. Is it possible without strong financial backing to make your character or story into a world wide icon the likes of Superman or Batman?"
>Wait, let me just invalidate that argument by saying: TINTIN and ASTERIX.
Let me invalidate that by pointing out "Neither of those were created today".
(and people wonder why us Germans started World Wars? BWAHAHAHAHA. We are ALWAYS right!)
WAAAAYYY right.
I always though boredom had a lot to do with that, and being next door to France.
Er, and by that I mean although I do love Asterix and Tintin, they were childhood staples that were created decades ago.
(Sorry, cut a bit of the previous post off by accident)
Immanual Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
And to channel Mark Evanier here:
It's SIEGEL and SHUSTER!
S-I-E-G-E-L
and
S-H-U-S-T-E-R
Please learn to spell their names correctly.
Thank you.
Alex: Did you have a lawyer or somebody with legal training to look over your contract?
Not directed at Alex, but a comment in general:
I guess we've seen/heard waaaay to many sob stories regarding creators getting screwed and folks are a little worried it can happen again.
I mean, hell, I met the artist that drew Men in Black. That comic that became 2 multi-million dollar movies staring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.
All he got was a shitty page rate. Nothing else. The writer got a little more, but not much. He has some form of steady writing work since.
They created Men in Black in the late 80s. So the 'bad times' are still very much with us and can happen again.
"I can't understand the hate they're getting thrown right now."
See, Alex, that's the kind of talk that makes me think that creators happy with TP are not thinking clearly. That, "jealous", "diva" and other middle-school level defenses.
Knowing what one's rights are, not being willing to give them up, expecting fair pay and equitable contacts, and expecting these, even if one is "new" is not being a "diva", it's being a smart businessperson.
"Say someone creates a character today. Is it possible without strong financial backing to make your character or story into a world wide icon the likes of Superman or Batman?"
Not quite on the same level, but my first thought was Jeff Smith's Bone.
Actually, my first thought was the same as Alex's: this is only the author's FIRST idea, not ALL of them. But then, I thought of how Bone might have ended up quite different under such a TP-style contract. What was that, 10 years of Jeff's life? That's a lot of time for that much talent to be grinding it out at such terms.
>> Let me invalidate that by pointing out "Neither of those were created today".>>
No, but they're certainly examples of publishers getting behind something without needing to own it. The TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES are a more recent example of a huge success that has seen the kind of licensing and spin-offs Superman and Batman get, without being work-for-hire. Outside comics, Harry Potter and the work of Dan Brown suggest that smash success is possible without company ownership.
There's no way to prove that something can be created today that will have that kind of success without first allowing it time to have that success, but is it possible? I'd say so, sure.
The flip side, of course, is, how often these days do characters get created under company-ownership contracts and then proceed to become internationally-successful icons like Superman and Batman? Even counting Wolverine and some of Marv and George's Titans as approaching the ballpark, those are all some ways back, too.
It doesn't make all that much sense to argue that Superman-level comics success is unlikely without corporate ownership without also considering that it's pretty unlikely even with corporate ownership. As such, the lesson seems to be that Superman-level success is just plain unlikely, not that corporate ownership is the better path to glory.
Lowering one's sights to a more realistic target, how many comics properties created in the last 25 years have become even modestly hot-properties in terms of licensing, and how many are creator-owned?
kdb
>>>Let me invalidate that by pointing out "Neither of those were created today".
Yeah and neither were Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan, or Little Nell...or Dorothy and Toto. Those were all TREMENDOULY popular character before the age of licensing, as much as the media of the day would allow. Big licensing corporations arose to take ADVANTAGE of the opportunities afforded by the groiwng number of media outlets, but they certainly didn't invent pop culture.
Ya know, guess who owns PEANUTS. And CALVIN & HOBBES.
"Alex: Did you have a lawyer or somebody with legal training to look over your contract?"
Yes, and also ran a few things past friends in LA TV/film circles, to see what general market practice was.
I've taken a calculated risk to share rights in certain properties. Other people in other situations may not want or need to take that risk. It's all cool.
Sparky Watterson?
>> Let me invalidate that by pointing out "Neither of those were created today".>>
Titeuf, then?
and-- it's not comics but there's Christopher Paolini-- he's that teenage kid who self-published that fantasy novel that sold all those copies. it got picked up by a publisher, but ... it was the kid's first book. i don't think he was old enough to drink when he wrote it. he'll have other ideas, maybe, but it's nice noone had to worry about his contract, just because "he'll have ideas in the future"...
James we only invaded France because they told us the women there were gorgeous. And they were! Also, we wanted to have the Cote D'Azur. Oh, yes, and then there was this bit about world domination.
Both Kurt and Heidi have given enough other examples of hugely successful creator-owned work from the more recent past, so I'll pass on commenting further on that.
(also, I completely spaced on Calvin & Hobbes and Bone...)
"Knowing what one's rights are, not being willing to give them up, expecting fair pay and equitable contacts, and expecting these, even if one is "new" is not being a "diva", it's being a smart businessperson."
I find it interesting that whenever a creative person is seeing things like a business, they quickly become a "diva".
Hey, if you demand a TV network to get you little puppies that have to be tranquilized to sit on your lap for an appearance on a German TV show, THEN you are a diva.
And yes, I am looking at you, Ms. Jennifer Lopez.
Shit, I thought I'D be the first guy to work in Jennifer Lopez.
Your name is Tom, my name is Tom. I offer you a 60-40 split on the copyrights of that post, Mr. Spurgeon. I also claim a first refusal right to all your consecutive post thoughts...
Hehehehehe
>> Shit, I thought I'D be the first guy to work in Jennifer Lopez.>>
You snooze, you lose.
The statement, "I find it interesting that whenever a creative person is seeing things like a business, they quickly become a 'diva'," makes me wonder at why the gender-neutral phrasing. Do a lot of men get called divas when they pay attention to business?
kdb
First world wars, then comics blogs. The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming!
Big hugs to Thomas for those cackleworthy Kant Kwotes.
Kurt, it's because "diva has kind of transcended the gender barrier and can (not must, but can) be defined primarily by a way a person acts
Matt, we are EVERYWHERE...
We own RANDOM HOUSE, HOLTZBRINCK already!
We infiltrate the American psyche!
We conquer the entire world. The entire world? No, wait, there is still that one pesky little village in France...
"Do a lot of men get called divas when they pay attention to business?"
How would anyone on here know?
Oh, and copyright where copyright is due:
All BWAHAHAHAHA's in any of my posts are (c) Keiith Giffen/J.M DeMattheis
(I am way too insomniac at the moment, hence me even posting here...)
>> Kurt, it's because "diva has kind of transcended the gender barrier and can (not must, but can) be defined primarily by a way a person acts>>
So a lot of men _do_ get called divas?
Wow. New one on me.
kdb
Kurt, it all depends on how you count Cher.
She counts as three, right? Gypsy, tramp and thief.
kdb
Thanks for the well reasoned responses to my statements Kurt, Heidi,and Thomas. I just think it's harder, but not impossible, I grant you that, to have a successful character that crosses mediums and makes a pretty good amount of money without corporate backing. It can be done though. Hellboy would be a good example from comics. I could see Bone doing well too depending on the success of the scholastic volumes and the video game. You've made me think more about the subject, but I still stand that there are good points and bad points to signing over partial rights as well as retaining full rights to a creation.
I thought it was dependent on how you counted Elton John.
Luckily, I'm not old enough to know if Kurt Busiek wins.
Kurt, you've never been called a diva?
You should wear a dress more often :D
No, seriously, though, yes, I've heard more than a couple of men (straight men) be called divas.
It might be a cultural difference between the US and us over here, though.
I've never heard a man called a Diva.
I've heard them called prima-donnas though. But I think that applied to women only at 1st. Maybe in the future we'll call men Divas on a regular basis.
I'm pretty sure that various UK rags have called Elton John a diva.
In the future, all men will become fat Italian opera singers?
YYUMM!
Reading alot of this I tend to get the impression that much of the outrage is based on 2nd or 3rd hand info. Other than Warren Ellis who specifically stated that he's seen a Tokyopop contract (though has also said that it was a year old) has there been anyone else who's actually seen one and said how good and/or bad it was (without going into the specifics that they'd likely not be allowed to) and I missed it?
Not that I doubt a coporate entity would look out for it's own best interests or anything, I'm just failing to feel the outrage I've been seeing.
I can see why those who would prefer keeping their creations their own wouldn't want to sign on. But for those who feel that reaching a specific market or getting their foot in the door as being more important, should they really be scolded for doing so?
Well then it's already begun.
>> I've heard them called prima-donnas though. >>
Now that, I've heard...
kdb
"I'm pretty sure that various UK rags have called Elton John a diva."
He was even part of the VH1 diva concert, I think it's another one of those titles he likes to throw around.
should they really be scolded for doing so?
Comics professionals are in business, and as such should not necessarily be scolded for looking out for their own best business interests.
But with Tokyopop's power base and ability to dictate terms being what it is, even now, can people afford to let the precedent be set - especially if other comics companies are forced to work even harder to compete with them - that creators either divvy up or shut up?
//Oo/\
Unionize! Damn the man! Save the Empire!!!
Elton John doesn't count. He's...well, Elton John.
"'m not saying Tokyopop is planning to be the next Jack Lieberman."
Please get your predatory publisher's name correct -- I'm pretty sure you meant to refer to Jack Liebowitz.
And by the way, anyone going into comics should read Gerard Jones' "Men of Tomorrow" to see what to avoid -- Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn't suffer just because of unscrupulous publishers, but also because Jerry (in particular) thought he was a better negotiator than he really was. Also, Jerry thought he did have more than one great idea -- but ultimately only the one hit it big.
I think - apart from the purely factual information/discussion thing - it's also older creators simply being shocked how the creator ownership they fought for so hard is being pissed away by young people eager to get published. (c.f. certain attitudes expressed in America over the behaviour of France and Germany in regard to the recent Iraq war)
And apart from the "ingrateful little bastards" angle, they have a point. No idea how much it costs them, but TP's current practice has the additional benefit of shifting the goalposts for more established creators. Some like e.g. Ed Brubaker now might end up with full ownership, when in actuality he should only have to haggle over the amount of his compensation. Nice bargaining position, if you can get it.
Way the hell up there, someone mentioned Bone, and whether or not Jeff Smith would have agreed to work for ten years (the actual amount was 13, but whatever) under a Tokyopop contract. And I can't help but think that after the first Eisner nomination, he probably would have been able to negotiate a better deal.
Gross.
>> And I can't help but think that after the first Eisner nomination, he probably would have been able to negotiate a better deal.>>
But not the deal he actually has now.
Neil Gaiman was able to negotiate a better deal over SANDMAN, once that got positive recognition, but DC still owns it, utterly and completely.
kdb
History is like the tide. Things come in and out of fashion. Believe it or not, Erik Larsen and Rob Liefeld and Todd McFarlane actually struck a blow for creator's rights, and that was the mantra of the times. We got Hellboy and Sin City out of that. (and Monkey Man & O'Brian) Then the implosion hit and people just wanted to get work, and were pretty desperate to do so. DC, to its credit, has stuck with the Vertigo/Homage/Wildstorm model through thick and thin. They could easily have abandoned it, but they are smart enough to know there would be no WE 3 or Y or TRANSMET without it. I know there are sad stories from every publisher, but I think in my day I heard more weeping and wailing about what happened on company owned books overall than I did with Vertigo books.
I do not begrudge ANYONE who has signed a deal with TP. I wish them all the success in the world. The more success they have, the more strength they will get for future negotiations, just as the Image boys did.
Of course, you look at where all the Image boys are now...somebody up there wrote "How many rich cartoonists are there?" and it's a fair point...
Some links, for yer pleasure:
">I'm just talkin' 'bout Math--can you dig it?
Cold Cut's Matt High has "Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse."
And do let's talk about "hating."
Royalty Cap = Crown
To quote Bill Maher, it's time for...
NEW RULES!
NEW RULE...every creator must start to see himself/herself as a COMPANY. Yes, you are a company. When you negotiate anything, drop your writer's hat, your artist's hat and replace it with that of a CEO. Try to analyse what kind of market worth your property might have.
NEW RULE...don't take anything personally. You're not George Bush. Nobody is out to get you personally, but as with any negotiation, all parties involved are only in it for their own benefit. It is the nature of a deal between companies (see NEW RULE No. 1) that they will try to fuck each other over.
NEW RULE...Stop wearing rose-tinted glasses. That shit already got us into Iraq and screwed up FEMA. Don't let those glasses fool you.
NEW RULE...Be prepared to walk away. Tell your potential partner, "hey, no hard feelings, but I find this and that and this unacceptable". If they are professionals, they will not harbour any hard feelings either.
NEW RULE...Don't sign anything that has obscure language in that might later be interpreted in a court of law against you.
NEW RULE...If any potential partner starts telling you that they are your only way to stardom, don't just walk away...START RUNNING.
De Campi, you'll never be as successful as Lea or Jonte with that attitude....NEVER!
"Royalty Cap = Crown"
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. King Henry the Fourth, Part Two, Shakespeare.
"De Campi, you'll never be as successful as Lea or Jonte with that attitude....NEVER!"
Sigh. I know.
Ah well. Thanks for all the rule suggestions and kind attempts to steady a newbie like me on my feet, but much as I appreciate the solicitude, I am really able to steer a pretty clear course, provided I get both sidewalks and the street in between.
Do you want the address for Cyberosia's submissions editor ?
If someone would kindly post dismissals based on age, weight, and/or general personal appearance into the next few posts we can claim the full house in this episode of dorkwad dozens and retire the thread.
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. --King Henry the Fourth, Part Two, Shakespeare."
Well, obviously you're supposed to take it off before going to bed.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ James
NEW RULE: Never listen to German people.
(That work, Spurgeon?)
No specific reference to Hitler yet, though Michael just came very very close.
And I'm not sure mentioning comic strip artists is the best case to make for creator ownership. Many of them have spent millions buying back the rights to their strips in the end. . .
Michael, you don't need to LISTEN to us, you only need to OBEY
Commenting by HaloScan
