I posted a bit ago about Wednesday Comics, and noted that it seemed kind of depressing to have a fairly ambitious venture in terms of form and distribution saddled to the same old content (DC super-hero properties, natch.) Then a couple days ago, I wrote about how much I enjoyed Adam Warren’s Empowered series.
And I was thinking about those two things together a little, and it occurred to me that Empowered would be kind of perfect as a feature in Wednesday Comics. It’s a super-hero story, so it wouldn’t upset anybody’s paradigm. It has excellent art, which wouldn’t look out of place among the heavy hitters DC has lined up. And, best of all, I’m pretty sure Warren could actually do what very few of the Wed comics writers seem to be able to do — i.e., he could write a serialized story, and pace it so that each page had a natural gag/end while still advancing the overall plot. It would be great for Warren, I think; my impression is that Empowered has done pretty well, but that he’s had trouble getting it out there as much as he’d like. And it’d be good for DC, it seems to me, insofar as Warren could, I believe, have an appeal to various demographics (manga readers, possibly female readers) that the company has spastically, intermittently, and ineffectually courted for some time. It’s true that Empowered is R-rated, but I’m sure Warren could tone it down for a short story if he was asked to.
But, of course, it can’t happen. And the reason it can’t happen is basically because comics just don’t work that way. DC and Marvel don’t pick up independent creators and creations who already have a following and put more marketing muscle behind them. Because that would require some sort of negotiated creators rights deal, and, though I know they’ve dabbled with it occasionally, the big two just don’t function on that business model as a matter of course.
I’m sure folks have said this before, but…I think it just can’t be overstated how much work-for-hire is responsible for the insularity and creative stagnation at Marvel and D.C. It’s not just that they’re wedded to their stable of characters — because, after all, they are willing to do do new series as well, like Y-The Last Man and so forth. But their default attitude towards creator rights (basically, there are none) makes it extremely difficult for them to co-opt other’s good ideas — and co-opting other’s good ideas is the way that hidebound behemoths manage to stay relevant (just ask Microsoft.)
I mentioned this a while back, but I think Minx is a pretty good example of this. There are actually comics for girls which have done OK in their niche; stuff like Courtney Crumrin for example. If you wanted to release a line of comics for young girls, why not go with the sure thing, drop some money on Ted Naifeh’s lap, and say, hey, keep doing the same thing you’re doing, just do it for us? You’d have a baseline audience, some automatic publicity, and you could maybe pull in curious readers to check out other products. But, of course, DC can’t do this sort of thing because it doesn’t do creator-ownership — and even if it decided to make an exception, I doubt it would be able to figure out what to do with it. (Does anyone know if the Minx line was creator-owned? The few references I’ve seen suggest it wasn’t.)
I don’t know; I guess DC and Marvel are happy enough churning out stories featuring the same few characters for the same few readers. And of course, quite possibly Adam Warren and/or Ted Naifeh are happier being indie, and wouldn’t want to work for DC anyway. But you know, there are various genre comics creators who I’m sure would sell out if someone were willing to pay them a reasonable price — said reasonable price not including all the rights to their work. And, needless to say, it might be good for comics as a whole if the biggest companies found a way to reach new audiences by working with some exciting young creators.
But it’s probably elitist to suggest that somebody somewhere might want to read about cynical young witches or bondage sitcoms or anything other than zombie Elongated Man. I mean…he’s Elongated. He’s dead. His stretchy, decaying sphincter and soul belong to his corporate overlords. That’s power for the people, that is.
Update: Minx creator Brian Wood says in comments that the line was creator owned. Good for DC, then.
You know, Noah, Gene Phillips went on to do a two-part response to that first post you did about him (the one with the word "poncing" in it). I totally think you should keep this going!
Hey Curt. I did read Gene's post. I sort of felt his clever pun on "Noah's Ark" pretty much ended the conversation, though.
It's probably more of a cost/production issue. The Big Two take all the risk and get all the reward in the current system. I mean, it would make sense for Wal-Mart to buy a mom and pop store instead of building a store in every small town, but they wouldn't be able to push whatever product they want and are limited by the store owners actions.
I was thinking about the Minx line recently as something that should return. DC could use it for the upcoming LONGBOX digital distribution system. Use the money they save on paper to advertise the line in places younger women would actually see it.
Found the post via Journalista.
For the most part, naturally, it's all true. However, this week for example, Marvel's catalogue of releases includes David Mack's Kabuki Reflections #14, Howard Chaykin's Dominic Fortune #1 (under the MAX imprint, which publishes stories with both new and pre-existing characters), Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers #4, and Marvel Divas#2 both of which at least knock around the edges of the genre, plus Scourge of the Gods, a co-pro with Soleil, and #5 of an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
Further, there are always new creators being employed at Marvel and their "Chester Quest" outreach program is just one example of how they are proactive in seeking young talent. David Lafuente and Sara Pichelli, for example, bear little similarity in tone or execution to more traditional Marvel fare.
Oh, in additon, both Marvel and DC contractually reward creators who develop new characters and concepts for the main publishing line.
Hey WV. I don't think WalMart is a good example. Creative production is quite different from general retail. Retail is built on day-to-day sales, not on hits and devoted fanbases. A better example would be something like record companies, which, of course, do regularly research and coopt indie performers (which worked well for them for quite a while, until the internet started crushing them.)
Stuart, I'm sure you know more about the ins and outs of Marvel's business practices than I do. I have to say, though, that Marvel Divas seems like exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It seemed aimed at being a sexy series both women and men could enjoy. But the publicity completely alienated the women's comics fans they were shooting for (as far as I can tell) and the product is, if you'll excuse the expression, a piece of horse-shit. Empowered is something in the same vein which is about a thousand times better (probably more.) Basically, the series suggests to me strongly that Marvel does not know what it's doing when it tries to move even slightly out of its traditional bailiwick. Which is why co-opting not just people, but actual running series, would probably be helpful.
"(Does anyone know if the Minx line was creator-owned? The few references I've seen suggest it wasn't.)"
Noah, what I've learned is that unless you read the fine print of the particular contract a creator signs, you can't tell if ANY comic is creator owned. (Assuming there's even a generally agreed upon definition of creator owned)
People who write articles on these topics don't tend to know what the heck they are talking about. You have to read the contract legalise like a lawyer would, and how many comic bloggers/ journalist even have access to the contracts, let alone would know how to read them if they did?
"Marvel Divas seems like exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It seemed aimed at being a sexy series both women and men could enjoy. But the publicity completely alienated the women's comics fans they were shooting for (as far as I can tell) and the product is, if you'll excuse the expression, a piece of horse-shit."
Oddly enough, Johanna at Comics Worth Reading appears to have very much enjoyed Marvel Diva's, which is weird, because the summary she posted sure sounds like shit:
http://comicsworthreading.com/2009/08/12/marvel-divas-2/
"Firestar has breast cancer, being treated by Night Nurse and Dr. Strange for a second opinion. Hellcat is writing an article about Firestar’s experience to inspire other women"
The idea of Doctor Strange practicing as a regular Doctor as well as a magical doctor seems pretty funny to me, but I doubt that's what the writer is going for.
Wow…well, mileage will vary in this as in all things, I guess. I thought the first issue was pretty catastrophically mediocre myself….
I have to confess ignorance when it comes to the specifics of creator rights in comics. I assume that working at Dark Horse is far more favorable to Adam Warren than working at Marvel, but how much so? Does Warren have the legal right to just leave Dark Horse and move Empowered to Marvel whenever he wants? Does he get to negotiate his own film deals?
Richard, if he really does own the rights, then yes to both questions.
But I think it's like Pallas said: nobody knows if the creator does own the rights unless they've read the contract.
On rights and creators:
Recently read a Neil Gaiman interview…He said he wanted to write a Sandman story for 20th anniversary–but DC couldn't pay him what he would normally get for a book contract (big advance ($1 million!), ownership of the copyright, etc.). So, he proposed DC pay him 6% (!) on the whole Sandman franchise for 16 years, instead of the usual 4% (!). DC refused (!) even though it would have been the hugest seller since sliced bread. In 16 years, Gaiman never would have made his $1 million and surely would never have owned the character…yet DC still said no. It's actually kind of mind-boggling. Obviously Dark Horse (or whoever) is not going to have the resources of a big prose publishing house–but to say that the big 2 are rewarding creators on a scale commensurate with the money they can make for the company (proven in Gaiman's case!) is silly—even if Marvel is markedly better than DC in this regard, which I very much doubt.
I remember a similar anecdote about Dave Sim, actually. I can't remember which company it was even, Marvel or DC…but they wanted him to do a story for them and sent him the standard contract. He said, okay, mostly, but he wanted to make a couple of changes (if they sued him, for example, he wanted them to have to do it in Canada (where he lives) rather than in New York court.) The company wouldn't even discuss it, though — and they had approached him originally about doing the series, and said how much they wanted him, and so forth.
"Recently read a Neil Gaiman interview…He said he wanted to write a Sandman story for 20th anniversary–but DC couldn't pay him what he would normally get for a book contract (big advance ($1 million!), ownership of the copyright, etc.). So, he proposed DC pay him 6% (!) on the whole Sandman franchise for 16 years, instead of the usual 4% (!)."
So then he wrote a bestselling Batman story for them instead? That'll teach em?
MINX was 100% creator-owned. It's not very hard to check – just open a book and look for the copyright line. In the case of my own MINX book, it read: "The New York Four © Brian Wood and Ryan Kelly"
That's cool. Thanks for the info.
"MINX was 100% creator-owned. It's not very hard to check – just open a book and look for the copyright line. In the case of my own MINX book, it read: "The New York Four © Brian Wood and Ryan Kelly""
I don't know anything about Minx, but Brian Wood's info about copyright is simply not correct. Looking at the copyright line does not tell you who is in control of the property.
The copyright registration is mostly a formality. It is the contract itself that will tell you who gets to control the character, publish the comic, hire and fire writers and artists, sell it to Hollywood etc.
"The copyright registration is mostly a formality."
Well, it means it's not work for hire, at least, which I know has at least some important legal implications.
Where does your copyright knowledge of copyright from Pallas? Do you have a legal background? (That's not meant to be snarky; I'm just curious.)
"Where does your copyright knowledge of copyright from Pallas? Do you have a legal background? (That's not meant to be snarky; I'm just curious.)"
I have an American law degree and law license but am not currently practicing as an attorney. (And my off the cuff statements shouldn't be taken as legal advice. )
Basically, my understanding is somebody can technically own a copyright without owning most of the rights that would be normally be associated with a copyright.
For example, I could own the copyright in Spider-man but exclusively license to Marvel the right to publish Spider-man comics, movies, and films.
Since in this example, Marvel has the exclusive rights to make Spider-man comics, if I made a Spider-man comic on my own, Marvel could sue me for copyright infringement, even though a copyright notice with my name appears on all of Marvels books.
It's stupid, I know, but unfortunately, my understanding is this sort of exclusive license gibberish is actually pretty standard in the modern publishing world.
I don't have access to a law library, take my understanding for what its worth.
Btw, this web site has some nice general info:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/understanding-difference-between-transfer-and-license
It's true, the copyright line will not speak to who holds media rights, stuff like that, but it does say who OWNS the property.
In the case of Minx, and Vertigo, obviously DC Comics controls the books in terms of getting to publish and further exploit the things into other media, for a period of time. This does not change who owns the copyright. And of course they can't fire me and hire someone else on my own book.
(Back to Gaiman briefly)–Yes, Gaiman then wrote 2 issues of Batman—and 12 pages of Metamorpho…but the sales on these things would pale in comparison to a new Sandman book, which appeals well beyond the base superhero comic crowd.
"It's true, the copyright line will not speak to who holds media rights, stuff like that, but it does say who OWNS the property.
In the case of Minx, and Vertigo, obviously DC Comics controls the books in terms of getting to publish and further exploit the things into other media, for a period of time. This does not change who owns the copyright. And of course they can't fire me and hire someone else on my own book."
Brian, with all due respect, I obviously am not familiar with Vertigo or DC contracts, but in terms of copyright law, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I see no reason why, if the contract was written a certain way, they couldn't fire you on a comic bearing your name on a copyright notice and replace you.
Just as j.k. rowling probably couldn't demand to be the director of the Harry Potter movie under her contract, I see no reason, if the contract was written a certain way, why you automatically have the right to demand to be the writer or artist on a comic book series that you hold the copyright on.
I just checked a treatise which talks about the difference between "copyright" and the rights associated with copyright, so I feel fairly confident about what I am talking about.
And, I have to add, the comic book rights ARE media rights. Your statement that DC can own the media rights but you still own the "property" doesn't make much sense to me from a common sense point of view. If you own the copyright on Spider-man but don't own the media rights to make a Spider-man comic, write a Spider-man book, or license Spider-man toys, would you consider Spider-man creator owned, just because there's a little notice with the copyright symbol at the bottom? What exactly does having the copyright in your name get you?
What if you held the copyright on Spider-man but signed away all rights to Spider-man, in all media, comic books included, for 20 years? Would you still consider it creator owned just because of the little copyright notice at the bottom?
Anyway, like I said, my understanding is that the notice on the book tells you virtually nothing of real world practicality about ownership of the comic or the character. It's largely a formality inherited from older versions of the copyright act. (Disclaimer: like I said before, i am not a practicing copyright lawyer) A challenge you to find any copyright expert who says otherwise.
I just wanted to note that there are two separate arguments here. The first is about whether the copyright notice tells you much about creator ownership. The second is about what rights Minx creators had to their books.
I would presume that Brian does in fact have a good sense of what rights he does or does not have to his books, though it sounds like Pallas is probably right that those rights don't necessarily have much to do with who has the copyright notice.
In any case, thanks to both of you for the discussion. I find copyright issues morbidly fascinating, so it's definitely been enlightening.