I was thinking about creative rights and I wonder, and question Neil Gaiman’s rights in regard to Medieval Spawn and Angela.

Characters he created, or co-created for the Spawn comic book by Todd McFarlane.

I have followed this court case, though admittedly, I don’t know, or have read all the details.

But the basic concept is this: Neil Gaiman wanted the creative rights to the character of Miracle Man, who Todd McFarlane thinks he owns, because he bought the publisher of the Miracle Man property.

And Neil Gaiman offered a fair deal of exchanging his creative rights to Medieval Spawn and Angela, for the rights McFarlane claimed to have over Miracle Man.

It’s also an offer, had I been there I’d have taken. It was more then fair. And besides, McFarlane had no creative hand in the creation of Miracle Man.

Whereas, I’m not sure if Gaiman supplied the visual design detail on Medieval Spawn and Angela? Though, in this case, Medieval Spawn owes his look, on Spawn. Cause it was the basis used. And therefore McFarlane had a creative hand in this visual design by default.

While Angela appears to have that Mcfarlane design work going on, and at the very least she is wearing Spawn earrings. A creative symbol not of Gaiman.

But being stubborn, Todd challenged it in court and Neil Gaiman, last I heard won, and owns full creative rights to both Medieval Spawn and Angela.

If this is the case, I wonder if that means Gaiman can publish and profit a hundred percent off of Medieval Spawn and Angela?

And if he doesn’t have the right to publish them. Then it throw into question, what having full creative rights is?

Yet, a bigger question to me is: If Neil Gaiman does indeed have Full Creative Rights to both Medieval Spawn and Angela, that this is not right.

If anything, Gaiman should have co-creative rights with Mcfarlane. But not full rights to the characters. And I question: How could he?

Medieval Spawn is a Derivative Work, that is based on the Spawn concept, which was wholly created by Todd McFarlane. Even the visual look in style, is owed to Spawn, a Mcfarlane creation.

And Angela, while a new character, she owes her basis and origin to the Spawn mythos. Cause she was created to work in that world. Basically she is a Spawn slayer.

Seeing as how both are tied to the Spawn mythos. How can both characters be said to be owned wholly by Neil Gaiman?

This to me calls into question, and opens the door to Derivative Works.

If this case is to stand.

And yes, I know this won’t happen because of lawyers, and well, it just wouldn’t happen, I know that.

But, let’s say Derivative Works do count and a creator can claim a hundred percent rights to such work.

What’s to prevent others from doing it? And why therefore legally can’t others make such derivative characters?

For example you can have a character called Ninja Batman, and say it’s Batman in a different era.

Or the Hulk, but make him a new color and say he’s a version form a different timeline.

Basically, the idea of a creator owning full rights to a derivative work, such as in this Spawn case, does not seem right or just.

If you make a character, and it’s not derivative, then sure, you should have full rights to your character. But if your character, is based off the origin and history of another characters creator, I don’t think you should be allowed to have full rights to your character.

But what’s the financial aspect a creator should pay for a derivative work? I don’t know. I’d say anywhere from ten to say fifteen percent. Those are my thoughts. And also the original creator must give approval before such a derived work could be published. That’s my view on the situation, and what would be fair. What do you think?

A case like this, if it stands can really impact creative character rights and who owns what.

For me, I think at most Gaiman should have some rights to Medieval Spawn and Angela. But NO WAY should he have Full Creative rights to these characters. As for what percent he owns, or McFarlane owns, I can’t say.

And I bet McFarlane might have thought when this case ended, he should’ve taken the deal he was offered earlier and just given up Miracle Man, and got the offer to get Full Rights from Gaiman on Medieval Spawn and Angela. It’s what I would have done.

I was thinking, what if there was no Marvel Comics made by the team of Stan Lee, Kirby and Ditko at Marvel?

I shudder and actually could picture it! And am thankful for the Silver Age of Marvel and for the creative talent of Lee, Kirby and Ditko who it is pretty much acknowledged were the 3 stone pier that held Marvel Comics up and made them great.

Without them, I feel Marvel would not be a great company and DC comics would still be number one.

I know this answer and can picture it because all I have to do is look at ALL the, in my opinion, Terrible concepts from the 1970’s and see this as: The creative juice the industry had back then.

Without the big 3 at Marvel back then.

-We’d be subjected to guys who got their powers from outer space beings. Like Nova

-Kung Fu and similar fad concepts like Iron Fist and Luke Cage

-Blatant second rate characters like Moon Knight

-Characters you can’t relate to or really feel much for such as Ghost Rider
and so many more.

To judge these characters, you only have to judge their staying power. Most of these 70’s characters, on their own merits can hold a book for a long run. Their series always get cancelled because of low sales.

Why? Because plain and simple, the creative juice and energy is not there.

I picture a Marvel where if not for Lee and company, we’d have a comic universe with concepts like that seen in the 1970’s.

Which from my view, are pretty much lackluster characters with no real staying power. Characters who are good for small term use. But none really having that juice, that extra special edge that could make them great.

And from a personal view, outside of the Superman concept. I really don’t like the whole: Person got his powers from an out of space alien encounter. (Remember reading the Savage Dragon origin and it just totally lost my interest big time when i found out what he is.) That idea has always seemed science fiction and not science fantasy for me. And just not interesting. I’m more interested in the characters that I could relate with, or feel for their situations.

I guess that’s why I like the Silver Age Marvel Comics creations so much, cause those characters had that appeal. Call it charisma, call it magic, or just call it luck. But most all of the Stan Lee creations with Kirby and Ditko, had that appeal and edge that made them great.

And if it easy to capture this process, then we’d have thousands of more characters of similar caliber by now in comic books. But we really don’t. Since Marvel’s Silver Age, no company has produced so many popular characters that have stood the test of time, lasted with continuous series, and held an appeal with each new generation of readers.

The Silver Age Marvel struck Gold, or make that Silver when they had Lee, Kirby and Ditko working for them. And they have not seen the likes of it since.

I was in the bookstore and saw the book: Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. While I was there, I read some of it. It’s a great book and at $40 cover price, though you can get it cheaper online, it is worth buying. Good job by Mark Evanier, from what I read.
:-)
I’ll probably get this some day, but as it is I got a big list of other books I hope to buy first. So Ugghh it’ll have to wait.

Reading this book though it made me think on a topic, the writer did not outright say. But from my own thoughts I use an example, and that is: You have to watch your own finances! I’ll get to what I mean in a minute.

With Kirby it’s stated, that basically his whole career, from the start of it until the end, he was from what I gather worrying about having enough money to pay next months rent and mortgage bills.

A great example was in the 70’s when Kirby was back at Marvel, he was getting a page rate for the Captain America book, that was almost the same as he made decades ago. It was like he returned full circle in terms of his financial cycle. Or that, for the most part it didn’t change.

Here is Kirby, arguably by the 70’s one of the most talented and respected creators in the comic book medium. And yet the guy is still worrying about paying the bills and his mortgage. And yet, the characters and stories he made, or helped make are bringing in hundreds or even millions of dollars annually.

Are you sensing that something is not right here?
My guesses are: In the law of what you think about most becomes your reality. And how your beliefs shape your world.

It basically states, what you deep down believe is what you’ll get. Kirby came from an era where all he knew and grew up with was financial struggle and that you lived from one pay check to the next months paycheck. And that you had a mortgage to pay off.

And you know what? That’s exactly what he got. He lived by the next paycheck and worrying where he would get it. I think deep down this belief was in him and a big reason why he never achieved financial freedom and a well off income.

I also believe that it’s a great example that: Despite your talent in a field, it is up to you to watch out for your financial income and what you make.

If you are not thinking long term about your financial stake, you will end up living from one paycheck to the next.

Just because you have great creative talent, in whatever field you are in, if you are not wise enough to learn the skills of good finance. All the talent in the world, will not make you rich and financially well, if you don’t think long term about building your income.

This is a lesson I indirectly thought of and learned from reading this book.

Kirby was a truly great creative guy that influenced the comics medium in America, he should have been a multi millionaire. But he wasn’t.

The lesson for me is:

1. Where you deep down belive where you belong financially, is where you will end up.

2. All the talent in the world will not make you rich, unless you properly think long term and plan out how to grow your income. Get advice, check your rights in whatever contract you sign. And that lack of financial knowledge will cost you.

Hi All,

I hope you hit your local comic book shop because it was Free Comic Book Day! The day where comic book shops “give back” to the public.

The store was packed, but I got many great issues and I hope you did to.

The one I went to first read and really liked was Dynamite Entertainment with there Daredevil cover and story.

Also Aspen delivered again with another good book. This company is still in my opinion pretty low profile in the industry. With all their art talent, I’m surprised they haven’t made a bigger impact yet.

Marvel had a nice offering this year and so did DC, for anyone who missed the first issue of the Morrison Quitely issue.

I could go on, but I’m sleepy now. But I hope you went to the store and picked up some good free stuff.

Rob

The wait is almost over and Iron Man will be out in theaters.

I think from the buzz I’m hearing, and the little I’ve seen. This is looking really good.

I hope it does well cause Marvel Comics can use a new franchise hit. As it is, the X-men films are about done, and so is Spider-Man. At least for now. And I think overall, the steam and freshness seems to have lost a bit on those properties.

With Iron Man, we have a chance of a breath of fresh air for the Marvel Film properties.
And who knew, they would actually get to make a real suit of Iron Man armor. And you couldn’t ask for a better costume maker for Iron Man then with Stan Winston. Great job he did with that suit.

I am also digging the look of Iron Monger, even if he’s not comic accurate. He just looks big, brutal and kick butt. You can’t ask for much more in a cool Iron Man villain. And this will make for a great battle.

So let’s support Iron Man and make sure we see this film.

Rob

http://www.immonen.ca/news/archives/963

Click that link to read the story. This really sucks. Basically a guy’s website was stolen by a Chinese book publisher and word for word and art page for art page, this material was literally stolen and published and sold as a $100 book with no permission even being asked.

I’ve heard of this happening with video game FAQ guides. Where someone online will write a guide. Then later on, someone literally steals the FAQ word for word and gets it published as a book. Claiming the work as his own.

This really sucks and shows the danger of things online and what can happen in other media. Plus, unless you have money or a corporation to back you up. Which you probably don’t. There is not much you can do about it.

Are you going to spend for a lawyer to handle an international lawsuit? Are you willing to wait years and all that frustration for a settlement?

And what’s worse? The fact that your work is stolen completely and someone else is making money off of what you did? Or the added fact that your name credit as the author will never be mentioned and someone else, the one who stole it will get all the credit?

I’ve noticed this for the past few years and personal experience as well. I remember the old days where if you missed a certain comic. You had to track it down and buy it. Even pay quite a bit more if it was a hot issue. Because for the most part, if you missed that one printing of the issue you needed, that was it.

There was no second print or reprint of that issue.

And sure if it was really hot, you’d get a second print from the publisher. But even now, it’s not the same.

With the Paperback material produced within a handful of months of a storyline, I think it has made the collectible comic, in terms of overall money a thing of the past.

There are pros and cons to this new trend.

I think for the cons:

-It has destroyed the thrill of having to hunt and collect that issue you missed. And the feel you got when you did find it at a good price.

-It has destroyed most of the back issue prices. And if you want to one day sell your collection or book run, you will get less for it. Cause the material is already available and in a better format. It has in many cases made back issue prices of most books almost worthless and not a lot of good money can be made online.

Also reading this from various eBay dealers trying to sell back issues and not getting much. At most they sell lots, and take the per issue loss.

Checking eBay lots and I’ve seen things like: 50 issues going for less then six bucks. Or a hundred issues not even getting thirty dollars.

Oh course it depends on the book run and things like that. And I’m being Overall General Here, so please don’t quote it as fact. Cause it’s not. But overall, most issue lots don’t go for much these days.

It also doesn’t help that comics are so expensive now, $2.99 on average. That when it’s time to sell your collection, you’ll get pennies for it per issue. Not even $1 in most cases. And comic prices will only go up.

The pros:

-Trades offer better quality printing and the material is easier to find.

-I’ve grown accustomed to big volumes of comic art in a trade and many issues. The more the better. No need to take out and read each issue for the next part of the story.

-Trades have no in story ads and are cheaper then buying the individual issues, if you use the online discount stores like Amazon. Or look for 50% off deals in conventions.
-Trades make for a nice bookshelf collection.

Overall
I think Trade Paperbacks are great on the shelf and nice volumes to have. Yet at the same time are destroying the value of your per issue comics, and in the long run you won’t get much, if anything for them.

Add in all this online download comics talk (which is another topic) and that makes comic books per issue even have less value. I think this devalues a comic even more. And when a comic book loses it’s value attachment, the perceived worth won’t be there. Because when people pay for something, they have a more vested interest in reading and caring for what they bought. When it’s Free, there is less value attached to it.

This is a whole other topic, but by value I mean for example: If you were given three books of equal quality and overall are the same. But one was given Free, one you paid $5 for and one you paid $20 for. Which of the three, chances are, would you care for more?

Maybe I’ll post my thoughts on the pros and cons of digital comics next? Let me know.

When I hear of great comic book artists, I usually hear the same names. You got people like Kirby, Ditko, Romita, Gil Kane, Buscema, Windsor-Smith, Jim Lee and the list can go on and on.

One name I don’t recall ever hearing in the annals on great comic book artists is that of Joe Shuster, the co-creator and artist who helped bring us Superman.

To me, and for the past few years as I’ve collected more of his work in hardcover and paperback books, it is clear to me he was a fine draftsman, skilled craftsman, innovator, and a great comic book artist.

His design on Superman alone, has directly or indirectly influenced scores of comic book artists and comic book characters.

Things like a chest symbol on the middle of the chest, the tights on the outside, the cape. I mean Geez, Batman alone owes a debt of Gratitude to Superman. Cause Bob Kane, drew a trace outline of the Superman character when he was designing Batman. Now you know why he probably got a similar placed chest symbol, boots and outside tights.

Anyway, back to Joe Shuster. I find his work ahead of it’s time, a joy to look at, and a creator who in comic books should have a higher profile when it comes to naming great comic book artists.

From his proper use of anatomy and proportion, page design, and easy to follow storytelling. His comic strips got the job done and in my view really helped get the Superman comic strip popular.

Who knows what exactly went on with Jerry Siegel, and the talks and discussions they had when making comic books. But with the likes of Superman, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor they created a character and world that has transcended mere comic books, but made a cultural icon that has influenced generations of readers. As well as future generations to come.

Joe Shuster did a great job as a comic book artist and creator, I just thought it was time someone else mentioned it. Because I don’t hear it often enough and just wanted to give my thoughts on the situation and to give credit where it is due.

And if anyone at DC Comics should ever read this, how about making the Ultra-Humanite a human again, and not a monkey. He was the top Superman villain before Lex Luthor was around.

I mentioned creators and creations, in a blog post. Now I’d like to talk Batman.

As you might know, it says Bob Kane created him. Yet, researching the history. It really was a co-creation and a guy named Bill Finger, who wrote the stories and gave ideas, co-created him. And how much influence did Bill Finger have? Well, without him. There would be No Batman as we know him.

And in my opinion Batman, a version only by Bob Kane, would have been a failed concept of a character, long forgotten decades ago as nothing special.

Here is what Bill Finger suggested and helped make in terms of Batman’s creation.

-He suggested the colors for his costume. Such as a gray suit. Kane, had a red suit.
-He suggested the cowl. Kane had a Zorro type mask covering the eyes only.
-Suggested the Scalloped cape. Kane had awkward wings instead.
-Named the Bruce Wayne character
-Made Batman a detective
-Co-created the origin story
-Named the city as, Gotham City
-Helped co-create Robin, Joker, and a bunch of villains

Reading that list: It sure sounds like a co-creation. In fact, most of the creative ideas that you know of as Batman were Bill Finger ideas.

Yet, here is the sad part. He died all but penniless. While his co-creation Batman made millions for Bob Kane.

But while I read, Bob Kane was arrogant and shrewed. I hear remarks from comic professionals, that he was stupid and had no ideas. And he fluked his way into a fortune.

I think it’s wrong to say that. Whatever he lacked, Bob Kane knew his financial situation. And you can’t fluke your way into that many good financial contracts. And as shrewd as he was, it was a good think in a way, cause he was going up against sharks. But he made sure, he got his financial just do in contract. And lived well financially, cause of it. (It’s a shame the Silver Age Marvel creators, did not think in terms of Business Finance. If anything, this case proves creators could have had a financial contract.)

And while some may say: Look, Kane didn’t contribute much to Batman. He didn’t deserve his millions. I disagree, to all of them I say this one important question: Without Bob Kane, would there have been the Batman? Think the situation over and answer honestly. For me, the answer is a resounding No.

His presence, and being there is what helped make Batman. Without him there, there would be no Batman as we know him.

While Kane didn’t create much. He did create. And without him reaching out to Bill Finger, and working together, there would be no Batman.

So he deserves his money. And better him, a co-creator get a financial benefit. Then a corporation to get it all.

But the sad part is, like the companies screwing over the talent and not giving them their financial just due. Bob Kane, never gave his co-creator his just due. He acted like a corporation, and gave his partner nothing financially, in terms of a royalty.

In fact Kane was so business smart, or shrewd, by contract all Batman work has his creators name on it. That of Bob Kane only, and not Bill Finger. So even now, the legacy of Bill Finger is not given its respect and due.

I can only guess why he never gave Bill Finger credit. Maybe it’s cause in him mind, he truly feels he was the sole creator of Batman? And at the least, the initial idea was his. And he approached Bill later. Maybe it was a case of pure Ego, and wanting all the credit? Why have only a co-credit. I’m sure a financial incentive was also there. If he was listed only as a co-creator. Half his income would have to go to Bill Finger, and why share?

I’m not saying it’s right. I can see from the above arguments, especially the financial one, why Bob Kane would resist sharing Batman as a co-creative work.

I can see that. But in terms of living with yourself, I can’t agree.

To do the right thing, cause it’s right, is Important and it matters.

If it were a just world, Bill Finger would have received his financial share and credit of the Batman’s Legacy.

That’s the right think to do, and if your a person of honor, it is what you would do.

But that’s what happened. One of Batman’s creators, got compensated and another of his creators died penniless.

If you are in creative media: If you are creating something, get Legal Advice, read Contracts carefully, and understand your rights before you sign over anything. Also don’t be too forthcoming with creative ideas, without first signing a contract. Or at least, knowing your Legal Rights.

It’s important to think long term and about your rights when creating, especially now, I don’t think there is an excuse. Times back then were different, and most people were not informed about finances and creative media rights. But now it’s different, and you should know. Cause your lack of financial knowledge can end up costing you a possible fortune. And as the saying goes, Always get a contract in writing.

I was watching Family Guy, the Television show and the creator, a guy in his 30’s Seth MacFarlane happened to mention off-hand, how the show made him a millionaire.

I for some reason, probably because I’m reading some issues now, thought about Spider-Man’s creators, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.

I was thinking: Family Guy is an animated show, that Seth MacFarlane started. And it is a hit show, and him being a millionaire is great. He earned it, cause he started and created all these characters and concepts.

Now I look at Spider-Man, who is a cultural icon. Yet, WHO makes all the money off this creation? The Marvel Comics corporation. NOT the men, Stand Lee and Steve Ditko who ONLY CREATED the character. Created the majority of his main villains. His supporting cast, and story lines that have been repeated again and again, and even in various media from animated to movies. Basically they created not only Spider-Man, but the world he operates in.

Let’s face it: It is a Billion Dollar idea and creation.

And while Lee, good for him, has made his millions. It’s cause of ALL his Marvel work and co-created characters. Not just Spider-Man. I think for Spidey alone he deserves more money.

But the real shame is Ditko, who gets NO residual income for Spider-Man, cause back then it was a “work for hire” agreement, and the company owns the character. And the creator has NO RIGHTS in terms of financial income, in making the character.

Its just a darn Shame.

In other media, from Animation, and Books, CREATORS are not treated this shabby.

Comic book history, in this respect, is a Shameful Disgrace. Creators, in a just world, Should Benefit FINANCIALLY, from their creative work. It’s only right.

Yet it didn’t happen in comics back then.

And yet, it was BACK THEN, that all the Truly Creative Works and characters appeared.
All the Icons.

——————————-

P.S. I know some will mention, creators now get a Financial Cut, and Royalty, of characters they make. I agree, but wonder, does anyone know, and can post statistics, and what percent a creator gets for his creation? And does it count for all other work and media outside comics?

From what I’ve read and tried to find, it seems from admittedly, little I know. It still seems like a Raw Deal. And compared to other creative media like Books, Animation, or Films. The creators of Comic Book Characters, in terms of Financial restitution, is still a Raw Deal where you get the financial shaft.

And I guess it shows in a way cause: Comic book companies are pretty notorious in being cheap, and not wanting to give financial royalties AT ALL. Much less, to a creator over and over again, for use of their character.

And if this is the case, Which it is. Then it’s pretty easy to assume, the Financial Cut and royalty you make, in comic books, is not much, for a new creation.

Also, it’s No Surprise, the big two, Marvel and DC Comics DO NOT publish titles, (or at least ones that last) with new characters. It’s a rarity, and something not usually done.

Instead, it’s the same old characters again and again recycled in a new comic book series every few years. I wonder why? It’s gotta be the fact that: They don’t have to pay a royalty for them. Cause those characters, are owned by the company and before the Royalty Plan was in place.

And as a creator: If you learned your history, and how past creators got screwed financially, and how you can’t even dictate the direction of your creation. (And editor can overrule you in terms of how the character should develop.) Why would you want to contribute that new character you made?

Makes no sense.

If you got a good idea, and thanks to diversity now in publishing, it’s better to go to a company like Image, and make a book where you own the rights to your creation.

Bottom Line: Spider-Man’s creators got financially screwed, as well as most of the Golden and Silver age creators. And from what I know, the compensation plan, still isn’t great in terms of your contributions creatively. So if you got a great character or idea, it’s probably best to think it over and publish it in a place where you own the rights.

And at the Very Least, read all contracts carefully and think Long, NOT short term, in regards of finances and if you will get your financial just due if you are working for Marvel, DC, or any other company, that would own your creative ideas.

In this day and age, if you don’t know your creative rights, you had better ask and check what is written in the contract. Lack of such foresight, can cost you financially, a million dollar idea.