Comics Writer Sues 'Blade' Studio
Brian Fried
> >Comics Writer Sues 'Blade' Studio
> Just so you know, the proper place for this discussion is
> rec.arts.comics.misc, as that's where industry and general comics
> discussion is, as this has *nothing* to do with the X-Men. Thanks.
Kate, I think it does have something to do with the X-Men because if this
suit sets a precedent, then we can have Chris Claremont suing Marvel over
revenue stemming from the use of Wolverine in the new X-MEN movie (due
X-Mas 1999) and have many of the more recent characters rejected from film
treatments -- both in X-Men and out -- because studios hate negotiating
with multiple parties just to get the go ahead on the film.
Nat Gertler
Ummm... I'd have to double-check, but didn't Len Wein and... John
Romita? create the character, with Herb Trimpe drawing the first
appearances in Incredible Hulk?
BritReid
get paid with has a small print notice on the back assigning all publication
rights to the company. By endorsing the check you agree to the terms.
However:
a) If you are a creator (writer, penciller, inker) you get a certain number of
the original art pages back. How many depends on the company and your
relationship with the other members of the crative team.)
b) You may receive residuals or bobus depending on sales and reprinting of the
material.
On the other hand:
If the character you created as work-for-hire is used in other media, you
usually don't get a piece of the revenue from it.
Example: Denny O'Neil and either Neal Adams or Bob Brown created Ras a Ghul. I
don't think they have received any money from his appearances on "Batman the
Animated Series"
Len Wein and John Romita created Wolverine. You think they've seen a dime off
the "X-Men" animated series?
Steve Englehart's story "The Laughing Fish" was adapted for "Batman". SInce his
name was in the credits as "Adapted from a story by" he was paid for it's use.
However, many of the first-season Adam West "Batman" stories were taken from
Bill FInger comic scripts. Except for the episode FInger himself scripted for
tv, he wasn't paid for any of them.
-B
Mark Evanier
>When you work on a story for any of the major comics companies, the check you
>get paid with has a small print notice on the back assigning all publication
>rights to the company. By endorsing the check you agree to the terms.
ME: Not true. Publishers gave that up years ago. And the reason they
gave that up is that they recognized that such statements were legally
invalid.
>If the character you created as work-for-hire is used in other media, you
>usually don't get a piece of the revenue from it.
>Example: Denny O'Neil and either Neal Adams or Bob Brown created Ras a Ghul. I
>don't think they have received any money from his appearances on "Batman the
>Animated Series"
ME: You're wrong about this, too.
>Len Wein and John Romita created Wolverine. You think they've seen a dime off
>the "X-Men" animated series?
ME: No, and that's wrong.
>Steve Englehart's story "The Laughing Fish" was adapted for "Batman". SInce his
>name was in the credits as "Adapted from a story by" he was paid for it's use.
ME: He was paid and credited because the company decided it was the
decent thing to do. He was not paid because his name was in the
credits.
>However, many of the first-season Adam West "Batman" stories were taken from
>Bill FInger comic scripts. Except for the episode FInger himself scripted for
>tv, he wasn't paid for any of them.
ME: True. And that was wrong.
---------------------------
Mark Evanier - 363 S. Fairfax Ave., #303 - Los Angeles, CA 90036
Nat Gertler
>
> When you work on a story for any of the major comics companies, the check you
> get paid with has a small print notice on the back assigning all publication
> rights to the company. By endorsing the check you agree to the terms.
I can't speak for all of the majors, but from what I've seen, these
have largely been replaced with up front contracts and signed
vouchers. Additionally, some people working for the majors have
various sorts of creator-owned deals, that do not involve assigning
all publishing rights to the company.
> However:
> a) If you are a creator (writer, penciller, inker) you get a certain number of
> the original art pages back. How many depends on the company and your
> relationship with the other members of the crative team.)
I've never known the writer to get pieces of original art from the
publishers.
> b) You may receive residuals or bobus depending on sales and reprinting of the
> material.
> On the other hand:
> If the character you created as work-for-hire is used in other media, you
> usually don't get a piece of the revenue from it.
These days, Marvel and DC offer character creators a cut of
licensing revenues.
> Example: Denny O'Neil and either Neal Adams or Bob Brown created Ras a Ghul. I
> don't think they have received any money from his appearances on "Batman the
> Animated Series"
> Len Wein and John Romita created Wolverine. You think they've seen a dime off
> the "X-Men" animated series?
> Steve Englehart's story "The Laughing Fish" was adapted for "Batman". SInce his
> name was in the credits as "Adapted from a story by" he was paid for it's use.
> However, many of the first-season Adam West "Batman" stories were taken from
> Bill FInger comic scripts. Except for the episode FInger himself scripted for
> tv, he wasn't paid for any of them.
All of these refer to works that were created in the 1970's or
earlier. Deals with the publishers regarding new material are
different.
Steven Grant
>I've never known the writer to get pieces of original art from the
>publishers.
For a few years at Marvel, the writer got 2 pages of each 22 page story.
The pages were sorted by playing card: they were numbered 1-22, and the
woman in charge of returning artwork shuffled the cards and dealt them out
face down between the writer, penciller, and inker, in whatever proportion
they were to get, and whatever page numbers came up in their stack is what
each would get. The practice was discontinued by the mid-80s.
>These days, Marvel and DC offer character creators a cut of
>licensing revenues.
True. They call it "character equity."
>All of these refer to works that were created in the 1970's or
>earlier. Deals with the publishers regarding new material are
>different.
While offtimes the outcome isn't significantly different from what it was 15
years ago, contractual matters in comics are now almost totally different
from the situation "BritReid" so lovingly describes.
--
Rough Beast Entertainment - http://www.premier1.net/~sdgrant
Mark Evanier
>I've never known the writer to get pieces of original art from the
>publishers.
ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
changed after a few months.
But other than that, you're right.
Tom Galloway
>If the character you created as work-for-hire is used in other media, you
>usually don't get a piece of the revenue from it.
>don't think they have received any money from his appearances on "Batman the
>Animated Series"
Actually, I'd bet that O'Neil at least does. I know that Len Wein has
mentioned that when STAR Labs has been used in things like the Flash
tv show, he got money. And I'd say STAR Labs is less significant as
a background concept than a story antagonist.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Nat Gertler
>
> On 26 Aug 1998 17:18:04 GMT, Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> posted:
>
> >I've never known the writer to get pieces of original art from the
> >publishers.
>
> ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
> when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
> the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
> changed after a few months.
>
> But other than that, you're right.
Which is why I phrased it as admit my own lack of knowledge, rather
than claiming that it never happened. If only things I knew about
actually happened, well, then there would be a lot less sex going
on in this world, for one thing...
--Nat (who agrees with the way art returns normally work... but if
the artist offers me some of the art, I never say "no".)
Jason Fliegel
Mark Evanier <eva...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 26 Aug 1998 14:46:09 GMT, brit...@aol.com (BritReid) posted:
>
>
>>the "X-Men" animated series?
>
Just to play Devil's advocate here, while Wein and Romita created
Wolverine, it was Claremont and Byrne who turned him from just another
weird 70s creation (remember the Grizzly or Razorback) into the superstar
character he is today -- how fair is it to allow Wein and Romita to reap
the crops Claremont and Byrne sowed? And if Wein and Romita had been
given a stake in Wolverine, would Claremont have used him in the X-Men, or
would he have simply pulled a Black Vulcan and replaced Wolverine with
Woodchuck?
(And yes, I know Wein did the first 2 issues of the New X-Men, but
Claremont could have gotten rid of Wolverine as easily as he got rid of
Proudstar).
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
3L, University of Chicago Law School
Nat Gertler
>
> Just to play Devil's advocate here, while Wein and Romita created
> Wolverine, it was Claremont and Byrne who turned him from just another
> weird 70s creation (remember the Grizzly or Razorback) into the superstar
> character he is today -- how fair is it to allow Wein and Romita to reap
> the crops Claremont and Byrne sowed?
1) Wein and Romita sowed. C&B (and others) merely provided
fertilizer (and I mean that in the most positive sense!)
The songwriter who writes a song that the hit singer records
and releases makes a profit off of that. The provision of the
quality tools is no minor achievement. When you're talking about
Len Wein, for example, you're talking about someone who has
created a number of characters considered worthy of further
use, exploited on films, in TV, etc. And it's hard to argue
that the fair thing isn't to pay anyone at all...
> And if Wein and Romita had been
> given a stake in Wolverine, would Claremont have used him in the X-Men, or
> would he have simply pulled a Black Vulcan and replaced Wolverine with
> Woodchuck?
Claremont was still writing X-Men into the days when there were
incentives for creators on their own characters... and continued
to use characters created by Len Wein and others.
Tom Galloway
>(And yes, I know Wein did the first 2 issues of the New X-Men, but
>Claremont could have gotten rid of Wolverine as easily as he got rid of
>Proudstar).
Well, of the New X-Men, you had:
Cyclops, Xavier, X-Men concept: created by Lee & Kirby
Banshee: created by Roy Thomas and an artist I don't recall offhand.
Sunfire: created by Thomas and Neal Adams (I think; may be another artist)
Wolverine: created by Len Wein and Herb Trimpe (I think again on the artist)
Nightcrawler, Storm, Colossus, Thunderbird: created by Wein and Dave Cockrum
(although if I recall the ordering, at least the first three were
visually created by Cockrum pre-X-Men as intended for a Legion spinoff).
So Claremont would've had to get rid of a *lot* of characters to have
a group he owned even the majority of. And there was no way of telling
that Wolverine would be the megastar of the bunch; Cockrum tended to
play up Nightcrawler which Claremont's writing went along with. Byrne
tended to play up Wolverine and so forth.
On the other hand, Len has said that he does consider Illyana Rasputin to
be Claremont's character, since that one page of Giant-Size X-Men basically
established that Collosus had a blonde 6-8 year oldish sister and nothing
more about her at all. I'd argue that there's a distinction between
further developing a character from some defined starting point of
characterization and doing so from almost completely whole cloth ala
Illyana.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Jason Fliegel
>In article <EyBLo...@midway.uchicago.edu> jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
>>(And yes, I know Wein did the first 2 issues of the New X-Men, but
>>Claremont could have gotten rid of Wolverine as easily as he got rid of
>>Proudstar).
>
>Well, of the New X-Men, you had:
>Cyclops, Xavier, X-Men concept: created by Lee & Kirby
>Banshee: created by Roy Thomas and an artist I don't recall offhand.
>Sunfire: created by Thomas and Neal Adams (I think; may be another artist)
>Wolverine: created by Len Wein and Herb Trimpe (I think again on the artist)
John Romita, actually, from what I understand, in his role as Marvel's art
director (although Trimpe drew the INCREDIBLE HULK issue in which he first
appeared, I think).
>Nightcrawler, Storm, Colossus, Thunderbird: created by Wein and Dave Cockrum
> (although if I recall the ordering, at least the first three were
> visually created by Cockrum pre-X-Men as intended for a Legion spinoff).
>
That's the story I recall hearing (regarding the Legion spinoff).
Colossus was designed as Ferro Lad's brother, I think.
>So Claremont would've had to get rid of a *lot* of characters to have
>a group he owned even the majority of. And there was no way of telling
>that Wolverine would be the megastar of the bunch; Cockrum tended to
>play up Nightcrawler which Claremont's writing went along with. Byrne
>tended to play up Wolverine and so forth.
This is certainly true -- early on, it looked like Nightcrawler and Storm
would be the breakout characters. On the other hand, if there had been
really strong creator incentives and royalties, wouldn't Claremont have
had a strong incentive to play up Kitty Pride or Phoenix at the expense of
the characters he didn't create? It seems so. Would this be a bad thing?
I don't know -- but it certainly seems like it would make for a less
cohesive universe.
CyberJohns
>suit sets a precedent, then we can have Chris Claremont suing Marvel over
>revenue stemming from the use of Wolverine in the new X-MEN movie (due
>X-Mas 1999) and have many of the more recent characters rejected from film
>treatments -- both in X-Men and out -- because studios hate negotiating
>with multiple parties just to get the go ahead on the film.
Actually, Len Wein created Wolverine and the other characters from the 70s
series (Chris did create Shadowcat, and for all I know, he also created
Gambit), though if Len tried to claim ownership, Glynis would demand it in the
alimony...
CyberJohns
other perks. This sort of thing does not apply to earlier artists, although DC
has given this privilege to Jack Kirby. I imagine that Marv wants something
similar in regards to Blade.
CyberJohns
>mentioned that when STAR Labs has been used in things like the Flash
>tv show, he got money. And I'd say STAR Labs is less significant as
>a background concept than a story antagonist.
And Lenno created STAR Labs before those Image babies first drooled!
PatDOneill
>Banshee: created by Roy Thomas and an artist I don't recall offhand.
Werner Roth (though it's entirely possible the original costume was designed by
another artist--that often happened at Marvel in the '60s)
>Sunfire: created by Thomas and Neal Adams (I think; may be another artist)
Adams designed the character, I think; but the initial appearance was penciled
by Don Heck
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
PatDOneill
>when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
>the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
>changed after a few months.
>
>But other than that, you're right.
You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
the artwork considered such an anathema?
(Particularly in cases of full-script writing?)
Robin Riggs
> Well, of the New X-Men, you had:
> Cyclops, Xavier, X-Men concept: created by Lee & Kirby
> Banshee: created by Roy Thomas and an artist I don't recall offhand.
Werner Roth?
> Sunfire: created by Thomas and Neal Adams (I think; may be another artist)
The issue featuring his first appearance was pencilled by Don Heck, Not
sure if he did the design though.
> Wolverine: created by Len Wein and Herb Trimpe (I think again on the artist)
Trimpe drew the first appearance but the character design was John
Romita Sr.
> Nightcrawler, Storm, Colossus, Thunderbird: created by Wein and Dave Cockrum
> (although if I recall the ordering, at least the first three were
> visually created by Cockrum pre-X-Men as intended for a Legion spinoff).
According to interviews with Cockrum he proposed four new Legionaires.
The only one to be accepted was Wildfire (originally named Starfire by
Cockrum). There was also Nightcrawler whose design apparently even
pre-dates his Legion work. Cockrum designed him while still a fan when
he was in the navy. Apparently Murray Boultinoff rejected him for being
too wierd looking. The other two unused characters were Typhoon, a male
weather handler, and Quetzal, who was green and had wings from her arms
like a bird. Storm, it seems was designed for the New X-Men being a
combination of Cockrum's original design named Black Cat being combined
with his proposed Legionaire Typhoon. Colossus and Thunderbird were, it
seems, designed specifically for the X-Men.
--
Robin Riggs
Nat Gertler
>
> >ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
> >when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
> >the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
> >changed after a few months.
> >
> >But other than that, you're right.
> >---------------------------
>
> You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
> result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
> the artwork considered such an anathema?
The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
so working dilligently on each board.
It's the artist's art.
Tom Galloway
Robin Riggs <robin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>with his proposed Legionaire Typhoon. Colossus and Thunderbird were, it
>seems, designed specifically for the X-Men.
Except that Colossus was originally supposed to be Ferro Lad's (established)
twin brother, who had the power to turn into iron.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
: >when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
: >the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
: >changed after a few months.
: >
: >But other than that, you're right.
: >---------------------------
: You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
: result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
: the artwork considered such an anathema?
: (Particularly in cases of full-script writing?)
Probably because the writer had nothing to do with physically producing
the pages. It's the physical effort that's being acknowledged when
companies return the artwork to the artists.
Even so, I know a number of artists (including Robin) who habitually send
art pages to the writers of the books on which they work, as a courtesy.
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Kevin J. Maroney
>The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
>script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
>did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
>so working dilligently on each board.
>
>It's the artist's art.
I do think there's a degree to which the artists can be capitalizing
on the writer's success. Scott Hampton pages from _The Books of Magic_
(written by Neil Gaiman) are more in-demand than Scott Hampton pages
from _The Upturned Stone_ (written by Scott Hampton).
This is true even though _The Upturned Stone_ is more interesting than
the original Gaiman _Books of Magic_ series.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
PatDOneill
>the
>> result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece
>of
>> the artwork considered such an anathema?
>
>script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
>did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
>so working dilligently on each board.
>
>It's the artist's art.
Considering that, in many cases, the artist would have nothing to draw if the
writer did not first give him a story and a description of the action to be
depicted, saying the writer had no hand in the creation of the art is like
saying the author had no hand in the creation of the typeset galleys of a
novel. After all, he never touched the type, did he?
Mark Evanier
>You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
>result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
>the artwork considered such an anathema?
ME: Because the artwork isn't the writer's work.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >> You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is
: >the
: >> result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece
: >of
: >> the artwork considered such an anathema?
: >The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
: >did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
: >so working dilligently on each board.
: >
: >It's the artist's art.
: Considering that, in many cases, the artist would have nothing to draw if the
: writer did not first give him a story...
Doesn't matter, Pat. We're talking about PHYSICAL LABOR, *not* the
collaborative process. The results of the writer's physical labor are the
script and, in some casis, the thumbnails. The writer gets to keep the
script, as well as sell copies of it if he/she desires. The artists get
to keep the art boards, just as colorists get to keep the color guides if
I'm not mistaken. I don't understand what you're having trouble grasping
here.
- Elayne (who thinks some pages should be sent to letterers, too!)
Nat Gertler
>
> Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
>
> >The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
> >script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
> >did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
> >so working dilligently on each board.
> >
> >It's the artist's art.
>
> on the writer's success. Scott Hampton pages from _The Books of Magic_
> (written by Neil Gaiman) are more in-demand than Scott Hampton pages
> from _The Upturned Stone_ (written by Scott Hampton).
Yes, and trust me... we writers find way to capitalize on the
success of artists. If I can get Alex Ross to draw a comic I
wrote, the sales will go up and royalties will increase... even
if I wrote the exact same script I would've written for (fill
in name of less-popular artist here). And the artist may
gain from the popularity of the characters depicted on the
art... but it still remains true that it is his art. It does not
belong to the publisher who may own the characters, nor does it
belong to the writer.
Nat Gertler
>
> >The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
> >script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
> >did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
> >so working dilligently on each board.
> >
> >It's the artist's art.
>
> depicted, saying the writer had no hand in the creation of the art is like
> saying the author had no hand in the creation of the typeset galleys of a
> novel. After all, he never touched the type, did he?
The comics writer is not trying to create the artboard. He is
directly creating the script, to try to indirectly create the
comic. The art on the artboard is the artist's work. It belongs
to him, for reasons both legal and ethical.
Robin Riggs
> - Elayne (who thinks some pages should be sent to letterers, too!)
These days most lettering is done on computer and never comes anywhere
near the art boards. I've sent Pat Prentice a page from pretty much
every book we've worked on together though. She's the best!
--
Robin Riggs
Steve Lieber
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> >ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
> >when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
> >the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
> >changed after a few months.
> >
> >But other than that, you're right.
> >---------------------------
>
> You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
> result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
> the artwork considered such an anathema?
>
> (Particularly in cases of full-script writing?)
In the case of the Marvel writers, its a safe assumption that it wasn't
full script writing.
In the general case, it's because there's an enormous gap between the
effort of writing this:
Panel one: Napoleon's men begin their charge, hundreds of them on
horseback, sabres flashing. The leader has a curling moustache.
Leader(burst): Kill Zem! For Fraaaahnce!
Panel two: Wellington's armies form tight defensive squares and begin to
return fire. A rifleman addresses his men
Rifleman: Square up boys! They won't break us!
Panel three: Dozens of Frenchmen fall from their horses, dead. The leader
is shot in the arm- a red burst of blood explodes across his grey uniform.
Leader: Incroyable! The English do not flee!
Leader: Yaggh!
...and actually drawing all those uniforms, weapons and horses. The script
was two minutes of typing, the art would take at least 20 man-hours to
draw. And hey, there are some color notes in panel three. Maybe the writer
should get some of the color guides as well.
The above script is, I'm sad to say, every bit as detailed as many of the
scripts I've been given to illustrate at the big two.
If you wanted to argue that Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman or Harvey Kurtzman
deserve a share of the art because they work every bit as hard on a story
as their illustrators, you could probably make a case, but none of them
have ever made any claim on the physical work of their collaborators. It's
far more typical to hear this from writers who think that coming up with:
"Villain escapes from Alcatraz with a new weapon to attack Spidey"
constitutes genuine intellectual work.
Lieber
--
My web page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8914/
WHITEOUT #3 coming in September from Oni press
Preview of WHITEOUT #1 at http://www.pond.net/~gregr/Whiteout.html
Bard Sinister
> sli...@compuserve.com (Steve Lieber) done said this here deal:
> >The above script is, I'm sad to say, every bit as detailed as many of the
> >scripts I've been given to illustrate at the big two.
> >
> >If you wanted to argue that Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman or Harvey Kurtzman
> >deserve a share of the art because they work every bit as hard on a story
> >as their illustrators, you could probably make a case, but none of them
> >have ever made any claim on the physical work of their collaborators. It's
> >far more typical to hear this from writers who think that coming up with:
> >"Villain escapes from Alcatraz with a new weapon to attack Spidey"
> >constitutes genuine intellectual work.
> Or Preist's favorite... Next four pages: THEY FIGHT!
> heh...
Does anybody know why Priest has been away from RAC recently? I
realized I haven't seen anything from him recently, but I couldn't find
any sort of 'goodbye' message when I hit Dejanews.
Eric Gimlin
Richard Pace
PatDOneill wrote in message
<199808271748...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>> You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards
is
>>the
>>> result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a
piece
>>of
>>> the artwork considered such an anathema?
>>
>>script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
>>did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
>>so working dilligently on each board.
>>
>>It's the artist's art.
>
>Considering that, in many cases, the artist would have nothing to draw if
the
>writer did not first give him a story and a description of the action to be
>depicted,
The architect doesn't get to own a piece of the building. But, neither do
the brick layers. My explanation for this (and I often send a page to the
writer after I get the art back), the script is the script - - it doesn't
exist until I filter it through my imagination and design and create the
page, and it isn't printable till an inker inks it. At this point, unless
I'm working with an Alan Moore phonebook thick script with the nine panel
grid in mind, what's on the page is entirely mine.
It's very much directors inboth stage and screen -- what the audience sees
is the director's work based on the script. Therefore a prodution of a
Shakespeare play isn't Shakespeare's but the director's. The art being
returned to the artist is a confirmation of this - the visuals in a visual
medium belong to those who created them.
saying the writer had no hand in the creation of the art is like
>saying the author had no hand in the creation of the typeset galleys of a
>novel. After all, he never touched the type, did he?
No, the author had nothing to do with the creation of the galleys. That
would be the book designers' purview, yet another artist.
And, gee, thanks, you just compared artists with data entry clerks. It's a
good thing your opinions don't represent those of Wizard.
Take care
Richard
deric...@email.msn.com
> >result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece
of
> >the artwork considered such an anathema?
>
Mark, what would you consider to be appropriate compensation? I ask only
because you have written in more diverse areas than anyone else I can think
of.
D.E.Wilson
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Bradly E. Peterson
>>ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
>>when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
>>the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
>>changed after a few months.
>>
>>But other than that, you're right.
>>---------------------------
>
>You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
>result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
>the artwork considered such an anathema?
>
>(Particularly in cases of full-script writing?)
Because, they didn't sweat over the pages. They wrote the thing.
The pencillers and inkers brought it to life. I'm sure many
writers have paid them for those pages afterwards, so they could
keep 'em. Maybe if it was the first thing they had published, I
could see 'em being really cool and just saying, "Here! Welcome
to the party, pal! This one's free, but the rest..." heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Bradly E. Peterson
(script section SNIPped)
>The above script is, I'm sad to say, every bit as detailed as many of the
>scripts I've been given to illustrate at the big two.
>
>If you wanted to argue that Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman or Harvey Kurtzman
>deserve a share of the art because they work every bit as hard on a story
>as their illustrators, you could probably make a case, but none of them
>have ever made any claim on the physical work of their collaborators. It's
>far more typical to hear this from writers who think that coming up with:
>"Villain escapes from Alcatraz with a new weapon to attack Spidey"
>constitutes genuine intellectual work.
Or Preist's favorite... Next four pages: THEY FIGHT!
Bradly E. Peterson
>Bradly E. Peterson wrote:
>> Or Preist's favorite... Next four pages: THEY FIGHT!
>> heh...
>
>Does anybody know why Priest has been away from RAC recently? I
>realized I haven't seen anything from him recently, but I couldn't find
>any sort of 'goodbye' message when I hit Dejanews.
I've wondered as well. I'm guessing that he's spending less time
online, and more time working. Unless he's on the Marvel & DC
groups, because I don't go there these days.
Michael Netzer
Steve Lieber wrote in message ...
>Panel one: Napoleon's men begin their charge, hundreds of them on
>horseback, sabres flashing. The leader has a curling moustache.
>Leader(burst): Kill Zem! For Fraaaahnce!
>
>Panel two: Wellington's armies form tight defensive squares and begin to
>return fire. A rifleman addresses his men
>Rifleman: Square up boys! They won't break us!
>
>Panel three: Dozens of Frenchmen fall from their horses, dead. The leader
>is shot in the arm- a red burst of blood explodes across his grey uniform.
>Leader: Incroyable! The English do not flee!
>Leader: Yaggh!
>
>...and actually drawing all those uniforms, weapons and horses. The script
>was two minutes of typing, the art would take at least 20 man-hours to
>draw. And hey, there are some color notes in panel three. Maybe the writer
>should get some of the color guides as well.
>
>The above script is, I'm sad to say, every bit as detailed as many of the
>scripts I've been given to illustrate at the big two.
Hey! Who wrote a script that easy? And what editor let it go by? I wanna
work with those guys!
Michael
PatDOneill
>collaborative process. The results of the writer's physical labor are the
>script and, in some casis, the thumbnails. The writer gets to keep the
>script, as well as sell copies of it if he/she desires. The artists get
>to keep the art boards, just as colorists get to keep the color guides if
>I'm not mistaken. I don't understand what you're having trouble grasping
>here.
Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page of a
comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
intellectual labor is the writer's.
WindyTWise
>Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page of
>a
>comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
>intellectual labor is the writer's.
Those who both write and draw can probably appreciate what you say, Pat. Those
who primarily draw probably never will.
In your absence, we've had an interesting discussion on just exactly why one
(relatively) famous WRITER could more easily write three entire comic books
than one "different" comic book. Some writing is much easier than others -
Some writing is formulaic - and as such probably IS easier than the relatively
"original" material that attempts to break the genre, while still appealing to
most of the same audience.
But should a writer be given more material simply because it's apparently more
difficult to write? Ew. I'll leave that to those that wish to make a real
argument out of this.
If a writer creates a setup that doesn't easily work out in a logical fashion,
it traps the story - if the story is say, spread out over a few issues. If an
artist makes a mistake, like alternating a weapon from the left to the right
arm in a fight as seen from panel to panel, then not a whole lot of people
would think that would screw up the entire layout of the rest of the
story/book.
I'm a story guy. First. Last. Always.
So that affects my views.
When I see articles like
<URL:http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/en/story.html?s=v/nm/19980827/en
/film-movies-_1.html>
I simply nod my head and agree. (For those too lazy to find the link, it's
about how the film studio heads now finally agree that action pictures without
a story can't draw folks in like they used to. Titled, "It's the Story,
Stupid")
I don't care if (in a movie) the CGI took the special effects guys three years
and a gazillion bucks. If the story isn't there, I won't reccomend the darn
movie. So, in reference to movies, I don't value the canvas alone. Using
cheap canvas can work if the story is excellent. Using expensive graphics is
like expensive canvas. You can attract all sorts of attention, but to retain
those eyes there has to be something for the brain to think about when the
movie is over or the book is closed. Art doesn't do that.
Granted, it's only my opinion. I already know WHY Baywatch sells as well as it
does. That's because many folks don't want to think about the story, and look
at the art and they imagine themselves there.
But is art more valuable, simply because it takes more time during the eye-hand
coordination part of the labor? No.
I'll take the visions of Shakespeare over the visions of Renior any day.
Walt "Story Guy" Stone
T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents
http://www.thunderagents.com
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >Doesn't matter, Pat. We're talking about PHYSICAL LABOR, *not* the
: >collaborative process. The results of the writer's physical labor are the
: >script and, in some casis, the thumbnails. The writer gets to keep the
: >script, as well as sell copies of it if he/she desires. The artists get
: >to keep the art boards, just as colorists get to keep the color guides if
: >I'm not mistaken. I don't understand what you're having trouble grasping
: >here.
: Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page of a
: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
: intellectual labor is the writer's.
Pat, the intellectual labor involved in SCRIPTING is the writer's. The
intellectual *and* physical labor involved in DRAWING is the artists'.
- Elayne
PatDOneill
>of a
>: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
>: intellectual labor is the writer's.
>
>Pat, the intellectual labor involved in SCRIPTING is the writer's. The
>intellectual *and* physical labor involved in DRAWING is the artists'.
>
consists entirely of interpreting the intellectual labor of the writer. IMO,
the artist's output is almost entirely derivative of the writer's work.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >: Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page
: >of a
: >: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
: >: intellectual labor is the writer's.
: >
: >Pat, the intellectual labor involved in SCRIPTING is the writer's. The
: >intellectual *and* physical labor involved in DRAWING is the artists'.
: >
: And, in the vast majority of cases, the intellectual labor of the artist
: consists entirely of interpreting the intellectual labor of the writer.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE ARTIST IS DOING THE LABOR. THEREFORE, THE ARTIST
DESERVES THE PHYSICAL RESULTS OF HIS/HER LABOR.
I'm sorry to shout, Pat, but you seem to have a real problem grasping
this, and 2 x 4's don't work as well online. :)
Bradly E. Peterson
>>Doesn't matter, Pat. We're talking about PHYSICAL LABOR, *not* the
>>collaborative process. The results of the writer's physical labor are the
>>script and, in some casis, the thumbnails. The writer gets to keep the
>>script, as well as sell copies of it if he/she desires. The artists get
>>to keep the art boards, just as colorists get to keep the color guides if
>>I'm not mistaken. I don't understand what you're having trouble grasping
>>here.
>
>Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page of a
>comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
>intellectual labor is the writer's.
As well as the Artist's. I'd say the scales tip to the artist.
Besides, I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.
sli...@compuserve.com
proxy.airnews.net>,
dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) wrote:
> Or Preist's favorite... Next four pages: THEY FIGHT!
I've received Marvel-style scripts that said exactly that. Somehow, I've
managed to cope with the guilt I feel at keeping my originals when my efforts
are clearly derivative of those of the writer.
Sarcasm aside, I know several artists that *prefer* to work on scripts that
are written that loosely. Such an attitude strikes me as essentially
contemptuous of the role of the (credited) writer. I'd rather work on a well
thought out script or be in on the writing from the start.
Steve Lieber
My web page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8914/
WHITEOUT #3 coming in September from Oni Press
Preview of WHITEOUT #1 at http://www.pond.net/~gregr/Whiteout.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
sli...@compuserve.com
>
> >>Doesn't matter, Pat. We're talking about PHYSICAL LABOR, *not* the
> >>collaborative process. The results of the writer's physical labor are the
> >>script and, in some casis, the thumbnails. The writer gets to keep the
> >>script, as well as sell copies of it if he/she desires. The artists get
> >>to keep the art boards, just as colorists get to keep the color guides if
> >>I'm not mistaken. I don't understand what you're having trouble grasping
> >>here.
> >
> >Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a page of a
> >comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
> >intellectual labor is the writer's.
>
> As well as the Artist's. I'd say the scales tip to the artist.
> Besides, I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.
This is Pat we're arguing with. We're lucky he isn't suggesting that the
editor should keep the art.
Marc Fleury -- ABDO Entertainment
>What I'm arguing, Elayne, is that a creative work is as much intellectual as it
>is physical (probably more so) and that all contributors to that intellectual
>labot deserve a piece of the pie, including a piece of the ultimate physical
>result.
The ultimate physical result is the comic. And writers do indeed get
contributor's copies (if they want them). The artwork is merely one
of the intermediate stages. And it is a stage created by the artist,
so the artist should have the right to it.
You might as well argue that the writer should be allowed to get
copies of the film negative.
Marc Fleury
ABDO Entertainment.
http://www.panel1.com/abdo
--
>> ATTENTION RETAILERS! <<
For FREE promotional material (including free comics)
from ABDO Entertainment, just reply to this message by
email, and send your store's contact info.
Nat Gertler
>
> >PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
> >: >: Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a
> >page
> >: >of a
> >: >: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
> >: >: intellectual labor is the writer's.
> >: >Pat, the intellectual labor involved in SCRIPTING is the writer's. The
> >: >intellectual *and* physical labor involved in DRAWING is the artists'.
> >: >
> >: And, in the vast majority of cases, the intellectual labor of the artist
> >: consists entirely of interpreting the intellectual labor of the writer.
> >
> >IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE ARTIST IS DOING THE LABOR. THEREFORE, THE ARTIST
> >DESERVES THE PHYSICAL RESULTS OF HIS/HER LABOR.
> >
> >
>
> move right in. After all, the builder deserves the physical results of his/her
> labor, right?
Those builders are selling their efforts. That's what they're getting
paid for--unlike comics creators, who are getting paid for the
intellectual property they create.
> What I'm arguing, Elayne, is that a creative work is as much intellectual as it
> is physical (probably more so) and that all contributors to that intellectual
> labot deserve a piece of the pie, including a piece of the ultimate physical
> result.
The ultimate physical result is the comic book, not the art....
and, generally speaking, the creators all get comps.
Bradly E. Peterson
> dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) wrote:
>> As well as the Artist's. I'd say the scales tip to the artist.
>> Besides, I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.
>
>This is Pat we're arguing with. We're lucky he isn't suggesting that the
>editor should keep the art.
heh... Or perhaps recycling the pages to make more pages for the
writers NOT to draw on. heh...
CyberJohns
demand money off of BATMAN & ROBIN...
CyberJohns
>the Virginia War Memorial. There's a gorgeous statue there,
>and the credits on it read something like: designed by (famous
>sculpter), executed by (two other people). I hadn't fully
>realized before that other artistic media sometimes worked
>in collaboration, as comics do. In that case, the VWM owned
>the statue (and reproduction rights, apparently, since it's used
>on their brochures and such), and the people who did the labor
>weren't considered the creators, and clearly didn't possess
>the "physical results."
Wonder when comics will start using those "Marvel Characters Inc. is the author
of this periodical for purposes of copyright law in the United States and other
countries" disclaimers you see only in movies?
ShutUpRob
writes:
>It's very much directors inboth stage and screen -- what the audience
>sees is the director's work based on the script. Therefore a prodution
>of a Shakespeare play isn't Shakespeare's but the director's. The art
>being returned to the artist is a confirmation of this - the visuals in a
>visual medium belong to those who created them.
Just to add: For theatre, the script is never considered within
the artform to be the actual play, it's only considered to be a
blueprint or recipe that *everyone* onstage *and* backstage is
considered to be contributing work to under the coordination of
the director. While the buck for vision ultimately stops with the
director, IMO, the director-as-auteur theory is a gross
oversimplification of the process that tends to be forgotten
when work both good and bad by other contributors to the
work can (and often does) overshadow the director's vision.
The director is to me more a mediator, or in comics terms,
analogous to an editor who also sketches the comic's
breakdowns (and loosely) than a comics writer.
-- Rob Jensen, Stage Manager (Ass't. Editor analogue)
=========================================
"I'm the male Ally McBeal."
Nat Gertler
>
> I'm surprised the writers of the first Poison Ivy and Bane stories didn't
> demand money off of BATMAN & ROBIN...
I wouldn't assume that the creators of Bane, a relatively new character,
didn't get money off of it.
Todd VerBeek
>>THE ARTIST IS DOING THE LABOR. THEREFORE, THE ARTIST
>>DESERVES THE PHYSICAL RESULTS OF HIS/HER LABOR.
My pal JohannaLD said:
>You know, this discussion came to mind when I recently visited
>the Virginia War Memorial. There's a gorgeous statue there,
>and the credits on it read something like: designed by (famous
>sculpter), executed by (two other people). I hadn't fully
>realized before that other artistic media sometimes worked
>in collaboration, as comics do.
You mean, like... movies? {grin}
>In that case, the VWM owned
>the statue (and reproduction rights, apparently, since it's used
>on their brochures and such), and the people who did the labor
>weren't considered the creators, and clearly didn't possess
>the "physical results."
That's obviously because the whole point of their labour was to hand the
"physical results" over to the commissioner of the work. This discussion
has been about a situation in which the commissioner doesn't really care
about the "physical results" as long as they get a really good copy of it
and the right to make more. So it is, as you say, a question of who has
dibs if the commissioner of the work doesn't want it and the contract
doesn't specify. I'd go with "(two other people)" in the above example.
And "(famous sculptor)" can keep his original sketches and the original
small-scale model he probably made (from which "t.o.p." probably worked).
Cheers, Todd
---
cDATA 2000, a comic-book database program for the next millennium.
Download it from <http://www.RZero.com/soft/>
PatDOneill
>> move right in. After all, the builder deserves the physical results of
>his/her
>> labor, right?
>
>Those builders are selling their efforts. That's what they're getting
>paid for--unlike comics creators, who are getting paid for the
>intellectual property they create.
>
Then if they're being paid for the intellectual property, why do the artists
get to keep the physical evidence of that work, and the writers do not?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE ARTIST IS DOING THE LABOR. THEREFORE, THE ARTIST
: >DESERVES THE PHYSICAL RESULTS OF HIS/HER LABOR.
: Fine--then if you ever pay anyone to build you a house, be sure to let them
: move right in. After all, the builder deserves the physical results of his/her
: labor, right?
Congratulations on just winning the Bad Analogy of the Year award.
: What I'm arguing, Elayne, is that a creative work is as much intellectual as it
: is physical
I'm not talking about intellectual work. I'm talking about physical
creative labor.
: all contributors to that intellectual
: labot deserve a piece of the pie, including a piece of the ultimate physical
: result.
Have companies suddenly stopped sending comp copies of comics to writers?
Nat Gertler
>
> >> Fine--then if you ever pay anyone to build you a house, be sure to let them
> >> move right in. After all, the builder deserves the physical results of
> >his/her
> >> labor, right?
> >
> >paid for--unlike comics creators, who are getting paid for the
> >intellectual property they create.
> >
>
> Then if they're being paid for the intellectual property, why do the artists
> get to keep the physical evidence of that work, and the writers do not?
Writers do. Writers can get their scripts back. That's their
material that they handed in. (Many don't seem to bother getting
their scripts back, but that's their option.)
The comics company, which has not purchased the physical artwork,
would have at best questionable legal standing if they tried to
steal that artwork and give it to someone else.
JohannaLD
>>I hadn't fully
>>realized before that other artistic media sometimes worked
>>in collaboration, as comics do.
>
>You mean, like... movies? {grin}
You're assuming I think movies are artistic. (BIG grin)
>That's obviously because the whole point of their labour was to hand the
>"physical results" over to the commissioner of the work.
Isn't it the same with comics, at least for a period of time?
(Actually, things may have changed on this front; I've noticed
a number of comics lately where the lettering or the ink lines
have jaggies, which leads me to think that they're working
from bad computer scans instead of the originals.)
If the commissioner "doesn't really care", then why do they
demand the original pages are mailed in? It would be much
cheaper to do it other ways. Then there's the whole question
of who provided the core materials, like the special pages.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, really; I don't care who
gets pages, I just think saying "they did the physical labor,
they automatically own them" is too simplistic. Plus, there
are the economic factors; people have suggested that writers
sometimes overcommit themselves to earn a living wage,
which leads to wrose stories. Artists aren't as pressured that
way, because they have the additional income from selling
their originals.
Johanna
Nat Gertler
>
> >That's obviously because the whole point of their labour was to hand the
> >"physical results" over to the commissioner of the work.
>
> Isn't it the same with comics, at least for a period of time?
No, that's not the *point*, it's a tool used in achieving the real
point, which is the reproduction.
> (Actually, things may have changed on this front; I've noticed
> a number of comics lately where the lettering or the ink lines
> have jaggies, which leads me to think that they're working
> from bad computer scans instead of the originals.)
Some comics have been delivered straight from scans, others are
delivered as photocopies.
> If the commissioner "doesn't really care", then why do they
> demand the original pages are mailed in? It would be much
> cheaper to do it other ways.
Generally, so they can control the quality of the first level
of reproduction, as well as do some in-house physical retouch
work if needed (retouching being better done on quality art
board than on photocopies.)
> I'm just playing devil's advocate here, really; I don't care who
> gets pages, I just think saying "they did the physical labor,
> they automatically own them" is too simplistic. Plus, there
> are the economic factors; people have suggested that writers
> sometimes overcommit themselves to earn a living wage,
> which leads to wrose stories. Artists aren't as pressured that
> way, because they have the additional income from selling
> their originals.
So are you trying to suggest that artists never overcommit themselves
in an attempt to get more money? If so, I think you may want
to reconsider that view.
--N
Michael Netzer
JohannaLD wrote in message
>I'm just playing devil's advocate here, really; I don't care who
>gets pages, I just think saying "they did the physical labor,
>they automatically own them" is too simplistic. Plus, there
>are the economic factors; people have suggested that writers
>sometimes overcommit themselves to earn a living wage,
>which leads to wrose stories. Artists aren't as pressured that
>way, because they have the additional income from selling
>their originals.
I think the only way you could make that point is to compare average annual
incomes of writers and artists. There are a lot of factors that figure into
it, the time it takes to produce the work is certainly one of them. I'm not
sure you'll find that artists generally earn more than writers. And even if
they did, the reasons may extend far beyond the sale of originals.
There are a lot of artists who have a hard time selling their pages. The
ones that do get good prices, usually get them because their work is
special. Writers whose scripts are in demand likewise usually sell their
scripts for respectable sums.
This said, I'm not against the companies deciding to give the writer one
page from any given book. I think, however, that I'm not much in favor of
how the art is divided, in most cases. The penciller should be the one to
decide what pages he wants and what pages to give away. The idea of
splitting it, first 60% of the story for the penciller and the rest for the
inker, or vice versa, seems to take away from the penciller's contribution
to what makes those pages valuable. An inker has to understand that he's
playing a secondary role here, in most cases.
Michael Netzer
JohannaLD
>are you trying to suggest that artists never overcommit themselves
>in an attempt to get more money?
Of course not, just that on any job, artists have one more
source of income than writers do (pay + selling originals
vs. pay).
Johanna
Michael Netzer
JohannaLD wrote in message
>I'm just playing devil's advocate here, really; I don't care who
>gets pages, I just think saying "they did the physical labor,
>they automatically own them" is too simplistic. Plus, there
>are the economic factors; people have suggested that writers
>sometimes overcommit themselves to earn a living wage,
>which leads to wrose stories. Artists aren't as pressured that
>way, because they have the additional income from selling
>their originals.
I think the only way you could make that point is to compare average annual
incomes of writers and artists. There are a lot of factors that figure into
it, the time it takes to produce the work is certainly one of them. I'm not
sure you'll find that artists generally earn more than writers. And even if
they did, the reasons may extend far beyond the sale of originals.
There are a lot of artists who have a hard time selling their pages. The
ones that do get good prices, usually get them because their work is
special. Writers whose scripts are in demand, likewise usually sell their
scripts for respectable sums.
This said, I'm not against the companies deciding to give the writer one
page from any given book. I think, however, that I'm not much in favor of
how the art is divided, in most cases. The penciller should be the one to
decide what pages he wants and what pages to give away. The idea of
splitting it, first 60% of the story for the penciller and the rest for the
inker, or vice versa, seems to take away from the penciller's contribution
to what makes those pages valuable. An inker has to understand that he's
playing a secondary role here, and that the intrinsic value of the original
art is to the penciller who gave those pages their actual substance.
This is all irrelevant to me, though. I do all my work on a computer, and
don't produce any more originals.
Michael Netzer
Richard Pace
PatDOneill wrote in message
<199808281856...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>: Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a
page
>>of a
>>: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
>>: intellectual labor is the writer's.
You've obviously never drawn anything. You're confusing intellectual
impetus with resolution. Any artist does more work per page than any writer
of equal ability or talent. Every line on the page requires thought; from
panels, their borders, their contents and their relationships to every other
panel on the page. The occasionally brilliant and often just amazingly
talented screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue has said he would never direct
because of the sheer weight of descisions to be made - from the lighting to
the camera positions and compositions, etc., etc., etc.. It's time to
rethink your line here - the writer's work is very important, the artist's
work is more important. It is a visual medium
>>
>>Pat, the intellectual labor involved in SCRIPTING is the writer's. The
>>intellectual *and* physical labor involved in DRAWING is the artists'.
>>
> And, in the vast majority of cases, the intellectual labor of the artist
>consists entirely of interpreting the intellectual labor of the writer.
IMO,
>the artist's output is almost entirely derivative of the writer's work.
>
The artist's output is entirely derivative of the writer's work, but there's
a huge gulf between writing "the artist beat the fanboy columnist to death
with a pastrami sandwich" and drawing it effectively.
Take care,
Richard
ShutUpRob
writes:
>PatDOneill wrote in message
><199808281856...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>: Because there's more than physical labor involved in coming up with a
>page
>>>of a
>>>: comic-book. There's intellectual labor as well--and a large part of that
>>>: intellectual labor is the writer's.
>
>
>You've obviously never drawn anything. You're confusing intellectual
>impetus with resolution. Any artist does more work per page than any writer
>of equal ability or talent. Every line on the page requires thought; from
>panels, their borders, their contents and their relationships to every other
>panel on the page. The occasionally brilliant and often just amazingly
>talented screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue has said he would never direct
>because of the sheer weight of descisions to be made - from the lighting to
>the camera positions and compositions, etc., etc., etc.. It's time to
>rethink your line here - the writer's work is very important, the artist's
>work is more important. It is a visual medium
I think you're both insane to try to evaluate which kind of work,
intellectual or physical, is "more." They're *different.* This appears
to me to be more of a chicken/egg argument determined more by
where a person's sympathies or preferences lie than by comparison
of the kinds of effort of the two different kinds of labor. What the
zillions of different interviews with writers and artists that I've read
over the years has taught me is that the variables that you name
above depend on the nature of the particular collaboration and
how those variables are divided between the collaborators. Some
writers compose in full-script style (or, in the case of Alan Moore,
darn near prose novels) that determine many of the variables you
name above. Other mainstreamers (Neil Gaiman, if his published
script for Sandman #18 is any indication) work in a movie-script style
that's still pretty specific about visual content and layout while leaving
the staging and dressing of the scene to the artist. Other mainstreamers
work in the so-called Marvel style in which the artists work from loose
plots and essentially, IMO, become co-plotters. Others work more
organically. Keith Giffen did thumbnail breakdowns for his JLA plots
for Kevin MacGuire, letterer Kevin Bruzenak brought such a distinctive
lettering style to American Flagg! and Mr. Monster that I doubt that
anyone who's read them can imagine the books without his input
(and in the case of Mr. Monster, writer/artist Michael T. Gilbert
shares copyright of the work with Bruzenak). There are so many
different ways of collaborating -- and quite a few of them don't boil
down to just a writer-and-artist paradigm -- that trying to prove
which collaborator does "more" work appears to me to be more
than a little bit counterproductive.
-- Rob Jensen
PatDOneill
Actually, yes I have.
> You're confusing intellectual
>impetus with resolution. Any artist does more work per page than any writer
>of equal ability or talent. Every line on the page requires thought; from
>panels, their borders, their contents and their relationships to every other
>panel on the page. The occasionally brilliant and often just amazingly
>talented screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue has said he would never direct
>because of the sheer weight of descisions to be made - from the lighting to
>the camera positions and compositions, etc., etc., etc.. It's time to
>rethink your line here - the writer's work is very important, the artist's
>work is more important. It is a visual medium
>
And this is still bullshit. The writer--whether working full-script or
plot--starts with a blank page: Everything that's going into the story at that
point must come from him alone. The artist--whether working from script or
plot--starts with the definite advantage of having the writer's words in front
of him. He has a framework for his contribution provided by the writer, the
writer has only his own imagination.
>
>The artist's output is entirely derivative of the writer's work, but there's
>a huge gulf between writing "the artist beat the fanboy columnist to death
>with a pastrami sandwich" and drawing it effectively.
>
>
And there's an even bigger one between coming up with the idea of the artist
beating the fanboy columnist etc., and drawing something already conceived by
another.
Bradly E. Peterson
>Richard Pace said
>>The artist's output is entirely derivative of the writer's work, but there's
>>a huge gulf between writing "the artist beat the fanboy columnist to death
>>with a pastrami sandwich" and drawing it effectively.
>
>And there's an even bigger one between coming up with the idea of the artist
>beating the fanboy columnist etc., and drawing something already conceived by
>another.
Well, Pat... You've obviously never been beaten to death with a
pastrami sandwich. But there's always a first time. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
>The artist's output is entirely derivative of the writer's work, but there's
>a huge gulf between writing "the artist beat the fanboy columnist to death
>with a pastrami sandwich" and drawing it effectively.
Dunno... Sort of depends on the sandwich, doesn't it? Are we
talking rye or a hardroll? Oh, and is it Pat's head? That's
going to be pretty tough to crack. heh...
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: You're confusing having an idea and executing it.
Exactly so. The execution of the comic book writer is the script;
therefore, the writer deserves his/her original script back. The
execution of that script by the artists is the art boards; therefore, the
artists deserve the original art back. The final product is the comic
book, courtesy copies of which should be sent to all creators involved.
: You say the writer has done a greater amount of the creative work by giving
: the artist direction...
Which isn't true either. Depending on how detailed those directions are,
the artist has to figure out the best way to convey what the writer wants
him/her to. That's an intellectual exercise; for a bare-bones script,
even more so. Plus, often what the writer directs the artist to do can't
be done because the writer hasn't been able to visualize it properly; it
then falls on the artist to execute what he/she believes the writer wants
rather than what's written in the script. If an artist is doing his/her
job right, as much thought is put into the artistic end of things as is
put into the writing end (if not more).
: believe Alan Moore put the same amount fo effort into SWAMP THING as he did
: into MARVELMAN in relation to the work from Bissette/Totleben and
: Leach/Davis/et al. Still, while Alan had the ideas and scripted execution,
: the art teams had to do a tremendous amount of intellectual and physical
: labour to produce the visual execution, everything you see on the page is a
: result of the artist's choices, including the one to do exactly what the
: writer asks for.
Exactly so. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, whoever is
producing more intellectual labor, the art boards are the result of the
PHYSICAL creative labor of the artist(s) alone, NOT of the writer. It's
always cool when artists send their writers some original art that the
publishers have returned to them, but that's a courtesy, it shouldn't be
viewed as mandatory.
Jim Drew
>
> PatDOneill wrote:
> >
> > >ME: When Marvel began returning original art, there was a brief period
> > >when they cut the writer in. It caused a lot of ill will, and many of
> > >the writers handed their pages over to the artists. The practice was
> > >changed after a few months.
> > >
> > >But other than that, you're right.
> > >---------------------------
> >
> > You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
> > result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
> > the artwork considered such an anathema?
>
> The art is the creation of the artist. It may be derived from the
> script... but that still exists as a separate item. The writer
> did not touch and may not have seen the art. It didn't spend a day or
> so working dilligently on each board.
>
> It's the artist's art.
But the artist's art is securely wrapped around and threaded through with the writer's
story -- which is of course much more than just the lettered words. That's
the magic
of comics, that the comics don't exist without the two being inextricably linked.
If the artist wants to create something without any story from the writer
involved, so
be it, but the writer should seemingly not have his story taken from him
wholesale any
more than the artist should have his portion of the work swept away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Drew Secretary, IAGLCWDC ciao...@earthlink.net
B3(v)h+ t e cd s k g+(p) rv q p http://home.earthlink.net/~cfmdesigns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So I picked up this guy who said he was into `SM sex'," Val told me,
"but when I got him home, he pulled out a plastic mask and a gold pen with a
big pink plastic jewel on the end, held them up, and said something about
`Moon prism power!'"
"`SM'? Sailor Moon sex?! God, that's sick!" I said. "What did you do?"
"By the moon, I *punished* him."
-- Marc Lynx, "For Art's Sake"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Drew
>
> > You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
> > result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
> > the artwork considered such an anathema?
> >
> effort of writing this:
>
> [script example removed]
>
> ...and actually drawing all those uniforms, weapons and horses. The script
> was two minutes of typing, the art would take at least 20 man-hours to
> draw.
Of course, you are biased on the side of the artist, and therefore discard out
of hand everything that goes into the writing which isn't concrete in the paper
given to the artist. How much research went into the work? How many times did
the writer rewrite and re-rewrite that scene? (The same thing, really, as the
artist doing assorted pre-sketches and layouts, trying to find the right one.)
How long did the writer tweak the dialogue to get it "just right"?
(And then there's the matter that you described 3 panels, and claimed 20 hours
of work to draw it. Come now!)
Okay, so when it comes down to it, it probably does take the writer less time
to do his task than it takes the artist(s). So cut him in for a proportional
share of the finished boards. If his time spent is deemed to be 10% of the total,
remit 10% of the finished pages (I intentionally avoid calling them "the art" to
try to encompass the writer's role in that finished work). If it's only 1%, the
writer still arguably deserves 1 out of ever 100 pages that is completed.
(Now how you determine which pages, that's another matter. Leave that to the editor.)
Steven Grant
>Of course, you are biased on the side of the artist, and therefore discard
out
>of hand everything that goes into the writing which isn't concrete in the
paper
>given to the artist. How much research went into the work? How many times
did
>the writer rewrite and re-rewrite that scene? (The same thing, really, as
the
>artist doing assorted pre-sketches and layouts, trying to find the right
one.)
>How long did the writer tweak the dialogue to get it "just right"?
The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
night. I'm biased on the side of the writer, but I'm with Lieber on this
one. For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy. If an artist wants
to offer one as a gift (and this happens to me fairly often) that's fine.
But the physical art belongs to the artist.
(Of course, I get the intellectual property rights...)
--
Rough Beast Entertainment - http://www.premier1.net/~sdgrant
Richard Pace
PatDOneill wrote in message
<199808311124...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>You've obviously never drawn anything.
>
>Actually, yes I have.
>
>> You're confusing intellectual
>>impetus with resolution. Any artist does more work per page than any
writer
>>of equal ability or talent. Every line on the page requires thought; from
>>panels, their borders, their contents and their relationships to every
other
>>panel on the page. The occasionally brilliant and often just amazingly
>>talented screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue has said he would never direct
>>because of the sheer weight of descisions to be made - from the lighting
to
>>the camera positions and compositions, etc., etc., etc.. It's time to
>>rethink your line here - the writer's work is very important, the artist's
>>work is more important. It is a visual medium
>>
>And this is still bullshit.
Wow your powers of communication and astute wit astound me. I wasn't
arguing what came first I was disagreeing with your assertation that the
largest part of the intellectual labour was done by the writer. I wasn't
jumping into the chicken/egg discussion, pally.
The writer--whether working full-script or
>plot--starts with a blank page: Everything that's going into the story at
that
>point must come from him alone. The artist--whether working from script or
>plot--starts with the definite advantage of having the writer's words in
front
>of him. He has a framework for his contribution provided by the writer, the
>writer has only his own imagination.
>
>
>>
>
>>The artist's output is entirely derivative of the writer's work, but
there's
>>a huge gulf between writing "the artist beat the fanboy columnist to death
>>with a pastrami sandwich" and drawing it effectively.
>>
>>
>
>And there's an even bigger one between coming up with the idea of the
artist
>beating the fanboy columnist etc., and drawing something already conceived
by
>another.
Nope. Your confusing having an idea and executing it. Since all ideas come
from somewhere else, even this stance of yours is flawed. Did the writer
'create' the idea of someone hitting another person? No! Neither did the
writer concieve the idea of a pastrami sandwich, or the artist, etc. These
were all pre-existing concepts, all the writer did was assemble them into an
event. Your arguement even lessens the importance of the writer.
>
>
Creation is an intellectual exercise, looking at what goes into both aspects
of this discussion you seem to have a shaky grasp of what goes into both.
You write about the writer starting with a blank page, so does the artist.
You say the writer has done a greater amount of the creative work by giving
the artist direction, but where did the writer get his ideas? Surely you're
not suggesting the writer exists in a vacuum and creates everything from
nothing. Does the writer on a work for hire monthly have less of an
intellectual burden than the writer of a creator owned project? After all,
the writer has all the previously published material to draw upon and
doesn't rely upon his imagination alone anymore. I suspect that the
writer's burden for creator owned material and work for hire is equal -- I
believe Alan Moore put the same amount fo effort into SWAMP THING as he did
into MARVELMAN in relation to the work from Bissette/Totleben and
Leach/Davis/et al. Still, while Alan had the ideas and scripted execution,
the art teams had to do a tremendous amount of intellectual and physical
labour to produce the visual execution, everything you see on the page is a
result of the artist's choices, including the one to do exactly what the
writer asks for.
Something I like to bring up whenever someone spouts off about the idea
being MORE important than the execution is this; Jack London bought ideas
for his stories. He paid good cash money for ideas to turn into his
critically acclaimed stories. Does that make him less of a writer? Any
moron can conceive an idea, the execution is what the audience sees and is,
ultimately, more important.
Nope, no bullshit here!
Richard
mwi...@cs.vu.nl
: The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
: night.
Now, i'm wondering: how much of a market is there for script copies? Could you
sell your scripts the same way the artist can sell his artwork?
Martin Wisse
Drew Melbourne
: Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
The problem with scripts is that they're too easy to reproduce. The
"original" is usually on a disk. As such, its hard to develop a market
for collecting "original" scripts.
I *have* seen scripts sold at auctions for decent amounts of money,
though these are usually scripts marked up by the writer, editor and/or
artist, and are, as such, not final copies.
It's like selling an artist's thumbnails...
(...and by that I mean layouts.)
--
Andrew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>NOW ALSO AVAILABLE AT "melb...@dept.english.upenn.edu"!!!<<--
"Who paved the road to Hell, anyway?" -- Anonymous
Samael
mwi...@cs.vu.nl wrote in message <6sgpi4$42g$1...@star.cs.vu.nl>...
>Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
>: The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
>: night.
>
>Now, i'm wondering: how much of a market is there for script copies? Could
you
>sell your scripts the same way the artist can sell his artwork?
>
>
I bought the Alan Moore Script to a back-up story from an early Miracleman
from Rich Johnstone a few years back.
Samael
Nat Gertler
>
> Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> : The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
> : night.
>
> Now, i'm wondering: how much of a market is there for script copies? Could you
> sell your scripts the same way the artist can sell his artwork?
There is at least some market for both the "original" script
and for copies of them... but even the original seems to generally
sell for less than one page of art from the same comic.
I am considering (under my About Comics hat) publishing a book of
comic book scripts.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Steve Lieber wrote:
: >
: > > You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
: > > result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
: > > the artwork considered such an anathema?
: > >
: > In the general case, it's because there's an enormous gap between the
: > effort of writing this:
: >
: > [script example removed]
: >
: > ...and actually drawing all those uniforms, weapons and horses. The script
: > was two minutes of typing, the art would take at least 20 man-hours to
: > draw.
: Of course, you are biased on the side of the artist, and therefore discard out
: of hand everything that goes into the writing which isn't concrete in the paper
: given to the artist.
Well, I'm biased on the side of the writer, and I agree with Steve. It
doesn't MATTER how much prep goes into the writing. The concrete result
of that writing is the script, and that should be the property of the
writer. The concrete result of the artist who then follows that script is
the art board, which should be the property of the artist.
: (And then there's the matter that you described 3 panels, and claimed 20 hours
: of work to draw it. Come now!)
Why do you think this is so far-fetched? I think Steve's estimate was a
little low, actually. How long do you think it took Frank Miller to draw
each page in "300"?
: Okay, so when it comes down to it, it probably does take the writer less time
: to do his task than it takes the artist(s). So cut him in for a proportional
: share of the finished boards.
And exactly how much time has the writer spent drawing on those boards?
The boards are *physical creative labor* as well as intellectual. NONE of
the physical labor on the boards is done by the writer.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: : The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
: : night.
: Now, i'm wondering: how much of a market is there for script copies? Could you
: sell your scripts the same way the artist can sell his artwork?
Many writers have sold their scripts. Some go for fairly high prices (a
script by Moore or Gaiman), some for not so much. Not comparable to art,
but that's understandable since it's not as kewl to look at except for
wonks like me.
PatDOneill
>one. For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy. If an artist wants
>to offer one as a gift (and this happens to me fairly often) that's fine.
>But the physical art belongs to the artist.
>
>
The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles (especially in
this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art. Why is the
artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer--given
this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only what his
words are worth to the publisher?
Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--and
the whole process leaves (or ought to leave) the writer wondering why he even
bothers.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
: >night. I'm biased on the side of the writer, but I'm with Lieber on this
: >one. For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy. If an artist wants
: >to offer one as a gift (and this happens to me fairly often) that's fine.
: >But the physical art belongs to the artist.
: The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles (especially in
: this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art.
Then if the writer wants to acquire one-of-a-kind collectibles for resale
purposes, he/she should learn how to create them. In other words, learn
how to draw. Or become friendly enough with your artists that they'll
give you some of their art boards as gifts.
: Why is the
: artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer--given
: this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only what his
: words are worth to the publisher?
Because art is almost always more labor-intensive.
: Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
: storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
: maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--and
: the whole process leaves (or ought to leave) the writer wondering why he even
: bothers.
That's true. That's when Hollywood starts to look better and better to
the comic book writer. :)
sli...@compuserve.com
ciao...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Steve Lieber wrote:
> >
> > > You know, considering that at least PART of what is on those artboards is the
> > > result of the writer's intellectual work, why is the writer getting a piece of
> > > the artwork considered such an anathema?
> > >
> > In the general case, it's because there's an enormous gap between the
> > effort of writing this:
> >
> > [script example removed]
> >
> > ...and actually drawing all those uniforms, weapons and horses. The script
> > was two minutes of typing, the art would take at least 20 man-hours to
> > draw.
>
> Of course, you are biased on the side of the artist, and therefore discard out
> of hand everything that goes into the writing which isn't concrete in the paper
> the writer rewrite and re-rewrite that scene? (The same thing, really, as the
> artist doing assorted pre-sketches and layouts, trying to find the right one.)
I don't think I am biased in favor of the artist, and I certainly don't
discard the writer's efforts out of hand. I've done some writing myself, I've
written in collaboration, I've edited other writers' work and I'm married to
a writer. Anyone, me included, can see that there's a big difference between
a fully thought out script and the half baked stuff that's common in work for
hire comics.
> (And then there's the matter that you described 3 panels, and claimed 20 hours
> of work to draw it. Come now!)
For the page I described, 10 hours for the penciller and ten hours for the
inker was perfectly reasonable, if not quick.. If the penciller needs to
shoot photo reference, it'd take even longer. In the process of drawing that
page, an artist would have to work out the muscular and skeletal anatomy for
maybe 40 horses, research the uniforms, insignia and weaponry, (and correct
use of same) for two armies, draw several dozen soldiers in a variety of
gestures, and do every bit as much tweaking and recomposing as the writer.
> How long did the writer tweak the dialogue to get it "just right"?
Some slave over it, others... well, this is best answered by anecdote. A
couple of years ago, Rob Rodi wrote a novel about this business called "What
they did to Princess Paragon." In one scene, a highly caricatured idiot
fanboy who has kidnapped the writer of his favorite comic, rewrites the
heroine's dialogue. Rodi of course had the guy write a pathetic stream of
cliches. Unfortunately, I had just received a script in which the heroine had
several lines that were nearly identical to Rodi's satirical ones. The writer
had never seen the novel-- it was just that Rodi, trying his best to suck,
couldn't get any lamer than what this professional had written in earnest.
> Okay, so when it comes down to it, it probably does take the writer less time
> to do his task than it takes the artist(s). So cut him in for a proportional
> share of the finished boards. If his time spent is deemed to be 10% of the total,
> remit 10% of the finished pages (I intentionally avoid calling them "the art" to
> try to encompass the writer's role in that finished work). If it's only 1%, the
> writer still arguably deserves 1 out of ever 100 pages that is completed.
>
> (Now how you determine which pages, that's another matter. Leave that to the editor.)
There are times when a writer's efforts have earned him or her one or two of
my originals, and I take great pleasure in sharing them. But I've never
worked with a writer that demanded ownership of some of my original art, and
don't expect that I ever will.
Lieber
My web page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8914/
WHITEOUT #3 coming in September from Oni Press
Preview of WHITEOUT #1 at http://www.pond.net/~gregr/Whiteout.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Joshua Duffin
: >The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
: >night. I'm biased on the side of the writer, but I'm with Lieber on this
: >one. For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy. If an artist wants
: >to offer one as a gift (and this happens to me fairly often) that's fine.
: >But the physical art belongs to the artist.
: >
: >
: The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles
: (especially in
: this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art. Why is the
: artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer
: --given
: this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only
: what his
: words are worth to the publisher?
Because the artist *made the art*. It doesn't matter if the subject
was suggested by the writer. Does someone who commissions a painting
and specifies the subject get a discount? I doubt it.
I hardly think fairness is the issue here. If it is, why not ask
for the colorist and letterer to be paid at the same rate as the artist?
Besides all that, writers frequently write several books on a monthly
basis. Hardly any artists are able to work quickly enough to draw
more than one book a month.
: Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
: storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
: maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--and
: the whole process leaves (or ought to leave) the writer wondering why he even
: bothers.
As Elayne said, it leaves the writer tempted to write for Hollywood
instead. And it leaves the artist tempted to draw for Madison Avenue
instead.
Josh
butting in for no reason
Mark Evanier
>The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles (especially in
>this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art. Why is the
>artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer--given
>this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only what his
>words are worth to the publisher?
ME: If, in the grand scheme of things, writers aren't getting paid
their due in relation to artists, the answer is that they should be
paid more for writing...not seize the artist's property.
And I'm not sure they pay is that disproportionate. When I work with
Dan Spiegle, it usually takes me 1-2 days to write a script and it
takes him 10-12 working days to draw it. Even factoring in the added
income he sometimes derives from selling artwork, I don't see an
inequity in our compensation.
I would also add that it's completely illogical and inconsistent for
my income as a writer to be in any way linked to the resale of the
original artwork. I spend a certain amount of time writing a script,
regardless of who's going to draw it. If that script is later drawn
by Alex Ross, the art might be worth thousands a page in the
collectors' market...if it's drawn by Joe Shlabotnik, it might be
worth ten bucks a page, if it even sells at all...and there are some
artists who prefer not to sell their original art at all.
So how can my compensation be linked to the value of the original art?
And why should it be? If you can make the case that MY contribution
is enhancing the value of those pages...that collectors are saying, "I
want to buy some original art from a comic that Mark Evanier wrote,"
then I'd agree I might be entitled. But if I work with a popular
artist on a comic, the value of the original art is based on his
popularity, not mine.
>Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
>storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
>maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--and
>the whole process leaves (or ought to leave) the writer wondering why he even
>bothers.
ME: If artists are doing that -- and I don't think the "after-market"
is the main reason they might do that -- then that's a creative
problem, not a financial one. It ought to be settled by people
talking to each other about the content of the pages, not their cash
value. Or editors ought to not be hiring those artists.
---------------------------
Mark Evanier - 363 S. Fairfax Ave., #303 - Los Angeles, CA 90036
Bill Neville
> The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles (especially in
> this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art.
Darn right! I got a copy of an X-FACTOR script (the one where Doc
Samson was playing shrink to the group, one of my favorite issues)
from Peter David and he was able to plop another copy down in its
place to try and sell.
OTOH, people come up to me to see if I have any original Tick pages
from the KARMA TORNADO series, and I have to tell 'em that those all
sold years ago.
These writers have a never-ending supply, while mine is limited.
Obviously, they owe me money. :)
- Bill
Steve Lieber
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> The writer cannot sell his scripts as one-of-a-kind collectibles
(especially in
> this day of computers) the way the artist can sell his art.
No, but he can sell the same script over and over and over- a potentially
endless income. When I sell a page, it's gone forever.
Why is the
> artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer--given
> this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only
what his
> words are worth to the publisher?
The most common answer I've encountered to the question "how long does it
take you to write an issue?" is "one week." The most common answer to "how
long does it take to draw an issue?" is "one month." Popular writers often
take on four books a month. Since most of the writers whose page rates I
know make about 2/3 of what their pencillers do per page, and get an equal
royalty share, it's hard to see them as exploited. If they aren't making
enough money, they should hold out for higher pay.
And I'm curious Pat. Are you asserting that the writer, inker and penciller
should get to keep some of the colorist's guides as well? Do you believe
that by coloring on computer, colorists are robbing writers of income by
depriving them of salable originals? This is where your argument leads.
> Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
> storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
> maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--
You've made this claim repeatedly. I don't know any artists who do this,
though I do know many who have been told by their editor to draw like that
if they want to keep their job. Perhaps the writers should take this matter
up with their editors.
Of course if the world works the way you suggest it does, we'd have writers
writing all splash-page issues so that their share of the pages would be
more saleable.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Pat is speaking for no one
but Pat. If there are any writers who intend to make the surrender of
originals one of the requirements for working on their scripts, I'm sure
they could negotiate a way to do this in their contracts that would be
acceptable to some artists. Those working today, however, who do have that
sort of clout- Moore, Gaiman, Busiek- have made no claim on their
collaborator's originals and would certainly be among the first to point
out the deep flaws in your thinking.
Lieber
--
My web page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8914/
WHITEOUT #3 coming in September from Oni press
Steven Grant
>Some writers certainly do make such sales.
Sure. I've sold scripts as collectibles. There's actually a fairly brisk
market for such things, albeit smaller than the original art market. Every
time I've donated a script to a charity auction it has fetched a nice price.
A lot of people are very interested in scripts.
>Gee, which writers, Pat? I don't know if you've noticed it, but
>you've been talking to a number of actual comics writers in this
>thread... none of whom have been voicing that opinion.
Apparently, Pat can't believe that writers can earn enough money with our
work that looting our collaborators becomes unnecessary.
Steven Grant
>Few of them will voice it in public, Nat, for fear of getting on the wrong
side
>of the artist population. Talk to them in private--or to the ones who no
longer
>care about what the hot artists think of them--and you hear it all the
time.
Okay, so you hang out with writers who are jealous idiots. If my artists
have a back end way to make a little extra money, mazel tov. The cold hard
fact is that the physical artwork is their work. They're not stealing
anything from me by illustrating my stories, nor are they stealing income.
They're facilitating my ability to earn income.
Don't even bother arguing back on this one, Pat. You're wrong, and you can
line up all the whiny little comics writers who don't have the balls to come
out of the closet if they don't like it and tape their comments and they'd
be wrong too. There's no point in continuing the discussion.
Steven Grant
>How come you "hear it all the time" and I've never heard it?
Face it, Mark. You live in Los Angeles. Puts you out of the mainstream,
y'know...
Steven Grant
>In the '60s, the true greats of this business--Kirby, Kane, Infantino,
Swan,
>Heck, Ditko and others--routinely penciled more than one title a month.
Yeah, and you should talk with Gil about that because he HATED having to
draw more than one title a month but it was the only way he could earn a
living. Or is your suggestion that artists should be returned to slave
wages?
Jim Drew
>
> The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
> night.
Yeah, and the artist has the photocopies he made of the pages, so why does
he need to get the originals back, either, hmm?
> For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy.
For anyone to *demand* is greedy.
> But the physical art belongs to the artist.
Why does it belong to the artist and not to the publisher, since they paid for it?
(Other than the fact that the publisher has no need for it once the book is printed.)
The artist was theoretically well compensated for his work; money from
original art
resale is extra gravy.
Jim
Jim Drew
>
> Because the artist *made the art*. It doesn't matter if the subject
> was suggested by the writer.
But he *didn't* make the art. He did the drawings, but the stuff on the pages
is *comics* and conatins *more* than just the drawings. Without the content
provided by the writer, the stuff on the pages would simply not exist.
> Besides all that, writers frequently write several books on a monthly
> basis. Hardly any artists are able to work quickly enough to draw
> more than one book a month.
Which is why I don't suggest compensating equally with the penciller, but compensating
somewhat. Even a single page out of 24 recognizes the writer's irreplacible
contribution in the creative process to some degree.
(And really, as a writer, I probably wouldn't want more unless a given story was
"my baby". One page of each story as a keepsake or whatever. Doesn't even
have to
be a "special" page, probably.)
Jim
Jim Drew
>
> : Of course, you are biased on the side of the artist, and therefore discard out
> : of hand everything that goes into the writing which isn't concrete in the paper
> : given to the artist.
>
> doesn't MATTER how much prep goes into the writing. The concrete result
> of that writing is the script, and that should be the property of the
> writer. The concrete result of the artist who then follows that script is
> the art board, which should be the property of the artist.
Maybe it's the fact that I write and draw (on occasion), but I can't help but
look at the resulting pages as being *more* that merely art, because they are
comics, the unique blend of words and pictures that tell a story.
(And for Mark Evanier: if I collected original art, I'm sure I would have a tendency
to try to get pages by favorite writers as much as by favorite artists. I
would be
interested in a Paul levitz Legion page, but barring specific favorite
characters or
issues, I would have no preference for Sherman vs. Giffen vs. Lightle.)
> : (And then there's the matter that you described 3 panels, and claimed 20 hours
> : of work to draw it. Come now!)
>
> Why do you think this is so far-fetched? I think Steve's estimate was a
> little low, actually. How long do you think it took Frank Miller to draw
> each page in "300"?
Beats me, but I typically figure 1-1.5 days to pencil a page, for most mainstream
artists. I interpretted the 3 panles described as probably half a page, and ergo
less than the 2.5 8-hour days Leiber suggested.
> : Okay, so when it comes down to it, it probably does take the writer less time
> : to do his task than it takes the artist(s). So cut him in for a proportional
> : share of the finished boards.
>
> And exactly how much time has the writer spent drawing on those boards?
>
> The boards are *physical creative labor* as well as intellectual. NONE of
> the physical labor on the boards is done by the writer.
Despite the writer never touching the boards, the writer's physical effort cleary
went into what result on those boards, did it not?
Ty Templeton
You mean that thing with the dog...? He BOUGHT that? Really?
Oh damn. I liked that thing with the dog.
Okay, I have an idea for sale...it's not much...it's a thing with a
small goat. That's all I have at the moment, but if there's any Jack
Londons out there who can turn a goat into a sled hero, I'm for sale.
Ty
sli...@compuserve.com
>
> : : The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
> : : night.
>
>
> The problem with scripts is that they're too easy to reproduce. The
> "original" is usually on a disk. As such, its hard to develop a market
> for collecting "original" scripts.
>
> I *have* seen scripts sold at auctions for decent amounts of money,
> though these are usually scripts marked up by the writer, editor and/or
> artist, and are, as such, not final copies.
I've never bought an original script, but I happily paid fifteen bucks for
the book collecting Alan Moore's scripts for the first issue of FROM HELL,
and if more become available, I'll buy those too.
JohannaLD
>art is almost always more labor-intensive.
Is that a truism in modern comics? Just from my personal
experience (which may be non-representative), a comics
writer may end up writing an entire script two or three
times, while it's rare (again, in my perhaps odd experience)
for an artist to be asked to redraw pages.
Johanna
Nat Gertler
>
> >The writer still has copies of his written scripts to keep him warm at
> >one. For a writer to demand art pages is just greedy. If an artist wants
> >to offer one as a gift (and this happens to me fairly often) that's fine.
>
Some writers certainly do make such sales.
> Why is the
> artist--already compensated at a far higher page rate than the writer--given
> this additional source of income while the writer remains tied to only what his
> words are worth to the publisher?
The artist isn't GIVEN this. He just doesn't have his property stolen
to prevent it. Nor is having original art an automatic source of
significant income; many pages sell for quite little if at all,
in bulk deals, while other artists do not choose to part with their
artwork.
> Add in what the "after-market" in original art has done to the idea of
> storytelling in modern comics--as artists habitually design their pages for
> maximum impact to the collector as opposed to maximum impact to the story--and
> the whole process leaves (or ought to leave) the writer wondering why he even
> bothers.
Gee, which writers, Pat? I don't know if you've noticed it, but
PatDOneill
>you've been talking to a number of actual comics writers in this
>thread... none of whom have been voicing that opinion.
Few of them will voice it in public, Nat, for fear of getting on the wrong side
of the artist population. Talk to them in private--or to the ones who no longer
care about what the hot artists think of them--and you hear it all the time.
PatDOneill
>basis. Hardly any artists are able to work quickly enough to draw
>more than one book a month.
That ought to read, "hardly any of today's prima donna artists are able to work
quickly enough to draw more than one book a month."
In the '60s, the true greats of this business--Kirby, Kane, Infantino, Swan,
Heck, Ditko and others--routinely penciled more than one title a month.
Mark Evanier
>Few of them will voice it in public, Nat, for fear of getting on the wrong side
>of the artist population. Talk to them in private--or to the ones who no longer
>care about what the hot artists think of them--and you hear it all the time.
ME: Pat, I know as many professional comic book writers as anyone and
we often discuss very personal, do-not-quote matters, including
business and money topics.
I know a few who think writers should be paid more in comparison to
artists. I've never heard a single one say they should receive some
of the original art on a comic they wrote. Not one.
How come you "hear it all the time" and I've never heard it?
---------------------------
Richard Pace
I think this whole after market art is a non starter. Generally, the poster
school of art is only viable under the lame and anti-literate Marvel plot
method where the artist is more integral to the story than the writer. The
very idea of original art as merchandise is destructive to real reason that
the artwork was returned in the first place; as a thin compensation to
producing creative works for comparatively little money and no rights to the
work. Granted, the writers also had received little for their efforts, but
the history of literate writers in this industry is brief and really only
started since art return policies have been in place. It's really a hard
call, Pat. I agree that the good to great writers aren't compensated well
enough for their contributions, but, even though they spend more time per
page and are paid more, neither are the artists. This industry doesn't have
the financial capacity or maturity to explore the issue to a satisfactory
conclusion. That being said, the idea that the art-return compensation to
the artist should be lessened because there isn't an equitable company
derived compensation for the writer is false logic and runs counter to the
arguement for creator rights and acceptance. The writer should be
aknowledged for their contribution for what it is, writing a good story - a
page of art separate from the rest of the comic has little to do with the
reading experience, and giving the writer a page with talking heads probably
won't be as appreciated as a splashy low text page. Padding the writer's
paycheck or increasing royalties aren't the answers either, the artist's
already make a lower estimated per hour rate than any writer they work with,
and this in a predominantly visual medium. The writer page rates I've had
and heard others had at Marvel and DC as well as penciller rates lead me to
this bit surely innacurate speculation, but accurate enough for this -- It
seems most writers schedules are full with four or five books (monthly, or
combinations of special projects and minis) and the average established pro
page rate is between 75-100.00 a page, let's call it 80.00 and have our
theoretical writer only have four books.
22pages x 80.00 x 4books x 12months = 84 480.00
Our average established penciller works in the range of 160.00 to over
200.00 depending on the company and can usually only do ten out of twelve
issues a year. I'm slower than that, I can only do about eight to nine,
some are faster and can do two books a month, some are much, much slower. I
hear Adan hughes clocks in at two to three books a year. Let's get our
average income estimate out, let's give all twelve issues, but no covers and
a slightly generous 180.00 rate.
22pages x 180.00 x 12months = 47 520.00
Inkers generally are expected to be able to ink two books a month, few want
to in my experience, but have to due to cash flow. A good ink rate is
130.00 - let's say this inker does the equivalent of twenty issues a year.
22pages x 120.00 x 20 = 52 800
All this was to establish a few points, the artists are still underpaid for
their time and abilities in comparison to writers. But, in my opinion,
writers are also underpaid (well, the good ones, anyway). Now, before you
start throwing so-and-so's rate at me, understand that these are generalised
rates for the bulk of comics pros, not the big names - they get whatever
deal they can swing.
Add to this the fact that most people of any real ability in this medium
could easily make a better living outside of it (TV, film, advertising,
pornography, whatever), we're all in this for the love of the art form,
especially the part of it we do. The writers want to tell stories, the
artists want to draw stories. In the intangible sense, the writer 'owns'
the story in a way the artist never can, so why should the input of the
artist be lessened by taking some of his involvement in the story away? I'm
not a pair of hands channelling the writer's imaginings, I am recreating
based upon another's ideas.
There's an old saying; creation is 10% inspiration, but 90% perspiration.
To play this out, the writer's ideas account for only 10% of his script.
When the artist reads and reinterprets the script, the writer's 10% becomes
a small part of the artist's 10% inspiration for designing and drawing the
pages of the story. Would you like to see writers make less than 105 of the
pencillers' page rates?
Your arguement could be that the writer's contribution is more important
because it starts the ball rolling, but the comic isn't a comic until it's
drawn.
Take care,
Richard
Nat Gertler
>
> >Gee, which writers, Pat? I don't know if you've noticed it, but
> >you've been talking to a number of actual comics writers in this
> >thread... none of whom have been voicing that opinion.
>
> of the artist population. Talk to them in private--or to the ones who no longer
> care about what the hot artists think of them--and you hear it all the time.
False, Pat. I talk to fellow writers in private, and I don't hear
it all the time. I do occasionally hear gripes about *individual
artists* whom the writers have worked with... but they are generally
more than balanced out with praise for the efforts of other artists
one has worked with *YOU* may claim to hear it all the time, but then
again, that's your claims...
And by the way, you really should learn to attribute quotes in your
messages.