51 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

…sigh.

ReplyReply
mygif
MonkeyWithTypewriter said on October 10th, 2012 at 10:18 am

You could, of course, drop out the word “nerd” and insert “everyone”, because that’s how people think in general. Can’t really be shocked about it.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 10th, 2012 at 11:49 am

The money quote for me was just a tiny bit earlier in the piece, where he explicitly claims that the wishes of dead creators should govern:

“Look, I’m a cartoonist, and while my comic strip is pretty retarded when compared to Peanuts, I care very deeply about the work and the characters that inhabit it. I love my wife with all of my heart but I don’t want her writing PvP.”

Funny, when he discusses Kirby, the wishes of the dead creator are totally absent and we hear:

“These guys got screwed over. But that was over 40 years go,guys. The men involved are dead and buried.”

ReplyReply
mygif

Kirby deserved better, ethically speaking. He was brilliant, he poured his heart and soul into his work, and he still never got as much credit or compensation as he deserved for his ideas. But they were fundamentally work-for-hire. He was a professional. He knew what he was getting into, and how his work could be used later. And when his credibility as an artist was high enough that he could object to that kind of treatment, he used it to negotiate better deals elsewhere.

There’s a reason that, to the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby generation of comic creators, it was a syndicated comic strip that represented “the big time.” Bigger audience. More respect. More money. Creative control. And, often overlooked, *ownership stake in one’s work.*

That’s the fundamental difference between the two. Schultz didn’t want anybody else making Peanuts but him–and he was absolutely legally entitled to make that decision. Which he did. And now it isn’t being respected.

Getting screwed sucks either way. Getting screwed in a way you expected and agreed to sucks less than getting screwed in a way you were entitled not to be, though.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 10th, 2012 at 3:11 pm

@awa64: “He knew what he was getting into, and how his work could be used later.”

I understand your argument in general, and it is an interesting (nonKurtzian) distinction compared to Shultz. However, the specific claim that he knew how his work could be used later always seems to be needed, and is plainly false.

Unless you are claiming that Kirby knew in the 50s that Disney corp would become rich enough to buy politicians to extend copyright in the 90s?

ReplyReply
mygif

Can’t get over how pleased I am that Kurtz’s work started declining around the same time I realized what a douche-nozzle he is. His comic hasn’t been good in years.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’ll never understand how such a seemingly decent and seemingly smart guy like Chris Straub is friends with him. Every comic he does is miles better than Kurtz, he also lacks any crazy opinions.

Welp, you cant pick your friends.

ReplyReply
mygif

Copy edit: “beside the point,” throughout.

ReplyReply
mygif

@highlyverbal What does copyright extension have to do with it? “Work for hire” was added to the US copyright system in the Copyright Act of 1909, and Kirby’s work for Marvel qualifies as work for hire under both the common law around the 1909 act (which failed to define “work for hire” explicitly) and the stricter standards of the Copyright Act of 1976 (effective 1978). Even Kirby’s employment contracts at Marvel said “work for hire.”

If Kirby had created everything himself and brought it to Marvel to sell as a publisher, he would have had a case. Kirby never legally held the copyright on the work he did at Marvel, because in work-for-hire situations, the commissioning entity is considered to be the author for purposes of assigning copyright.

ReplyReply
mygif

Related to copyright extension, how are works originally copyrighted by corporations affected? I mean, if the corporate “creator” never dies, how long does copyright last?

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 10th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

@awa64:”What does copyright extension have to do with it?”

Um, because it affects whether he made an informed choice, like you assert, in offering his work for hire? Read more carefully the text I quoted from you, it was YOUR original claim about his knowing how his work could be used. Part of knowing that is obviously knowing for how long it could be used.

To be perfectly clear, my thesis is there is no way whatsoever that a creator in the 50s in the comics industry could make any rational, informed, or accurate calculation about the relative economic value of (continuing to) “work for hire” compared to trying to retain copyright. People who say he knew what he was getting into are idiots. The very possibilities have changed, and grown. No one knew.

I don’t have much evidence for this corollary, so let’s call it an assertion: I think that Kirby did it to get a pittance while he was doing something that he had a lot of enthusiasm for, and he might not have thought very far ahead at all.

(And dude, give it up. I was just picking the low hanging fruit to give you a small hint that modern events surrounding the Avengers were in no way calculable by Kirby. A little nudge to start you thinking instead of asserting. If you want to dig deeper, compare revenues of similar ranking movies from the year Kirby signed (in constant dollars) “for hire.” Or compare special effects from that era to get some idea of the estimated value of movie rights involving comics.

If you want to really model the problem accurately, try to consider industries where there is a prejudice involved, like the one against the pulp comics at that time. Maybe compare the economic decisions in the negro baseball leagues? I’ll bet we find plenty of people who took the pittance just to be in the game. I’m still gonna be bummed about those contracts, too; and if people are making money off of replica negro baseball league jerseys, I want that money to go somewhere nice despite my clear understanding of the contracts involved. Or maybe that example seems too far to you, so find your own.)

ReplyReply
mygif
Jonathan L. Miller said on October 10th, 2012 at 5:53 pm

So, awa64, by your arguments, half of Captain America should totally belong to Kirby, right? Because he and Joe Simon were working as packagers and brought the completed first story to Martin Goodman. That’s why Marvel made a settlement with Simon.

On another point, although I’m a “Peanuts purist” myself, people other than Schulz did create Peanuts material during his lifetime–he didn’t do all the licensing art, nor did he do most of the comic book work. What he did do (besides every single bit of the strip work, save coloring the Sundays) is approve everything, much like his family has approval over everything now. So, it’s kind of a non-issue.

ReplyReply
mygif

Don’t tell me Kirby left out the boilerplate about the copyright being returned to the “for hire” creator if the movie rights turned out to be worth billions more than currently estimated.

I thought that text was standard in all contracts of that era?!

ReplyReply
mygif

@JonathanMiller: Prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, copyrights could have up to two 28-year terms of validity. Though the system was partially intended to allow authors to renegotiate the terms of an assignment if a work they created was unexpectedly high in value, it was legal for copyright assignment contracts to include automstic reassignment to the assignee at the end of the first copyright term. Which, for Captain America, would have been in 1969–and Simon did that, but Marvel wore him out in a legal battle, and Simon ultimately settled. Part of that settlement was him signing a statement saying Captain America was done as work-for-hire.

The later copyright acts provided a new termination right 56 years after assignment, for reasons similar to the one mentioned above. There was a huge legal battle over whether or not the work-for-hire statement from the 1969 settlement was valid, when Simon decided to try again–the language of the Copyright Act of 1976 says it wasn’t–but Simon and Kirby were still employees of Timely Comics before they created the character, so even with that statement invalidated it still could be work for hire.

So I don’t know whether Kirby’s estate is entitled to half of Captain America or not. There’s too much about the working agreement between Simon and Kirby, and between them and Timely Comics, that I don’t know and suspect will never be known for sure. There’s a much better case to be made for that than there is for the rest of the characters the Kirby estate sued over, though.

As for Schultz: FYI, he wrote every TV special himself, too. He wasn’t just approving things–he was *heavily* involved. And while his family certainly has the *legal* right to do new Peanuts material, it’s doing against Schultz’s express wishes. (Wheras even if Kirby’s estate is owed half-ownership of Captain America, the intention behind Cap’s creation and use was clearly “Sell it to this comic book company for them to use, and hopefully get a steady gig there in the process.”)

@highlyverbal I’m not making a point about whether or not Kirby and/or his estate ethically deserves a chunk of the profits for the massively successful work he did. I’m trying to make a point that Kirby’s intentions when doing that work weren’t to maintain direct control of those ideas and characters, they were to get the idea out there, do work he loved, get paid, and move onto the next new idea if need be. Which is in distinct contrast to Schultz, who maintained stewardship of Peanuts as closely as any one person possibly could maintain stewardship of anything as large as a multimedia franchise.

If anything Kirby did deserves a degree of respect to his intentions/wishes, it’s probably his Fourth World stuff for DC.

@AMS For corporations, it’s 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first.

ReplyReply
mygif

Never mind that shit. Where’s the tribute to Mongo?!

ReplyReply
mygif
Jonathan Miller said on October 10th, 2012 at 9:57 pm

awa64: Nope. Simon and Kirby were not employees of Timely when Captain America was created (they officially joined the staff after bringing Cap to Timely, per what documentation seems to be around, and were actually shopping material to different publishers until Cap 1 came out), and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that not only was the work potentially not wfh (they referred it back to the lower court for that), but the 1960s settlement did not preclude Simon from attempting to regain his rights under the 1976 revision. That was in the early 00s, and it was at this point that Marvel settled with Simon, with undisclosed terms, rather than have it return to court.

Now, it doesn’t mean Marvel wouldn’t have won had it gone back to court, but the 2nd Circuit pretty much destroyed their main arguments, so a settlement was probably the best thing they could have done. As I remember, it was only after the settlement that we got “created by Simon and Kirby” credits back on Cap comics, so at least we probably know one of its terms.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 11th, 2012 at 12:32 am

@awa64: Next time I will begin my comment with a compliment about the point you are making, so that you will be certain that I grasp it.

Oh wait.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t understand the point of this blog post beyond just taking more shots at me. There are differences between the Avengers and Peanuts as properties, explanations as to why Jack Kirby and his estate are not compensated and Charles Schulz and his estate are, and good discussions to be had about wanting The Avengers to continue and Peanuts to stop.

If you’re actually interested in participating in a discourse about all of that let me know.

ReplyReply
mygif

I said it before and I’ll say it again: Scott is entirely too invested in being ‘a member of the comics industry’ and it makes him present his opinions as a fan in high-handed and absolutist terminology: he’s not just some comic book nerd, you understand. He’s a Creator. And yes, he’s a creator, and sometimes I’ve found myself reading his comic and really being engaged by it. But there’s this wounded dignity that crops up whenever people disagree with him that prompts ugly behavior. I’d have more respect for him if he let his craft speak for itself and stop trying to sermonize.

Hear me, Scott?

ReplyReply
mygif

MGK vs Kurtz debate GOGO. Do want!

ReplyReply
mygif

I found this curious myself (emphasis mine):

“I know that there are some cartoonists (Mork Walker, Dik Browne, Bil Keane), who worked with and groomed their sons to take over their comic strips. I have read nothing to indicate that this is what happened in the Schulz household.

And from the Spinoff Online Article:

“Steve Martino (Horton Hears a Who!, Ice Age: Continental Drift) will direct from a script by Shulz’s son Craig Schulz, his grandson Bryan Schulz and Cornelius Uliano.”

My question is, has there ever been any confirmation from the Schulz estate that his progeny would not continue the work of CS, and this is a money making opportunity rather than a continuing work of passion for his child and grandchild? Their the heirs to the throne, so to speak, right?

ReplyReply
mygif

@SamS

There were no plans for anyone to create new Peanuts comics or comic strips. New content. New stories. etc.

The licensed stuff is different. But up until a year or so ago, Charle’s widow Jeannie oversaw the company that kind of determined what did and didn’t get licensed.

The syndicate that owned the licensing rights to Peanuts (and Dilbert and other strips) put it all up for sale. They got out of that business. And now another company (pop something) owns a lot of the rights to Peanuts.

Which may…and I emphasize MAY, be why we’re suddenly seeing new comic strips, books, and original stories out of nowhere. And a new movie.

It might also be why the sons are suddenly involved in the production of anything.

But no…nobody was supposed to take over the comic strip. That’s why the papers run repeats instead of just hiring someone to make new comic strips.

ReplyReply
mygif

I hear you, Travesty, and agree with you to a point. I just don’t plan to alter my content or opinions based on what you think I should say or do.

I’m comfortable being this passionate about it. I don’t agree that just because I state an opinion that it should be taken as anything more than an invitation to discuss.

I’m not running for office nor do I have a direct influence over anything. I just an asshole and opinions just like everyone else.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Scott Kurtz: “There are differences between the Avengers and Peanuts as properties, explanations as to why Jack Kirby and his estate are not compensated and Charles Schulz and his estate are, and good discussions to be had about wanting The Avengers to continue and Peanuts to stop.”
These all sound interesting and I would like to see them. Can you show us?

ReplyReply
mygif

There are differences between the Avengers and Peanuts as properties, explanations as to why Jack Kirby and his estate are not compensated and Charles Schulz and his estate are, and good discussions to be had about wanting The Avengers to continue and Peanuts to stop.

The problem is that all of the distinctions you want to make are formed in aesthetics rather than anything resembling a coherent and consistent ethical stance. You want Peanuts to stop and the Avengers to continue because, well, that’s what you want. It doesn’t have anything to do with a set of beliefs about respecting a creator’s wishes or where ownership rights should terminate. Trying to distinguish the Kirby estate situation from the Schulz estate situation is a legal question rather than an ethical one (and the two are not remotely the same thing).

I’m always up for debate, but seriously: how are we supposed to debate your preferences?

ReplyReply
mygif

@PaulW: Sadly, Mongo just pawn in game of life.

ReplyReply
mygif

Playing devil’s advocate here: isn’t there something to be said for originality and intent? I.e., Kirby didn’t create most of the characters in the Avengers, and he didn’t claim any desire to be the only person to create Avengers stories. It was, even at the time of its creation, part of a larger universe of characters and stories. Conversely, everything that we know as Peanuts came from Schulz’s brain and, limited extensions into merchandise and other media aside, it was never intended to be left to any other creators. Shouldn’t these factors have a bearing on the arguments?

ReplyReply
mygif

Are comic book writers employees of the comics company, or does the comics company just act as a publisher? This seems to be a big difference to me between Kirby and Schultz.

In most software companies anything you create is ‘owned’ by the company, you can’t take it with you when you leave. I guess I see Kirby as the company man, and Schultz as an interdependent start-up. Of course, I’m making comparisons to two very different industries.

It seems to me the big two comics creators (Marvel and DC) aren’t very good to their talent over the long haul. I’m surprised the “old guard” of comics creators are so anti web comics; if more of them pushed in that direction they could keep their IP for themselves; seems like a no-brainer. The music industry is abandoning the music labels, maybe it’s time for the same to happen in comics.

ReplyReply
mygif

eh, please ignore the creative spelling

ReplyReply
mygif

@MGK it’s not about my preferences. It’s about how the world works when you’re a comic artist and about the choices artists make when it comes to who owns their work and what partnerships they take on. So let me explain a bit:

– Jack Kirby co-created the Avengers in a bullpen using the Marvel Method of making comics under a work for hire contract with the understanding that other people would possibly continue the work beyond his initial run on the book. He was compensated (poorly some would argue) for his time and efforts.

– Charles Schulz created a singular work out of whole cloth and entered into a distribution partnership with a syndicate. He was compensated when Peantus took off and was wealthy decades and decades before his life an the strip ended. His heirs have always and still benefit financially from the licensing of the strip and the syndication money it makes.

I’m not arguing that it’s fair for Schulz’s kids to make money from his work and Kirby’s kids aren’t. Fair or not these are the choices these cartoonists made on how to work and who to work for and what contracts to sign and you can make your own decisions as to who chose better. The Schulz kids don’t have to sue anyone for royalties because their father signed a contract that guaranteed them the royalties.

The issue I’m arguing is that Charles Schulz didn’t want anyone else to continue his strip after he died. Jack Kirby did not have a problem with anyone continuing his work on Avengers after he died. The two are apples and oranges and have nothing to do with each other.

I didn’t say “they shouldn’t keep licensing Peantus” or “they shouldn’t make more shirts or toys.” or “Those kids shouldn’t keep making money from their father’s hard work.”

I said “stop making new peanuts.” It was a product of one man’s singular voice and he didn’t want anyone continuing it.

So when Boom Studios hires writers and artists to make more Peanuts comics I’m upset because while Jack Kirby worked in a medium where many creators contributed to a property, Charles Schulz did not. Jack would understand that. Charles did. Why can’t you suddenly?

Probably because your post is not about understanding the issue and more about shitting on me, but I get that.

It’s apples and oranges. yes. I do think Avengers should live on beyond Jack and Stan’s initial run. It was designed to and the wishes of everyone involved (including the evil corporation that fucked all their creators over) were that it would keep going.

Peanuts was designed to be an outlet for one man’s thoughts and up until this point everyone (including the evil corporation that fucks over creators) has respected his wishes. It’s why you see new Blondie decades after the death of it’s creators, but you see only reruns of Peanuts.

The Evil syndicate that owned the rights to Peanuts still respects his wishes when it comes to the comic strip. They sold off the licensing and that’s allowed people like Boom Studios to skirt the final wishes of a singular artist and continue to make new works of his characters.

I think it sucks.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hey MGK, do you use skype?

I want to TALK to you about this, not TYPE to you about this. Email me at mail@pvponline.com and give me your skype name if you have time later this afternoon.

I would love to be able to actually give you my thoughts on this and maybe you can blog about the conversation.

Thanks for the discourse guys!

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t use Skype – and frankly I don’t like the idea of a public conversation becoming private (for either end).

So when Boom Studios hires writers and artists to make more Peanuts comics I’m upset because while Jack Kirby worked in a medium where many creators contributed to a property, Charles Schulz did not. Jack would understand that. Charles did. Why can’t you suddenly?

Because you’re creating a false dichotomy on incomplete facts, for a start. Kirby left Marvel in large part because he wasn’t being given the creative control he desired over the characters he was working on (and it is worth remembering that Kirby was the word of God for Marvel’s house style for its first ten years of existence as a superhero publisher, Ditko’s work on Strange Tales aside). He clearly was not happy with his arrangement at Marvel – his furious attitude towards Martin Goodman certainly never changed over the course of his career – so suggesting that Kirby was content with his lot as mercenary creator is not really a fair portrayal of him.

You’re also assigning motive to Kirby that I don’t think anybody can factually determine and in fact seems contrary to what we know (e.g. that he wanted the Marvel characters he created to continue on without him – having read most of the biographical stuff about him, I would suggest that at best his opinion about this was apathetic, and in fact his anger at lack of creative control would indicate that he was not happy with the idea of other people dictating the fate of the characters he created).

With respect to Schulz, certainly new comics (and I think it is parsimonious and lawyerly to suggest that the long-form books Boom is producing do not violate Schulz’ request in his will that the comic strip not be continued, because comics is comics) go beyond the creator’s wishes. With respect to the film, Schulz always considered the TV shows to be a very distinct entity from the comic (both Good Grief by Rheta Johnson – which Schulz approved – and Schulz and Peanuts by David Mikaelis back this up), so I think there is quite a reasonable argument to be made that he might have approved of it being made. Certainly his son and grandson participating in the project – who, one would note, are already extremely wealthy due to Peanuts – have a better idea of this than you and I. I think it is at least a bit telling that the Schulz family is involved with the movie and not the comics.

But the root problem here is that, with the exception of Schulz’ will request re: the strip, we are trying to divine the intentions and wishes of dead men, and doing so with little concrete evidence; we can bolster arguments for either side if we so choose to say that Kirby’s intent was this or Schulz’ intent was that. In the absence of hard fact, then, the only reasonable position is taking a consistent stance. Perhaps it is proper (and this has nothing to do with “legal”) to respect all creators after their deaths and terminate their works unless they explicitly say otherwise? Perhaps (and public domain enthusiasts may weigh in on this side) once we are dead everything we do should be fair game? Both of these (and all the other possible variants) are reasonable stances to take and defensible.

And that’s what is frustrating. You aren’t doing that: you’re picking and choosing to create the scenario you’re comfortable with. That’s the problem.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t want to take it private. We can stream it. I just want to have a conversation with you. let’s ustream it. I just hate typing back and forth. Let’s have a conversation with voices and tone.

Here’s the bottom line:

Avengers was designed to be created by a committee. Writers, artists, and shifting creative teams. THAT’S why I’m okay with new people making it. It was created using a process that allowed it to be bounced from creative team to creative team and built upon.

That’s why I’m okay seeing more of it.

I don’t want to see more Peanuts because it’s not good without Sparky. It was so much OF HIM that I’m just not interested in seeing what another artist, writer or team of artists and writers do with it.

I don’t want to see more comics and I don’t want to see more TV shows or movies. I think most people grew up with the TV specials and liked and disliked them to varied degrees. We accept them. They’re not the comic strip.

More Peanuts is a less than proposition.

More Avengers isn’t.

Here’s another couple of examples: I would be okay if Robert Kirkman said “i’m passing Invincible on to a new creative team.” I wouldn’t feel the same way about Cerebus or Bone.

Is it not okay for me to say “I think people can make more good Avengers stories as good as Jack and Stan did, but I don’t think anyone can make Peanuts that touches was Sparky did, so let’s stop.”

Why is it not okay for me to say that. Why does that make me a hypocrite?

ReplyReply
mygif

I really don’t see the hypocracy MGK sees here. Kurtz isn’t respecting Schulz and disrespecting Kirby. He’s just saying, “I want to see other people write the Avengers; I don’t want to see other people write Peanuts.”

I feel the same way. Discussions of fair compensation for authors and their heirs seems like a completely different topic from “I don’t want to see other people ruin Peanuts.”

ReplyReply
mygif

Urthman, thank you. That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying.

ReplyReply
mygif

He’s just saying, “I want to see other people write the Avengers; I don’t want to see other people write Peanuts.”

You should consider reading what Kurtz actually said about the Avengers, in the May blog post to which this discussion pertains.

Urthman, thank you. That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying.

You should also consider reading what Kurtz actually said about the Avengers, in the May blog post to which this discussion pertains.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m pretty sure I understand what I said about the Avengers movie and Jack Kirby. None of it matters because it has nothing to do what-so-ever with my thought about new Peanuts content.

ReplyReply
mygif

There’s a reason that, to the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby generation of comic creators, it was a syndicated comic strip that represented “the big time.” Bigger audience. More respect. More money. Creative control. And, often overlooked, *ownership stake in one’s work.*

That’s the fundamental difference between the two. Schultz didn’t want anybody else making Peanuts but him–and he was absolutely legally entitled to make that decision. Which he did. And now it isn’t being respected.
Getting screwed sucks either way. Getting screwed in a way you expected and agreed to sucks less than getting screwed in a way you were entitled not to be, though.

Your fundamental difference is neither fundamental nor a difference.

Whatever Schultz’s previous legal rights were, he is currently, presumably in perpetuity, to the best of our knowledge and ability to predict, dead, and legally entitled to nothing whatsoever.

Either the wishes of creators in regards to their work matters irrespective of their formal legal control over the work, or it doesn’t.

You are certainly successful in pointing out that the vast majority of creators did not have the good fortune to avoid being taken advantage of by a vicious and dishonest industry, while a very few people such as Schultz were fortunate to not be taken advantage of in that way. This really isn’t fundamental to anything other than a general understanding of economic exploitation.

ReplyReply
mygif

None of it matters because it has nothing to do what-so-ever with my thought about new Peanuts content.

You should consider reading what Christopher says about Peanuts, in his October 10 blog post, which is literally the beginning of this discussion.

ReplyReply
mygif

12:44:

it’s not about my preferences

5:49:

He’s just saying, “I want to see other people write the Avengers; I don’t want to see other people write Peanuts.”
Urthman, thank you. That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying.

Well, good to know that’s not a matter of your preferences or anything, then.

ReplyReply
mygif

Skemono,

I don’t know if you care about the discussion or if you just want to get the last word in against me. if you have an argument to make i’d like to hear it.

Sparky left wishes about his continuation of his work. Jack had no such wishes about his work on the Avengers. Why MGK brought Kirby or the Avengers into the discussion beyond trying to take shots at me I can’t fathom.

ReplyReply
mygif

@lanimal

You make some excellent points. I know that the machine has Peanuts now and we’re going to start getting more content post Sparky, want it or not.

I think it sucks that his final wishes aren’t being respected 100%, but some of them still are and we did make it over a decade before this started to crop up.

It’s going to happen at some point, right? Obviously within our lifetime. To a lot of things we love.

Sparky’s gone. Peanuts will go on to be something different. So long as the original content is there and unaltered, maybe it’ll be a way to keep bringing new generations to it.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’ll say this, though, “Dog Sees God” was an excellent play, and I’d highly support any movie made of it.

ReplyReply
mygif

Maybe this will put it in perspective for you Scott:

“Guys, learn from the Peanuts movie. The real villains here are the cynics. They are our Lucy. The people looking to pit fandom and an entire industry against itself to make themselves feel powerful. The worms who never had the courage to create anything themselves looking to forge an identity on the internet by getting in a good dig. By being the guy who got the awesome last word in. These are the real bad guys of our world. Not Boom Studios executives. Not movie studios. Not the hundreds and thousands of creatives who make movies. Don’t fall for it.”

Obviously I’m rewording the above to make a point, but your earlier Jack Kirby article defends the execs, studios and creatives that you are deriding in your Peanuts post.

In the Kirby article you are asking us to let go an issue where a dead creators wishes weren’t respected – Kirby obviously wasn’t happy at not having creative control over his creations, he left Marvel over it. You are asking us to accept the fact that others can and have contributed to those properties of the years and that it is a good thing.

In the Peanuts post, you are upset about exactly the same thing, that a creators wishes in regard to his property will not be respected after his death and that other creators will expand on the Peanuts property.

Basically it seems to boil down to the fact that Kirby doesn’t get the same sympathy that Schulz does from you – you go so far as to deride those that have spoken sympathetically of the Kirby estate and donated to the Hero initiative. And that seems more than a little inconsistent.

ReplyReply
mygif

Dougal,

I think your mashing together of my blog posts would effect me more if I the situations were more consistent.

If my blog post about Charles Schulz said “Guys, We have to get the rights to Peanuts away from this corporation and back into the rightful hands of the Schulz estate.” Then I was agree that my arguments and sympathies are inconsistent.

My sympathies for all artists are pretty consistent. I want creators to maintain as much ownership of their work as they can. Kirby entered into a work for hire contract. Schulz entered into a 50/50 ownership with a syndicate. Of the two I would have picked the latter.

Traditionally, work for hire comic book artists were a part of a larger machine, cranking out ideas as fast as the publishers could print them. They were getting paid for their time and ownership was never on the table.

Comic strip artists traditionally submit an idea they created wholly and enter into a distribution and licensing partnership with syndicates to exploit the feature several mediums.

The ownership of Peanuts is where it should be. The heirs of Schulz are being compensated as fairly as everyone wishes that the Kirby estate was. For all I know they’re in charge of Peanuts right now completely. I don’t care. It’s not about money or royalties. Or even artist sympathies.

I like the idea of more Star Trek. I don’t like the idea of a sequel to Watchmen. Who has the RIGHT to make either is a separate argument. Whether you should donate to the Red Cross to make up for the fact that you bought the Ozymandiaus prequel is ANOTHER (completely insane) argument.

ReplyReply
mygif

You know what? I fucked up in that last post.

Charles Schulz did not sign a syndicate contract that was a 50/50 ownership. They owned it. He got half the money. But they owned the strip. He didn’t care.

I know from talking to Jeannie Schulz that Charles never wanted to deal with the ownership of it. He was happy with the syndicate doing the business stuff even if taking it over himself meant more money. He had plenty of money and he just wanted to focus on making the comic strip.

Currently syndication contracts are 50/50 splits and the creator keeps copyright. But it wasn’t that way when he made Peanuts. So I’m sorry, I did misspeak there.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t know if you care about the discussion or if you just want to get the last word in against me.

Just pointing out your contradiction of your earlier denial, since you seem oblivious to it.

ReplyReply
mygif

So….

Somebody on the internet has an opinion. “Commentary requested by several people” on said opinion. MGK doesn’t really like said person’s opinions in the first place, and it’s a slow day, so commentary is a go. Said somebody here’s about this, get’s dragged into drama. MGK doesn’t want to take this public because there’s a chance MGK will either choke or come across as a douche himself (god forbid MGK actually come to appreciate person whose opinions he doesn’t like).

I’m done with this “humor” forum. Good luck with your pirate comic or whatever.

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on October 15th, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Kurtz is the one who suggested taking the discussion off the public forum, dirge93. MGK wanted to keep it here. Not that you’ll read this, since you’re totally done here and won’t be lurking at all.

ReplyReply
mygif

@dirge93: Yes, I’m certain that MGK, a lawyer, is pants-crapping terrified of publicly debating a man who cannot order breakfast without contradicting himself at least twice.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 17th, 2012 at 3:20 am

Shorter Scott Kurtz: because I can point to a shiny, concrete difference between the two situations, there is no possibility of me being inconsistent FOREVERMORE!

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments