Should a colourist (or "colour artist") get royalties?

[kingdom warrior]

Again, no....nothing against the skills or talents of inkers/colorists/letterers but royalities should be reserved for the CREATORS of the book, i.e. writers/artists (pencillers). Not to say that inkers/colorists/letterers don't add to a book or enhance it, but as it's been pointed out their names will not sell more copies of a book. A writer or artist's name WILL sell more copies of a book. Plus, I highly doubt most inkers/colorists/letterers are involved in the original creative process of a new character or title or story. If anything, they are given the pages to do their thing AFTER the writer and artist have done theirs. And it's the original creative process that translates into the story which becomes popular and collected into trades and sells a bazillion copies which justifies the royalities. The inkers/colorists/letterers may make things look nice but I'm sure you could swap them out with other inkers/colorists/letterers on a book and no one would bat an eye. The same can't be said for writers/artists.

Totally Agree! Inkers/Colorist/Letterers are the equivalent of session men in the music business. Session men are hired to come in and play for the singer or composer of the song. They get payed for the work they did on that session. Good session men get payed top dollar because of their work.

Top inkers may get a little bit more money but getting a royalty for something they had no part in the initial stages of the creating process? No, and true when I look at who created the book I only look at who wrote it and who penciled it.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

That’s a good question. Historically I think most colouring has been assembly-line workman stuff. Almost an afterthought with standards and technology not allowing for much expression by the colourist. Even nowadays with the computer stuff; you get a better range of colour and effects, but most of it is still workman stuff. Very repetitive, very pat.

So I think the question is; are colourists artists or technicians? If they’re techs, then their work is strictly for hire. If they’re artists then if not eligible for royalties (that’s a legal thing) should they be granted a bit of recognition for what they add to the book?

I’d say it depends on the colourists. Most of ‘em don’t impress me. Modern stuff makes everything look like plastic, and old school stuff.... well; McCloud summed it up pretty well in “Understanding Comics.” ‘Course I digress; having grown up with stuff like “Heavy Metal” where the artists were often more akin to what we’d consider a fine artist than a comic artist. I got spoiled by the likes of Corben, Wrightson, etc.

Don C.

[samurainoir]

Here's the thing... there is already a precedence for Inkers getting Royalties at DC!

I'm not sure if it's a case by case basis, but it's public knowledge that Mike Dringenberg gets creator royalties from Sandman (arguably he was doing quite a bit of ghost-pencilling for Sam Keith in the later issues before taking over as penciller), and John Totleben gets royalties for his run inking Steve Bissette's pencils from Alan Moore's run (and I think Bissette and Totleben also managed to get Rick Vietch credit and royalties for ghost pencilling before becoming an actual penciller on alternating issues).

[megoscott]

I'd say John Higgins would have deserved royalties on Watchmen, his colors were such an important piece of that work, but I'm certain he didn't get them, pity considering how many copies have been sold.

[The Toyroom]

Here's the thing... there is already a precedence for Inkers getting Royalties at DC!

I'm not sure if it's a case by case basis, but it's public knowledge that Mike Dringenberg gets creator royalties from Sandman (arguably he was doing quite a bit of ghost-pencilling for Sam Keith in the later issues before taking over as penciller), and John Totleben gets royalties for his run inking Steve Bissette's pencils from Alan Moore's run (and I think Bissette and Totleben also managed to get Rick Vietch credit and royalties for ghost pencilling before becoming an actual penciller on alternating issues).

It sounds like it's case-by-case....It seems like Dringenberg may have gotten it more for the ghost-pencilling. When it comes to Bissette and Totleben, that's exactly how i think of them. The functioned as one unit basically. Similarly when you think of Byrne/Austin on Uncanny X-Men, I could see Austin being worthy of royalties. But situations like that are few and far between nowadays when creative teams are frequently switched around.

[samurainoir]

It sounds like it's case-by-case....It seems like Dringenberg may have gotten it more for the ghost-pencilling. When it comes to Bissette and Totleben, that's exactly how i think of them. The functioned as one unit basically. Similarly when you think of Byrne/Austin on Uncanny X-Men, I could see Austin being worthy of royalties. But situations like that are few and far between nowadays when creative teams are frequently switched around.

The problem then comes in the application of that case-by-case basis... particularly when we are talking about Work For Hire at Marvel and DC. Particularly since this discussion has come up around the formation of a Comic Book Artist Guild. I'm not quite sure it's exactly feasible or necessarily implementable to pick and choose where the royalty lines are drawn depending on the project and talent involved. At this point, the only easy lines are in the credits boxes and with the new technology and advanced printing processes, the lines between those traditional credits like "Inker" and "Colourist" are now blurring (as we see in the case of Isanove who does a great deal of his work colouring directly from pencils).

In regards to authorship on Work For Hire projects... technically the Author on Record in the legal sense at Marvel and DC, are Marvel (Disney) and DC (Warners). Even their "creator owned" stuff isn't really technically purely creator owned anymore... my understanding is that it ends up being more akin to a very good profit sharing deal.

Despite the fact that they are creative roles, the writer and artists as well as colourists and letterers are all "technicians" for assembly line product of the corporate entity (in the eyes of the law).

For self publishers of creator owned work... no problem. They are the ones who negotiate their own deals with their collaborators. Thus Dave Sim is free to give half-ownership of Cerebus to Gerhard. Todd MacFarlane and Eric Larson pay flat page rates to their colourists and letterers. You just need to be upfront with your collaborators about this and they can decide whether or not to accept the contracted work for hire from the creator/author.

Big Companies on the other hand, they need a standard practice otherwise it will be financial precedences that dictates where the top talent goes.

[samurainoir]

I'd say John Higgins would have deserved royalties on Watchmen, his colors were such an important piece of that work, but I'm certain he didn't get them, pity considering how many copies have been sold.

Anyone else really disappointed that Brian Bolland opted to recolour the rereleased Killing Joke in Hardback?

I thought Higgins' acidic colours were absolutely perfect for the tone of that book, but Bolland apparently found them horrendous and chose a subtler palette for the most part, but I really think doing that "Rumble Fish/Schindler's List" thing by rendering the flashbacks in Black and White/Graytones except for the one or two reddish objects like the shrimps and hood to be completely unnecessary and distracting to the narrative flow.

[The Toyroom]

^ Yeah I dunno what Bolland was thinking....The coloring on Killing Joke was fine, as is...he didn't improve anything IMO. I think it was more ego than anything else....

[CrimsonGhost]

I got royalties when I was coloring for Valiant Comics in the early 90's. Of course, it was a fraction of what the writer and penciler made, but it was still something.

Coloring isn't what it was in the old days, where you could only pick from a limited amount of colors and percentages of screen.

I don't see why a regular colorist on a monthly book shouldn't get a royalty. The colorists work is more important to the storytelling than the inkers work. The color is what sets the emotions, time of day, often even light and shadow depending on the penciler they are working over.

So someone explain to me why they shouldn't get royalties. Because coloring is easier? It isn't. It is a ton of work to color a book and usually if the penciler or inker is late with their pages, it falls on the colorist to bring the book back on schedule. I think anyone who's name is in the artwork credits deserves them.

Actually, I would like to get one of these magic computers that everyone was talking about where I guess you just scan pages, open Photoshop, run the "Color comics" filter, and send the book back to the publishing company!

[samurainoir]

I got royalties when I was coloring for Valiant Comics in the early 90's. Of course, it was a fraction of what the writer and penciler made, but it was still something.

That is really interesting! I didn't realize that there was a precedence with any of the companies paying colourists royalties. Was that a "we can't pay you as much as the big companies, but we'll profit share with you" thing?

[samurainoir]

Laura Martin is another example of a colourist at the top of her field in my opinion.

Anyone who can take the "Where's Waldo" page by the likes of Bryan Hitch and make full sense of each distinctive overlapping figure and their various colour schemes in addition to the backgrounds and foregrounds is definitely earning their paycheck.



But perhaps that is why good colourists aren't really as appreciated as they should be. When they are doing their jobs well, their contributions should be "invisible".

On the flip side, I don't know who's colouring Black Summer, but I'm a huge fan of Jaun Jose Ryp's ultra detailed work, and you can see that the colourist is really putting a great deal of work into the colours, but it doesn't really service the line art well at all.




Everything just flattens out, there is no distinctions between foreground, middle-ground and background, in some cases everything just goes muddy. Your eye isn't really drawn to where it should be drawn.

If feels like the colours are fighting against the artwork here. The fine details are all lost in the mess of all those gradations.

By comparison, here's Laura Martin again...




Check out her work recolouring Rocketeer for the new hardback edition.


compared to the original four colour newsprint version...

[CrimsonGhost]

That is really interesting! I didn't realize that there was a precedence with any of the companies paying colourists royalties. Was that a "we can't pay you as much as the big companies, but we'll profit share with you" thing?

No. In the early 90's Valiant was a big seller. We got paid royalties based on units sold. I can't remember anymore what the figure was, but it was maybe 100,000 or 150,000 and we would all get royalties. As a colorist, I didn't get a very high percentage, but my first royalty check was for $4000.00. You can imagine what the writer got!

They were generous with pay by the time I got there. I started after Shooter had left and Bob Layton had taken over. I miss those days, it was a lot of fun.

However, times were very different and most books don't even come near the 50,000 mark. I would imagine there are many that sell high enough to earn royalties, but it used to be almost all of them. I just do a little bit of coloring now and nothing has sold high enough for any royalty payouts.

[ctc]

>When they are doing their jobs well, their contributions should be "invisible".

Yeah. Part of the problem is that mainstream comics are done assembly-line style; and you don't always get inkers, colourists, whatnot that compliment each other.

Don C.