Chris Roberson Interview about Creator Ethics

[Brazoo]

Since this debate keeps cropping up, I thought I'd post this.

I don't really know his work, and I don't know career-wise if what he's doing makes sense, but I do admire his ethics.

Here's a link to the interview on The Comics Journal site:
: An Interview with Chris Roberson | The Comics Journal

Here's a key quote:
"...the only defense that’s offered of things like either Before Watchmen or the counter-suit against the Siegels or any number of different things that have been done historically is that the company is operating within the bounds of the law. The company is doing nothing illegal. There’s no defense mounted to the ethics or morality of their actions, and in many cases they will make kind of passing nods to the fact that what they are doing might be interpreted as unethical, but that because it’s not illegal, you know, they’re going to do it. And seeing as these are companies, both DC and Marvel, that are built upon stories about paragons of virtue who stand for what’s right, not for what’s nitpickingly legal, that was really bothersome to me."

[The Toyroom]

Crap. "iZombie" is one of the few comics from DC worth reading...

[ctc]

>There’s no defense mounted to the ethics or morality of their actions, and in many cases they will make kind of passing nods to the fact that what they are doing might be interpreted as unethical, but that because it’s not illegal, you know, they’re going to do it.

It seems to me that folks read a lot into companies like Marvel and DC that just isn't there. They're mills; they exist to churn out whatever they think is gonna sell. They always have been. They don't deal in characters, they deal in franchaises. I think the fans lose sight of that 'cos of their attachment to the characters: they don't see them as a brand, they see them as a sort of person, and accordingly can't understand why they get uprooted every 5,3,yearly, monthly.... For the artists I don't think some of 'em quite understand what they've gotten into when they work for the bigger companies. The company isn't there to help them flourish and develop their art; it hires them 'cos it thinks they'll sell. That's the tradeoff for the better pay and exposure. There's nothing unethical about it 'cos there's no pretense from the company.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

I think what you said about brands/IPs is 100% correct, but I think the idea of absolving companies of all morality because they're their own entities is overly simplifying the matter.

I'm not saying I have simple answers in place of what you're saying - because there's a lot of truth to what you're saying - but ultimately companies are run by people.

It's morally wrong that Siegal and Shuster wasn't getting a pension before the comic community got together and shamed DC into giving them one. There's no "yeah, but..." that will make me comfortable living in a reality were that is acceptable.

At some point it came down to one guy's decision to decide to pay lawyers more money to fight Siegal and Shuster in court than what it took to settle. And that guy can hide behind saying he was just one part of a machine, or he was just doing his job - but it doesn't make what he did moral.

[ctc]

>ultimately companies are run by people.

Big groups of people, unified by immense levels of beaurocracy, tradition, and being removed from the effects of any decision. Big companies are entities unto themselves; big, lumbering, mindless entities....

>I think the idea of absolving companies of all morality because they're their own entities is overly simplifying the matter.

Well.... you don't think fo a shark as evil when it eats someone. That's just what they do. Same with a company boning someone for the sake of profit. That's what THEY do. Morals has littele to do with it. Corporations exist to make a buck, period.... and through what you could consider a sort of evolution they achieve a form that maximalizes that goal. Hence why any sort of control or regulation comes either entirely from outside, or is the result of outside pressures.

>It's morally wrong that Siegal and Shuster wasn't getting a pension before the comic community got together and shamed DC into giving them one.

Like that! DC only cared because their potential customers did. DC CAN'T care.... companies don't have limbic systems.

>At some point it came down to one guy's decision to decide to pay lawyers more money to fight Siegal and Shuster in court than what it took to settle.

This is where I SORT OF disagree; yeah, there's someone who made the call but pushing behind him would be policy, overseers, the need to keep HIS job.... Sure; he could have stepped up.... but what would it have cost him?

Don C.

[johnnystorm]

I'm not sure sometimes how I come down on this issue. I think people like Jack Kirby & Siegle/Schuster deserve more credit than they get, simply because of the enormous amount they contributed. I think the companies should compensate them for what they have done, maybe not in millions of dollars to their heirs & estates, but in honoring & crediting them. sure the families deserve some money, but 2nd & 3rd generations going after the jackpot payoff? No. that seems to me to be as if i went after my great-grandfather's employer in 1930 and wanted some kinda settlement for mine safety or such. I wasn't involved in it, he's long passed, it's old news.

As for Watchmen & Alan Moore, that's different to me. the 60s creators signed work for hire contracts never expecting there to be Avengers movies & Spider-Man toys. Moore signed a contract (he says he didn't even read) and The Watchmen became a bigger thing than he expected. Bad choice on his part, move on. As for exploiting HIS characters (which he basically lifted whole cloth from the Charlton characters), how is it unacceptable for DC to use them how they see fit, and unacceptable for Moore to use EVERYBODY'S characters as he sees fit in LoEG? Because they are "public domain"? Does that make it any better to do a book like Lost Girls- wouldn't Carroll & Baum be upset over how he portrays their characters if they were alive today?

As for Roberson & his creator rights, I just don't understand why these guys think that DC & Marvel will be different because they think they should be. As said, they are COMPANIES, and companies exist to utilize their products to make profit. End of the story. selling Watchmen comics, action figures, etc. is basically no different than selling detergent, cars, or tacos. If Nestle takes their factories to Mexico, it's not fair or right to the town that's laid off, but Nestle itself doesn't really care as the company is doing it to make money. Which is why DC is selling Watchmen comics, which like it or not, WILL be huge sellers. Because the public doesn't really care about Alan Moore's feelings. They want to read about Silk Spectre & Rorschach. Thetre will be very few if any fans refusing to see The Avengers because the Kirby estate isn't getting a payoff for their grandfather's efforts 50 years ago.

Business isn't always moral, fair, or right... it's business. Not pleasant but fact. We can't or won't always agree with it, but it is what it is.

[samurainoir]

Don is absolutely right in that by their very nature, a publically owned company that is afforded the same rights as a flesh and blood person (if not greater given global reach) is designed to be a sociopathic entity if it's purpose is to continually raise profits for it's shareholders. In Scfi terms, it's a machine set upon the world to consume and gather for it's masters.

Brazoo is totally correct as well with a bit of a twist... For those within the corporate entity to be able to step up, (like Levitz? did with Superman... in large part due to Neal Adams campaigning), there needs to be a cost/benefits analysis done that would tip the profit/$$$ scale in the creators favour. The bad publicity/potential for, was the real reason why they were finally able to leverage 30 grand or whatever for seigel and shuster's pension. Foreseeing similar situations, DC has in general, been very generous with royalties/profit sharing ever since... I think we've been talking about Chuck Dixon's example for Bane in the Clooney Batman film, buying him a house... So we can only imagine the payday for Dark Knight Rises. Neal Adams has said he was generously compensated for Ras Al Ghul in Batman Begins... Proving that you fight the good fight thirty years prior for someone else's behalf, it benefits you down the line.

Unfortunately, any dialogue between Moore and Warners was doomed to failure from the start because the corporate entity does not speak the language of "moral high ground"... if they can't throw $$$ at it, then it shorts out their programming loop of fight/flight = cost/benefit. If you take Moore's mantel of magician/anarchist as someone who creates public spectacle/entertainment, what greater show and display than a man leaving a giant pile of money on the table over the movie rights, but I believe Moore still cashes his graphic novel cheques and Watchmen once more rocketed to the top of the sales charts the year of the movie.

And here is where Brazoo's human factor kicks in... You can have a guy like Levitz who's principled enough not to pursue a sequel/prequel, but he can be shuffled/bought off and someone else steps in and sees the money left on the table to feed the machine... Didio. And let's not forget that Didio is probably under huge pressure to maximize profits and justify his salary/position.

[Brazoo]

I've seen "The Corporation" and read some Naomi Klein and all that kinda jazz. I get that aspect - and maybe I'm blinded by optimism, but I do think there's another aspect to this.

Companies form their own cultures, and that's steered by people who have values and morals, it does go both ways. Also, companies can find ways to incorporate moral value INTO their business model so it makes sense for both human morals AND profits. For example, some companies are concerned about environmental issues and try to make a difference. There can be different motives to why they do it - but it's there.

I'm not saying Don is wrong, but I still think what he's expressing is over simplifying things. A shark just eats and makes baby sharks - or whatever - a shark doesn't have foresight or enough consciences to effect it's behavior, but people do, and often companies do because of that.

I've used this example in these discussions before, but there ARE times where big corporations give key players bonuses without any obligation to do so. There are cases where stock holders vote on awarding people for making them extra money.

Companies like Marvel and DC can look at the treatment of artists as a valuable commodity and benefit financially from that. It's possible to do - I just think there's still a lot of the old culture of these companies sticking around where they sometimes don't.

Things are better now - Ed's example of guys like Neil Adams is a great one - and that's why I pointed out this interview with Chris Roberson. Here's the human factor - a guy using his influence to try and change things.

[Brazoo]

Personally I don't have the same sympathy for Moore as I do for Siegal and Shuster, and I do think things are better now for artists in general. Which is strange, because the Marvel and DC were much smaller and controlled by much less policy and people when they were really screwing people over.

I'm not totally sure if Roberson did the right thing or if it will make a difference - but I admire his ethics for doing what he thinks is right.

[Brazoo]

Unfortunately, any dialogue between Moore and Warners was doomed to failure from the start because the corporate entity does not speak the language of "moral high ground"... if they can't throw $$$ at it, then it shorts out their programming loop of fight/flight = cost/benefit. If you take Moore's mantel of magician/anarchist as someone who creates public spectacle/entertainment, what greater show and display than a man leaving a giant pile of money on the table over the movie rights, but I believe Moore still cashes his graphic novel cheques and Watchmen once more rocketed to the top of the sales charts the year of the movie.

I think this is right - I think DC has actually tried to mend things with Moore in their own way, but they're both talking two completely different languages. It's exactly like what Don said about artists/readers seeing creations and companies seeing bands/IPs.

I don't think Moore is wrong for doing what he is doing though. I don't get when people sounds like the money he made off DC should obligate him to try and work things out in some way. It's his life.

[WannabeMego]

I've reread most of these posts and can see the arguments on both sides...but...I tend to lean towards Aaron's side...

I don't want to spew my own diatribe since most of the points I've would have said have been made (better then I could have explained)...but...I feel like substituting the word 'Nazi' for Corporation, Company, or Entity and then substituting the word 'Parents' in place of 'Nazi' and see if the arguments still feel sound, right, or justified...

Somehow I don't think it would...

Sadly...there is no right or wrong when arguing matters that are Legal vs Moral when feelings/emotions are entered into the equation...so we can sit here and spin this yarn for months on end and never really get anywhere with it.

My Character, as a person/human, is to lean towards Moral choices...treating others in the manner in which I would like to be treated...and I live assuming that the world (individual and incorporated) feels and acts the same way.

P.S. I'm not running for Ms. America

[ctc]

>Companies form their own cultures, and that's steered by people who have values and morals, it does go both ways.

To a point; but at a certain critical size it becomes impossible for the top decision makers to be involved in everything, and the farther removed from the operation they are the less likely they'll see the people in the organization as anything more than components. Companies like DC (and most entertainment companies) are ultimately run by people who have NOTHING to do with the actual product. Do you think the bigwigs at Time/Warner have any idea who Alan Moore is? "He looks like that Aqualung guy. Give him a few bucks and call it a day." The big probelm here is that the head editors aren't beholden to the artists, the fans or even DC really. The strings are pulled by beancounters far removed from DC, and that's who the chief editors are accountable to.

>Also, companies can find ways to incorporate moral value INTO their business model so it makes sense for both human morals AND profits.

They can, but don't unless there's something in it for them. Good will is a thing, but if they think there's potential profit elsewhere good will gets tossed.

>I'm not saying Don is wrong,

WOO-HOO!!!

>but I still think what he's expressing is over simplifying things.

Oh. Nertz.

>A shark just eats and makes baby sharks - or whatever - a shark doesn't have foresight or enough consciences to effect it's behavior, but people do, and often companies do because of that.

I dunno; I've worked at a few larger companies and it's astounding how horrible it is to get ANYTHING done, given the huge numbers of ******s you've got to slog through. They work like abalative armour: level after level of middle management designed to ensure that nobody important is ever exposed to anything negative. Or good. Or pertinent. But always the ideal is to insulate the company (as an entity) from the consequences of any activity from it's components. (That is, the workers.)

>there ARE times where big corporations give key players bonuses without any obligation to do so.

True; but there's usually some other mitigating factor. Rumours of offers from competitors, public outcry, "he's my nephew."

>There are cases where stock holders vote on awarding people for making them extra money.

That happens all the time, the key being "Made us extra money." Not "was nice to the staff," or "really helped the environment" or "helped a little old lady across the street."

>Companies like Marvel and DC can look at the treatment of artists as a valuable commodity and benefit financially from that. It's possible to do - I just think there's still a lot of the old culture of these companies sticking around where they sometimes don't.

Part of the problem for the Marvel/DC model came from the cases from Siegel and Shuster's estates; as well as the different beefs between Kirby, Ditko, et al. They generated bad press among the up and coming caste of "educated" comic fan who knew (and cared) about behind the scenes. I think the BIG hitch came from Image. Those guys went on about "creator owned" this and that, and made TONS of cash. In the wake of that came a horde of creators who felt some sort of ownership of their work, and a precedent for that being good business. (Forget that this was the way of the undergrounds since the 60's....) The Big Two didn't know how to react to this; they had to pay some sort of lip service to the idea, but definitely didn't want to relenquish the rights to anything, or the complications of putting out a book with strings attached.

It seems to me that there's been a shift back towards company rights the last little while; but I can't put my finger on how, or why. Maybe a more mercenary attitude on the part of the writers and artists? Maybe 'cos companies like Marvel and DC are small part sof huge conglomerates now?

Don C.

[samurainoir]

P.S. I'm not running for Ms. America

But you'd be a shoo in for the swimsuit competition!

I'm glad Don brought up Image, because this really does inform what happened to Alan Moore and DC in recent years. You have the group of Image artists that broke off from Marvel... only to recreate the same set work for hire problems that they were supposedly rebelling against (the creative ownership problems... as embodied by the high profile McFarlane vs Gaiman or Kirkman vs Tony Moore lawsuits for example). When history finally starts to write the book on Image Comics, it will definitely be as controversial as any of the Kirby Vs Marvel stuff ever was amongst fandom, and just as muddy and even more confusing given the sheer number of people involved with differing philosophies pulling in all directions.

In the case of Alan Moore... there is no doubt that was a big part of his decision to take his ABC imprint to WildStorm/Image was the stance on creator rights. So you can imagine his surprise when Jim Lee informs him that the company Moore vowed never to have anything to do with seemingly bought WildStorm for a new library of Alan Moore material to add to the already lucrative existing material like V, Watchmen, and Swamp Thing. Let's have no illusions that ABC was a big hinge in that deal... otherwise Jim Lee would have separated that part of the company out and cut Moore/ABC loose. Moore of course went along with all this based around the livelihoods of his friends he had dragged into the endeavor, which was already largely underway at the time of the WildStorm buyout by DC. One can obviously find fault in Moore for failing to concern himself with the fine-print yet again, but given all the ink the Image creators spent over they years on telling the story of their liberation from the salt mines of the big two, what was the chances that the one he was in bed with would sell himself back into servitude in exchange for a golden pair of handcuffs and the keys to the kingdom? And just to drag it full circle, Jim Lee has climbed to the top of the DC hierarchy (scuttling all his creator owned/driven initiatives at WildStorm in the process) and is now one of the folks spearheading the Watchmen prequels for the company.

I think we're all on the same page about moral rights not equaling legal rights in the situation, and how we personally would like for folks to behave within the medium we love. Jim Lee bankrolled it and WildStorm took the financial risk, but Alan Moore and co put in the sweat equity, and deserves some say in the control of the things they created from scratch (but what happens when the creators themselves disagree... like Moore and Gibbons over the Watchmen movie). Moore really needs to get a better lawyer, or at least one that understands him better, to read his contracts.

I do agree with Aaron and Tom that it's possible for the people to create a company culture that they describe (and that is the ideal to strive for), however, you most often see that in places built from the ground-up (the billion dollar Vice Media Empire springs to mind... telling that it was originally founded in Canada?) rather than trying to completely reinvent an already century old lumbering dinosaur like Warners or Disney.

[Brazoo]

>There are cases where stock holders vote on awarding people for making them extra money.

That happens all the time, the key being "Made us extra money." Not "was nice to the staff," or "really helped the environment" or "helped a little old lady across the street."

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying too! The key with Kirby and Siegel and Shuster was that they were responsible for HUGE profits - their contribution really wasn't recognized for it's value.

On a side note my wife works for a VERY VERY LARGE 300+ year old international insurance company who offers cash awards to staff on any level who come up with "green" ideas. People can change the way companies look at things - I'm not saying it's easy - but it does happen. I think the key is changing the culture - changing how the company views things.

"Value" can be fluid, even in purely financial terms, because there are so many factors. All you have to do is justify an extra expense in one area by weighing it against other things that alter the bottom line. For example, you might spend more on something now and get more from that later. Again, companies use foresight, they make investments and take risks - to me that means they're more complex than "sharks".

It seems to me that there's been a shift back towards company rights the last little while; but I can't put my finger on how, or why. Maybe a more mercenary attitude on the part of the writers and artists? Maybe 'cos companies like Marvel and DC are small part sof huge conglomerates now?

Don C.

That's really what I'm on about - the fans who rally against the artists. I don't get that AT ALL. They perpetuate these issues to some degree - and it makes no sense. You see it a lot in sports too, where the fans seem to take the side of the super-rich owners over the players in a lot of disputes. It's weird. What are these "fans" a fan of?

Sorry, I'm skipping over some of your very good and interesting points you made because I'm really strapped for time today!

[ctc]

>I'm not saying it's easy - but it does happen. I think the key is changing the culture - changing how the company views things.

I think the trick to this argument is that everyone's most definitely right about what "should" happen, but has to remember that the entire corporate process is geared against that kind of thing. Changes come from without more often than within. The "green" thing is a good example; a lot of companies are touting it 'cos it looks good with the public. Which is fine 'cos it means SOMETHING potentially positive happens. The place I work has a green initiative going now too; but they also run huge light displays 24/7, and my department alone is resopnsible for reams of paper waste every shift. So while the company touts green, it does very little to that end, overall.

>companies use foresight, they make investments and take risks

Well.... not when it comes to entertainment. Too much money involved. That's why you see the same ideas, names, stories over and over on tv and at the box office. It makes more sense to play it safe, and the corproate culture has evolved to ensure it stays that way.

Not that it HAS to; every so often someone pushes something genuinely new that hits.... but more often than not taking a chance = fail.

>the fans who rally against the artists. I don't get that AT ALL. They perpetuate these issues to some degree - and it makes no sense.

It does, if you look at it from another perspective. The fans want more, more of whatever it is they want. Uppity artists and writers get in the way of that.

....and no, it doesn't make a LOT of sense; but it's another symptom of that weird shift I noticed.

Don C.