DC at it again with denying royalties...

[Blue Meanie]

This is why I love Back Issue on Facebook...I would have never seen or known about the BS that DC is pulling. They are denying royalty payments/compensation to one of the big writers/creators for DC back in the 70's/80's. Check it out:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...nd-credit.html


After reading this it sort of reminds me of the conversation I had with Martin Nodell and his son about whether he was getting paid for DC starting to use the original GA Green Lantern again, this was back in '01, and they told me that DC was going to change the name of the character or had changed the name of the character to Sentinel. The only way that Martin got paid was when they reprinted the All Star stories in archive form. It's absolutely disgusting how these BILLION DOLLAR corporations can get away with this BS.

[Starroid Raiders Dagon]

Well, I'm far from an expert on anything in the legal realm, so I doubt I could add anything intelligent to the conversation. I do like that the new "rules" seem to not assign creator rights to derivative characters, so there should be no incentive to create an army of Flash characters that take away from the original character. But, I dont think a name, race, hair colour change should eliminate the original creators' rights like the Killer Frost example, and current creators should be aware of that.

[Earth 2 Chris]

The DC that existed for 75 years essentially ended when Levitz "retired" and Dianne Nelson took over. It wasn't just the name that changed. Essentially, they no longer want to honor commitments made by the old administration, and they are using a lot of mind-numbing double-talk to do it. Typical.

Chris

[johnnystorm]

And now we see the real reason for the Nu52... Nothing created before it existed, therefore it's all Warner property.
Sometimes we have the crappiest hobby.

[johnnystorm]

Warner -DC should change their corporate mascot to this guy:

Plus it's ok lawyers, you own this one outright, no scheming necessary!

[enyawd72]

DC = Despicable Comics

[huedell]

After reading this it sort of reminds me of the conversation I had with Martin Nodell and his son about whether he was getting paid for DC starting to use the original GA Green Lantern again, this was back in '01, and they told me that DC was going to change the name of the character or had changed the name of the character to Sentinel. The only way that Martin got paid was when they reprinted the All Star stories in archive form. It's absolutely disgusting how these BILLION DOLLAR corporations can get away with this BS.

I find it equally troubling how writers who were supposed to work freelance but have been re-defining their rights/roles constantly throughout comicbook history have made this whole process just as difficult (or moreso than the big 2).

The DC that existed for 75 years essentially ended when Levitz "retired" and Dianne Nelson took over. It wasn't just the name that changed. Essentially, they no longer want to honor commitments made by the old administration, and they are using a lot of mind-numbing double-talk to do it. Typical.

Yep. It is indeed typical. It's how these big companies remain big companies. Lawyers that know the law. But make no mistake, there's TWO sides to this fight that everybody looks at as "David vs. Goliath". The thing is though, David didn't ask Goliath for a career-boost opportunity and sign his life away in the process (so to speak).

[emeraldknight47]

DC = Despicable Comics

DC = Despisable Corporation, too!

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yep. It is indeed typical. It's how these big companies remain big companies. Lawyers that know the law. But make no mistake, there's TWO sides to this fight that everybody looks at as "David vs. Goliath". The thing is though, David didn't ask Goliath for a career-boost opportunity and sign his life away in the process (so to speak).

I doubt Conway and others would be griping if DC weren't changing the rules of their participation program midstream. It was an incentive offered to creators, and benefited both parties. DC got exciting new characters, creators got some money out of their use in other media. Now it only benefits one.

Chris

[The Toyroom]

Alan Brennert ran into the same problem with Barbara Kean on "Gotham"...

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes. I'm a HUGE Brennert fan, and they pulled the "derivative character" bit on him. But as much as I love Brennert, he's only written a handful of DC tales. They are some of my favorite stories of all time, but Conway wrote a metric TON of DC Comics, and introduced a boatload of characters. The Flash show is mining a good chunk of them, mostly through the Firestorm connection.

Chris

[knight errant00]

I find it equally troubling how writers who were supposed to work freelance but have been re-defining their rights/roles constantly throughout comicbook history have made this whole process just as difficult (or moreso than the big 2). But make no mistake, there's TWO sides to this fight that everybody looks at as "David vs. Goliath". The thing is though, David didn't ask Goliath for a career-boost opportunity and sign his life away in the process (so to speak).

Yes and no. I agree on some of the creators from the Golden Age who had pretty one-sided contracts and signed away rights and the big companies ended up being embarrassed later by the fans into throwing them a bone or two. They signed what they signed, and got paid for the work.

But this . . . the company's just redefining the terms of the contract after decades and pulling a pretty sleazy trick -- what these rules essentially say is that they can hire me to create a character, then hire you to mod it (change the cape color, chest emblem, and secret ID), then not pay you for use of the character because it's derivative of mine, and not pay me for use of the character because it isn't the one I created.

If the corp wants to come back and renegotiate with creators, that's fine (and they'd better be ready for the creators to walk away with the characters as in any renegotiation) , but this, this is just dishonest and borderline fraudulent.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Exactly. This and Golden Age creators fighting for ownership are two different things. Creators WERE being compensated for use of these characters, per contract, and now they are not, due to some legalese mumbo jumbo.

Chris

[hedrap]

Bleeding Cool suggests it was due to the Coastal move of the offices. That makes sense to me as royalties, credits and ownership are the real Battle: Los Angeles stories.

[huedell]

Yes and no. I agree on some of the creators from the Golden Age who had pretty one-sided contracts and signed away rights and the big companies ended up being embarrassed later by the fans into throwing them a bone or two. They signed what they signed, and got paid for the work.

But this . . . the company's just redefining the terms of the contract after decades and pulling a pretty sleazy trick -- what these rules essentially say is that they can hire me to create a character, then hire you to mod it (change the cape color, chest emblem, and secret ID), then not pay you for use of the character because it's derivative of mine, and not pay me for use of the character because it isn't the one I created.

If the corp wants to come back and renegotiate with creators, that's fine (and they'd better be ready for the creators to walk away with the characters as in any renegotiation) , but this, this is just dishonest and borderline fraudulent.

If that's what's truly going on, then I also feel it's a bad (shady) thing---I mean, I can hardly follow the "jumbo"---let alone the "mumbo"