(Reply to this) (Thread)

Oh my god! I'm so sorry! I copied your name off Shutterbox Volume 1, and it SAYS "Simons" - I don't the heck know what happened. >_< I'll fix it right away.

And ofcourse, the best thing to do is your own research. :) I have mandatory knowledge of copyright laws and a NEW lawyer ~_~, but I intend to take some spare time out to read up more on copyright law in the future.

Anyway, thanks for your comments on "Block 6"! ^o^ *rockets around the room* It's currently suspended because of "The Dreaming", but I hope to get back to it later on! And I hope "The Dreaming" turns out to be as riveting for you as Block 6 did! :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

They look really good. ^^ And even if there's a lot of toning then your usual works, it doesn't make it look bad or anything at all.

And sorry, I don't have any opinions on that issue because... I don't really know much about it. ^^;

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I like seeing both sides of the picture. Honestly, I'd rather keep my copyright to myself instead of sharing it, but it won't ruin your career if you can't and and the contract is worded well.

As for the law . . . nobody wants to pay court fees. ;_; However, most of the high profile cases I've read with copyright issues have nearly always sided with that of the original creator. US law tends to favor creators, though I know nothing about Australian law. And most cases . . . are settled OUT of court. Publishers generally don't want the negative backlash of screwing an artist/writer over. You can't publish your intent to sue if you've reached a settlement, but if you DO take it to court, that's when it goes public. Threats of public feedback make a wonderful tool.

I was trying to research actual cases of shared copyrights; cases that turned out beneficial and negative to the original creators. So far, I haven't really seen anything that has been an issue. The problems I've run across have been people giving away specific rights without compensation or ALL of their copyright, rather than shared.

I wish I could find more examples, but people don't necessarily publish their contracts on the web.

However, I did find another article that covers shared copyrights that was quite extensive and easy to read: http://www.rexx.com/%7ejaguar/copyright.html

And where to go if you feel your rights have been violated but can't afford a lawyer: http://www.cbldf.org/ It's devoted entirely to the comic industry! >_<


ps. I feel stupid saying this, but it's "Rabid Press Inc." There's another Rabid Press out there in the US, only discovered after we took the name. -_-;

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I correct myself: http://www.cbldf.org/ is actually about protecting a comic creator's right to free speech. Still useful, but not quite what I was looking for. If I run across another site devoted to protecting COPYRIGHT, I'll post it here and the forums.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thanks for the links, Rivkah. :) I'll be checking them out. :D

And sorry abou the Rabid Press thing - I'll change it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

It's always a good idea to have a contract looked over by a copyright lawyer. Then you can discuss what rights you want to assert and negotiate with the publisher.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I was asked by Queenie to come and comment here.
The ins and outs of shared copyright were explained well.
I'm with Rikki on the question, however. I cannot say this strongly enough: shared copyright is a fool's game, and eventually it burns everyone who agrees to it.
It is in a creator's best interest to keep all copyright. There is no reason a publisher cannot successfully promote your work without part of the copyright, other than they may have more of an INTEREST in doing so. MAYBE. (Although, most of the time (but not always), counting on a publisher to promote one's work is another fool's game. If you want the PR, YOU do it. You find out what the publisher is doing, then you cover everything else you want done.)
Another good example or two of shared copyright and why it's bad for creators:
Example one: a writer, well known for an OGN published at one of the Big Two, makes a shared copyright deal with a smaller publisher. The smaller publisher is then able to turn around and make a deal for a TV series. The creator gets no input whatsoever into the sale or interpretation of his work. Moreover, when the show finally does air, his required-by-the-WGA credit as creator is nowhere to be found. Schwoooooooooo. He successfully sues, because the WGA rules are crystal clear, but the show is cancelled.

Example two: a well-known creator makes a deal that is functionally shared copyright. They find that they cannot sell copies of their own book at cons without the by-your-leave of the publisher. The publisher elects to not give that by-your-leave. The creator, who counted on con sales for income, is screwed.

Neither of the people in question should've made the damn deals to begin with, and, more telling, neither of them was young or inexperienced. Yet, both found themselves thoroughly screwed over.

Bonus example: I have always keep all rights to my own work. I have, a couple of times, made decisions based on sweet talk from publishers (no one I currently work for), decisions I felt uncomfortable with, but went along with. Every time I have strayed from the path of what felt right to me, I have been disappointed.

Regimes change at publishers. The people who make your deal may have no intention of exercising the more unpleasant-to-you options of selling your property from under you, or telling you you can't sell it at cons, but there may come along someone who does, or someone who says, "Won't them being at the same con as us selling the same book undercut OUR sales?"
Back to my bonus example: the decision I made, I made with someone who then left the publisher. The next person in the job knocked themselves out for a while, promoting my work--until I balked (as was my right!) at a promotion idea I felt undercut the value of my work. If I had not exercised that right, my work would have been subjected to a promotional stunt that would've severely diluted not only the value but also the message of the work.
Since I did balk (but not without providing alternatives), I lost all promotional help from the publisher. However, I was still about to promote my work myself, and eventually take my work elsewhere.

It's easy to say, "But it'd be so kewl if there was a TV show of my book," before there's a TV show of your book that looks nothing like your book, no credit for what made someone want the property to begin with, AND less money. Kewl is for fewls.

All creators owe themselves an education about their rights, have a moral right to keep ALL rights to their work. Part of being a creator IS handling those decisions about how the property is managed, or allowing those decisions to be made by a trusted associate. At the end of the day, a publisher will always act in its own best interests, as it must, and those will not always intersect with yours.

And that is all the time I have to devote to this. I have deadlines out the wazoo, and kids to get to school.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I, too, was asked by Queenie to come and comment here. I agree with Rikki and Leah. Shared copyright is a scam. They'll tell you that it's so that they can promote your work without calling you over every flyer to get your permission. Balderdash. If they want to publish a promo piece with my comics on it, they can call me (I have a cell phone) and shoot me a JPG or fax for approval. The real reason they want a shared copyright is so that they can jerk the ownership of YOUR property out from under you if they manage to sell the rights to your property to some licensee for big bucks. Let's say you develop a manga called XYZ. You do a deal wth LA Manga Company Inc to publish your comics; in return, they share ownership of the PROPERTY (note: not the book itself — the intellectual property. Important difference!) and send you a couple of thousand bucks. You sign the deal. The next week, sales rep M of LA Manga goes over to Disney and pitches a live-action movie based upon XYZ . Since XYZ is totally cool and hard and cutting edge, it's an instant sell, and a few weeks later a big fat option check shows up in the mail at LA Manga. They send you a cut and you are happy. BUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW is that Joe Cokehead, Disney's hot young producer, has taken an interest in your project, and he wants changes. Instead of the story about fluffy bunnies in space that you originally wrote, Joe Cokehead thinks that the movie ought to center instead on super-hawt psychic teens (one of whom is black and wheelchair-bound) who use their powers to fight crime in the rain-swept streets of a high-tech, futuristic Columbus, Ohio. LA Manga is totally on board with this, but when you find out, you aren't. You call up LA Manga over and over to cmplain but nobody will talk to you. Finally you fly out to LA and storm into the editor's office. She has forgotten all about you and XYZ and shuffles you off to Marketing and LIcensing. Repeat this process three or more times. Finally, you end up staring across the desk at one of LA Manga's Armani-clad attorneys, who points out to you the part of the contract that says LA Manga has COMPLETE control over your property, You protest. She tells you to like it or lump it. You threaten to sue. She says to go ahead and has security remove you from the building. You go straight to an attorney, who for $1000 looks over the contract and tells you that you are the owner of the property but also that it doesn't matter; LA Manga has more money and more lawyers than you do, and that by the time all the appeals and investigations are through the property will be over and of no further value. He advises you to drop the matter and concentrate on getting a better deal next time.

Three months later XYZ: THE MOVIE comes out to rave reviews. It is a smash hit, the film of the year, and makes $54 million in net the first week of release. You get a check for 250,000 and a fond "farewell" from LA Manga. As you commute to your job selling XYZ: THE TOYS at Wal-Mart, you see Joe Cokehead and the owner of LA Manga on the cover of Entertanment Weekly. The headline: "Cokehead and LA Manga — The creative Geniuses behind XYZ!"

That in a nutshell is how shared copyright works.

No thanks.

It is in a creator's best interest to keep all copyright.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

"Lea". It's just three letters. The "h" resides in my last name, "Hernandez".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

This in from "Manga Widow":

"Dear Ms. Queenie,

You know, I know people who work at companies who have been screwed over royally by other, larger companies in *direct* violation of their contracts. Contracts don't mean a damn if the names are big enough and the pockets are bottomless. In fact if the names are big enough, it might even hurt the little guys' chances for getting industry work ever again, because they'll have been associated with those irritating specks that were causing trouble before.

If you give a media company even a slight hint that running rampant with your creation might be okay...that's just ASKING for trouble."

Sounds almost like a warning. O-O

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Manga Widow's right, actually. Even WITH contracts, people have been screwed over, or even squashed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)