Keskustelujen arkisto

DAVID G.:

You asked if Disney had ever censored any of the stories I've done with Van
Horn. To give you the short answer: No!

As to the long answer: I don't want to get wrapped up in technicalities, but
I don't think we're really talking about "censorship" here as much as
editorial decisions and policies. It is a subtle, but important destinction,
I'll grant you.

I was a newspaper reporter and columnist for several years and the sort of
editorial interference you're talking about happens all the time in the real
world. Editors and publishers are supposed to make decisions about what does
and doesn't belong in print. Of course, sometimes they make absolutely
boneheaded decisions. A publishing company has the right to print or not
print whatever it wants. That isn't censorship. It's just reality. Whoever's
paying the bills gets to make the decisions.

Trues censorship occurs when an outside agency--such as a
government--prevents you from writing or publishing something.

I'm sorry for the lecture, but to me it's an important difference.

(Of course, I suppose you could make a good case that Disney is an "outside
agency" when it comes to Gladstone and Egmont comic book stories since it
doesn't really produce any of the material itself.)

Anyway, neither Bill Van Horn nor I have had any real problems with editorial
interference of the type you seem to be talking about--at least not in regard
to any of our stories published by Egmont or Gladstone (during it's first
run.) It's worth noting that in both cases our editor has been Byron
Erickson.

I have, however, run into some very bizarre editorial policies when I've
worked on Disney characters in other circumstances. When I wrote for Disney
Comics I was mainly working for Bob Foster on the ducks and things went quite
smoothly. (I can think of only one very minor instance in which Bob and I
disagreed about what was appropriate behavior for the ducks.)

I did run into some problems, however, when I worked on several Mickey Mouse
project--all of which ended up being shelved for a variety of reasons. Disney
is very protective of the mouse and the type of stories he appears in. For
example, I was going to do a Mickey graphic novel which had a sub-theme about
pollution. So I wanted to show Pete smoking a cigar (as he often does in the
cartoons.) A little personal air pollution by the villain seemed appropriate.
I made the mistake of asking an editor whether this was OK. There was this
long pause on the phone as the editor conferred with someone higher up on the
chain of command. He finally came back on the phone and said that Pete could
have a cigar in his mouth, but they weren't sure if it could be lit.

That never made sense to me, but it was fairly indicative of the level of
concern Disney had about Mickey Mouse stories.

When Disney handed the license back to Gladstone, someone at Disney
apparently decided to keep fairly close tabs on what was being published. As
far as I can tell all of Gladstone's newly commisioned stories have to get
the greenlight from Disney first. (Disney probably had to approve all the
stories that Gladstone printed during it's first run, but the level of
scrutiny and the amount of interference seem to be more intense now.) As I
related a few weeks ago here, I did submit some short Mickey Mouse pieces to
Gladstone, but they were all rejected by Disney--all basically on the grounds
that I wasn't depicting the characters properly. Eventually they were sold to
Egmont. It'll be interesting to see if they ever get reprinted by Gladstone
and if so if there are any changes.

The stories that are printed first by Egmont and then reprinted by Gladstone
don't seem to be receiving the same level of scrutiny by Disney. Of course, I
can't speak for everyone. I do know that Van Horn hasn't had any problems.
Neither have I--but then only one of my Egmont stories has been reprinted so
far.

Actually, I've got to qualify that a bit. David, you noted that one of the
signs in "Stampede and Deliver" was changed when it was reprinted by
Gladstone. Actually two signs were changed. Worked into those signs were the
last names of two people from the Carl Barks Studio. As you probably know,
the Barks Studio and Gladstone are not on the best of terms right now. I
suspect that the signs were changed because of this.

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your initial questions, David.
Unfortunately, I have fairly little free time for correspondence . I know it
sounds odd for a writer, but I'm really more of a "chat on the phone" sort of
person than a letter writer.

Anyway, I'm going to go into lurker mode for a couple of weeks or so while I
try to get caught up on work. Hope that doesn't seem rude, but I'm extremely
pressed for time right now. Actually, I'm always extremely pressed for
time--only more so right now.

Anyway, take care everybody. I'll try to check back in soon.

Best Wishes,

John Lustig

DON:
"To get involved in what DUCKTALES would want to do to the "Lo$" would
only make me crazy."
Actually, they *already* did a version of the LO$ back in 1988, calling
it "Once Upon a Dime". Aside from the shoe-shining and riverboat race
bits, it didn't take anything from old stories, which IMHO made it a
tremendous disappointment.
It would seem that if Disney TV wanted to tackle this type of project
again (for them, the second time at trying it!), they might be
surprisingly willing to adapt your version relatively straightforwardly.
But maybe not...

David Gerstein
<9475609 at arran.sms.ed.ac.uk>

Sorry about re-sending that bounced email message - I meant to send
it to disney-comics-request in order to let our friendly list manager
know about an invalid address on the list. Unfortunately, I accidently
forgot the "request" portion and inadvertently sent it out to everyone

Apologies.

Please unsuscribe me

> But even if it was, I'd have no reason to call Disney, nor they me.
> Disney has the right to do whatever they wish with any of my stories without
> permission or royalties... and I doubt that they'd have any interest in me
> being involved.

The screenwriter's Guild may have something to say about that.

If Disney wants to put ANYTHING based on a story you wrote,
even on a "for hire" basis, and it gets transmitted through any
network that has an agreement with the screenwriter's guild,
then they HAVE to pay you and acknowledge your contribution.

I do believe that Disney is indeed one of the studios that is a
party to the general agreement with the Guild.

One medium is NOT the same as another, and while Disney can
bully comic book artists, teleplays are a different matter
entirely.

If Lo$ does indeed get made into a movie or tv production, you
have rights, and the Guild is there to represent you, even if
you have never worked with them before.

--Ron

>RON:
Well, I am a member of the Screenwriters' Guild, as a mattafack.
But you're still wrong unless the contract that Disney required all
their freelancers to sign is meaningless. Actually, I was already pretty
sure that it was a void contract since it was not an agreement that gave
concessions to both parties -- it was simply a waiver by one party of all
rights whatsoever to the work he had done alone. But one tiny bit of the
many clauses was that Disney owns the rights to the material "for use in all
media existing now or in the future, throughout the universe". (Actual
quote) Actually, I'm pretty sure they've scrapped that contract by now! They
have made a LITTLE progress.
But then again, I refused to sign that contract without a rider that
said it would soon be adjusted, and we later voided it even if it was legal.
But if Disney DID decide to take my stories and make a TV series or
movie out of them, what could I do??? I can't sue Disney! I wouldn't even
dare ask the Guild to sue Disney. I like my job with Egmont and would want
to keep it.
All my behind the scenes fighting is for the right of freelance
artists to have their artwork returned to them and with no strings attached,
just as it is with all other freelancers. That job is hard enough to do and
to have to do completely alone. You can sue Disney for me over some "Lo$"
feature-length movie.

I would enjoy to be on your mailing list. can you please send me
some information, thank you