Keskustelujen arkisto

Rune: "It is perfectly fair. If the initial agreement is "You get paid THIS
amount to do THIS for us" then that is it."

Dan Shane has done an admirable job of responding to most of Rune's points, so I won't belabor them here. I do want to point out, however, that my argument goes slightly further than Don Rosa's or Dan Shane's. They are, correctly, talking about publishers who use Don's name without his permission. I'm talking about a bigger issue which underlies these other issues. As I said before, these are my opinions, not Dan's or Don's. It boils down to this: what is "legal" is often not "fair." Yes, it is LEGAL for Egmont and Disney and other Disney publishers to exploit the work of the thousands of artists and writers who create work-for-hire content for them. It is LEGAL for them to pay for a story only ONCE, and then to freely give that story out to be used in dozens of different markets throughout the world. It is not FAIR for them to do so. It is not morally correct for them to do so. It is wrong for them to do so.

I base this assertion on the simple fact that almost no other medium allows such exploitation. If you sell a magazine story, the major markets purchase First North American printing rights (or the rights for the specific European language the book will be published in). If magazines in markets in other parts of the world wish to print that same story, those magazines have to PURCHASE the story from the artist/writer. The apparent fairness of this seems so obvious to everyone working in almost every other field, that it is the common practice in magazine publishing, novel publishing, non-fiction publishing, video game publishing, computer game publishing, play publishing, music publishing, Hollywood movie publishing, DVD publishing, etc. Even by the standards of comic book publishers, which admittedly have been slow to recognize the rights of the talent who work for them, Disney publishing is stingy and unfair to a fault. I work in the computer game industry, creating content, both artwork and writing, that is owned by Sony Computer Entertainment of America. I get paid a good salary to write and draw for them. I make royalties from sales of games in the US. When Sony sells the game in Europe, Japan, Korea, China, and England, I make royalties for each of those markets. Sony doesn't *have* to do this: they just believe in allowing everyone who creates for them, to share in the profits of their creations. And Sony, fairly, recognizes that these additional world markets represent additional income that Sony is going to make from that original work that I created.

And don't misunderstand me: I realize perfectly well that if a writer/artist is working with established Disney characters, that that artist/writer will not "own" those characters. I will even go along with the notion that if a writer/artist creates a "new" character for a Disney story, that Disney/Egmont will OWN that character as well, and can hire other writers/artists to do new stories using that character. But I don't believe that it is fair for Disney/Egmont to pay for a story for one market, and use that story in other markets, without paying for it again. Also, I do not believe that it is fair for Disney/Egmont to REPRINT existing stories, without paying a reprint fee/royalty. And I certainly do not believe that it is fair for them to compile an entire book from the work of a single writer/artist, use that writer/artist's name to sell the book, without paying that writer/artist a hefty royalty!

While you are pondering what's fair and the rights of Disney/Egmont, don't forget that Barks himself worked for some thirty odd years at the lower end of the American Income bracket, almost literally chained to his drawing board seven days a week, while his stories, in his peak years in the mid 1950s, sold millions of books in the US alone. How many books did his stories sell across the European markets? Barks deserved better from the comic book industry. Yes, he eventually made money from his paintings and lithographs, but certainly Barks deserved the kind of financial success that writers/artists like Charles Schulz, Bob Kane, or Todd McFarlane enjoyed, when he was young enough to have spent it foolishly. The Disney Publishing Machine needs to come to its senses and realize that if the name and work of a creator will sell books, lots of books, then maybe they should pay that creator what he is worth. If they are smart, they will pay Don Rosa whatever he is asking for, because it's probably not even close to what they should be paying him, if fairness entered into their thinking at all.

Sigvald:
>It often seems that they don't load at all.
> > If it's the latter, then there might be some other problem.
>Exactly! And that's why I mentioned it so that proper action
>can done to have it fixed.

Ok, I'll see if I can found anything, although this kinds of problems
aren't easy to locate.

>My recent posting concerning the COA database was in no way
>meant to be offensive against anybody. I apologise if anyone
>was mislead to presume that my posting had an offensive
>intention in any direction. No I hope that Harry or someone
>else will be kind and tell us who the exact WEB-master(s) for
>COA is/are for any future contact about COA.

Generally speaking it's Fran?ois Willot, but right now I'm temporarily
maintaining COA. So contanct me.

--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/

<raptus at stofanet.dk> wrote:

> Agreed (of course). It surely is pure fiction all of it,
> however, some stories appear less fictional than others.
> Not that they took place in the real world at all --
> I wouldn't take it that far. The point is that certain
> stories contain a pseudo historical message, which apparantly
> lures both writers and fans of those writers to believe,
> that the message must be respected and maintained in other
> stories. If the message is disobeyed in some other story,
> some would claim that the story provides "untrue facts",
> especially if this second story *itself* contains pseudo
> history which clashes with the first one.

Exactly!!! This is why *I* see Maroc Rota's (I HBP 1-1) "From Egg
to Duck" as a story based on *untrue* facts since it contradict
the Barks/Rosa version of how the ducks are born, and even their
familytree. In my COA-search I couldn't find any US
publication of this story. I would guess that's because this
story contradicts the US Duck universe established by Barks.

The problem is when Mads IMO wrongly states that Don Rosa
contradicts Barks. IMO Don Rosa doesn't contradict Barks,
he remains faithful to Barks' universe. Well off course in
order to do *new* stories Don Rosa had to add som ekstra
information, *but* that's not the same as to contradict Barks.
Every *serious* Donaldist has to admit that Barks din't tell
absolutely *everything* that ever happened in his Duck-universe.

Well OK, Mads may still say that Don Rosa did neglect some of
the years mentioned by Barks. What can I say? Off course he
had to that! Barks did sometimes contradict him self. As when
he once stated that The Money Bin was 70 years in 1951 (=buildt
around 1880), and in an other story he shows Scrooge as a poor
miner in Pizen Bluff in the early 1890s.

Hope this posting is both clarifying and not being seen as
offencive towards anyone.

Sigvald :-)

From: "Petri Kanninen" <pkannine at cc.hut.fi>

> Hi!
>
> I just reread Scarpa's masterpiece Topolino e l'uomo di Altacraz (Escapee
> from Altacraz, I TL 380-A). An amazing story indeed but there are a couple
> of places where the translator seems to have made some mistakes (or script
> s/he had received was faulty). On page 36 where chief O'Hara is about to
> shoot escaping Geronimo and Mickey pushes his hand up. In Finnish versioon
> O'Hara says "I'll shoot in the air!" which doesn't make any sense since
> Mickey is desperately pushing O'Hara's hand up.

I don't have the original comic "Topolino" 380 and 381 where the story where
first issue, but I have two reprints of it. In "Topomistery" 40 and "I
Grandi Classici Disney" 170 Chief O'Hara say "Sparer? per intimidirlo" which
signify "I'll shoot to intimidate him" and Mickey says "Attento, capo! M'?
sembrato Geronimo!" "Watch out, chief! He seems Geronimo to me!".

> Other suspicious line is
> on page 38 panel 1 where MM and OH see Geronimo's car going on an
> "airtrack". OH says "He drives on the airtrack." and MM says "Now he's
> heading towards the amusement park." Especially MM's line doesn't make any
> sense since he's watching his watch all the time.
> Can someone with the original version find out what the characters are
> saying at these moments?
>
That panel is more imperfect than the other one. O'Hara says "Santi Numi! Ha
imboccato il tracciato della ferrovia elevata!", in english: "Ye gods! He
turns into the route of the elevated railway!". Mickey instead says "Me...
Meno male che a quest'ora non ci sono treni in transito!" "It... It's just
as well that at this time there isn't passage of trains!".

I hope I help you!
Bye

Tommy --- gorthan at hotmail.com ---

?Tell me, mister governor... How does it feel to leave history??
PKNA #14 "Carpe Diem"