Keskustelujen arkisto

Cord asked:
>f I understand you correctly the legal creator of any Disney comics is
>the Disney company and all writers and artists just do work-for-hire?
>Wouldn't this mean that anyone who creates Disney comics (in the U.S.,
>in Italy, in Denmark or anywhere else) should be directly paid by
>Disney? (...etc.)

I think you are asking a question akin to apples and oranges. The creators
(as you refer to them, such as Rosa, Barks, van Horn, etc.) were paid for
their work in contract with the original licensing publisher, such as Egmont,
and, in turn, Egmont paid Disney for the rights to publish comics featuring
characters wholey owned by Disney to the Disney Company. Gemstone is
not Disney, nor are they Egmont. Gemstone, as I think I read previously,
already paid for the comics they publish, by paying both Egmont or Disney
itself (as the source of the comic to be published) and to the Disney Company
for the right to publish the comics in the USA. Gemstone had no contract
with the original creator, such as van Horn, for him to create the comic to be
published, therefore there is no obligation, legally, for Gemstone to pay
royalties to the original creator. However, if the original creator wishes to
be compensated in some form (again) for the republishing of said comics
then they must, I believe, seek payment from Disney itself, not Gemstone.

HOWEVER, like Gladstone before them, and UNLIKE most other publishers,
Gemstone has gone far and above their predecessors by printing in each
issue recognition of each creator, whether they be artist, writer, colorist, etc.
This was not something earlier creators of Disney comics ever received before.
This is a wonderful tribute to the original creators.

Then again, there are seperate deals, such as Rosa's L&TOS that may involve
more intricate legal and monetary deals... I don't know, but in the case of so-called
"reprints", even Marvel and DC doesn't pay their creators, except in very special
cases. For instance, Marvel republishes original Sub-Mariner comics from the
1940s and doesn' t pay the family of Bill Everett to republish them. Also, Marvel
republishes AVENGERS #1 as a back-up story in an Annual and doesn't pay
Jack Kirby to do so. There are some exceptions, such as paying off the families
of Joe Simon/Jack Kirby to retain the rights to Captain America, but Marvel still
owns the character, though Marvel will recognize these creators as having been
the fathers of Captain America, or recognizing Bill Everett as the creator of the
Sub-Mariner, or even Rob Leifeld as the creator of Cable, but they are not indebted
to forever pay and pay again Leifeld, etc. in order to reprint a story that was paid for
in full. Same goes to DC for the right to reprint Superman comics from their own
archives. They may pay for the right to retain ownership of the character to the
family of Supe's creator, but not to reprint the comics.

I think the issue of feeling Gemstone is somehow obligated to pay for material
after having paid both Disney and the publishing house that originally held
these comics, AGAIN to the original creators is not something the courts recognize.
Gemstone was not a part of that original contract between Disney/Egmont and
the creator, or whereever the comic originated. Gemstone's primary agreement
is with Disney.

At least this is how I understand how it works.

maybe I'm wrong?

Thanks,

Rich
(Email removed)

---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/

I will try in defining it a little.

The Walt Disney Company owns all the characters and they rent out the
rights to Gemstone and other publishers around the world. Here in
Scandinavia it is Egmont that publishes it.

The different publisher then hires story writers and artists to do the
work and they pay them for that work.

Let's take Don Rosa as an example since we all know him. He works for
Egmont in Scandinavia and get paid from them. His boss is Byron Ericson
and he is editor in Denmark (if I am not mistaking). If Don Rosa want a
raise then he speaks with Byron Ericson at Egmont.

So the artists are not working for Disney at all, they are working for
the publishers like Egmont and Gemstone.

But the payment that the artists receive is not a part of the royalties
to Disney. Disney is getting royalties for the right to use the
characters and names, and the artists are getting paid for the work.

Lars Olav Karlsen
Oslo, Norway

-----Original Message-----
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se]
On Behalf Of Cord Wiljes
Sent: 4. august 2004 02:25
To: 'Gary Leach'; dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: AW: Royalties

Gary Leach wrote:

> Gemstone, a licensee with a
> very specifically defined license, pays considerable
> royalties to the one creator that contractually counts -
> Disney. And that, also by contractual terms, is the sole
> creator to which Gemstone can - and, of course, must - pay
> royalties of any kind.

If I understand you correctly the legal creator of any Disney comics is
the Disney company and all writers and artists just do work-for-hire?
Wouldn't this mean that anyone who creates Disney comics (in the U.S.,
in Italy, in Denmark or anywhere else) should be directly paid by
Disney? Or is the payment the publisher gives to the creator part of the
royalties he has to pay to Disney? So with whom does the artist/writer
speak if he wants a raise? The Disney company or his publisher?

Cord

_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml

Lars Olav Karlsen wrote:

> So the artists are not working for Disney at all, they are
> working for the publishers like Egmont and Gemstone.
(...)
> Disney is getting royalties for the right to use the
> characters and names, and the artists are getting paid for the work.

So what happens if Gemstone reprints a story which was produced by
Egmont? Does Egmont get any payment for this reprint? Are there cases in
which the creator does get an additional payment for a reprint? Can
Gemstone chose stories from any Disney publisher worldwide - and just
pay royalties to Disney?

Would Disney object any individual contract between a publisher and a
creator in which the publisher promises payments to the creator for
future reprints?

And last but not least: May the publisher or Disney change anything
created by the creator? Can a creator demand _not_ to have his name on
his creation?

If we compare the role of Disney creators with an actor who is paid for
acting in a movie: The finished film is the sole property of the studio.
And the actor will get no additional payments for the DVD-Release, TV
airings etc. The difference seems to be that a studio filming a Tarzan
movie will pay royalties to the heirs of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but will
own the finished movie. Whereas Egmont will pay royalties to Disney and
_not_ own the finished comics. Why is this so? Especially considering
the fact that (at least in the U.S.) Disney comics are that hot a
property that Disney could pick and choose among interested publishers.
So what would happen if Egmont said: "From now on we want to own the
stories we pay for - or otherwise we will stop having any new ones
created?"

Cord

Hello,

Would any of the members of the list have access to the interview with Floyd Gottfredson by Arn Saba from The Comics Journal 120 ?

If that is the case, could you contact me privately as I would love to be able to receive a good scan of it at my other email address.

Thanks a MILLION in advance for your help !

Didier

> From: <mnaiman1 at cox.net>
> Subject: CBL
> In my opinion, Egmont will probably sell very few of the complete
> libraries in the States.

Somebody has gotten sidetracked by wrong assumptions here. Each of Egmont's
CBLs will be done in the language of the Egmont country in which it is
published. Egmont is not preparing a CBL in English or for the USA. Egmont
could not do that even if they wanted to, no more than Gemstone could
publish a Finnish language CBL and sell it in the huge Finland Duck market.
By the way, during my recent Scandinavian tour, one of the activities I took
part in was as "guest speaker" at the press conference at the Egmont HQ in
Oslo on Donald Duck's "birthday" that announced the Egmont CARL BARKS
LIBRARY. (Fortunately they allowed me to speak my piece in English!) I
didn't understand a syllable of the rest of the press conference but from
the looks of the images thrown on the screen and the number of reporters and
all the speeches by editors and historians from the University of Oslo, it
was mighty impressive. But... can you imagine how difficult it is to sit in
front of a room full of reporters with cameras for over an hour listening to
a nonstop flow of "gibberish" coming from people sitting around me and try
to constantly look like I'm understanding and being fascinated by every
word? I just tried to look pleased and interested by calling up memories of
all my favorite Barks stories.

> From: "Olaf Solstrand" <olaf.solstrand at andebyonline.com>
> Being pinned to a young audience can't scare the older audience away.

This is where you are wrong and which is exactly my point. This is America.
I was not referring to the future success of the sales of and individual's
perception of Disney comics in Europe. I have traveled throughout Europe and
one of the things that most amazes and pleases me is how people, kids and
adults, *think for themselves*. It is not uncommon to see an adult reading a
Disney comic on a train, or see a young person reading both SANDMAN and
DONALD DUCK, or listening to both heavy metal and Benny Goodman CDs. That's
NOT how it is with American youth! (Or their parents!) The foremost thing on
the mind of a young American is NOT his personal entertainment pleasure, it
is *peer approval*. The knowledge that something is "aimed at a younger
audience" will absolutely scare away the older audience in America, and I
don't want that to happen to our Disney comics, not when we have such a
shaky grip on keeping them around! We want them to be as successful as
possible here -- we don't want outside forces like prejudiced nomination
committees to limit their appeal.

> Besides, couldn't this award actually make youngsters pick up an
> Uncle Scrooge and get addicted to it like we all were?

As I said, you are completely mistaken here, as regards American kids. This
award, if it were placed on a sign below a comics rack, would cause American
kids to avoid those comics at all costs. But the sad fact is that no kids
are even seeing the American Disney comics being on sale... the Gemstones
are primarily being held under the counter at comic shops for the 2 or 3
die-hard old Disney comics buffs at each shop who ask the store to buy
Gemstones for them. We want these comics to slowly find their way out onto
the comics racks of those stores and onto the shelves of Barnes & Noble and
Borders and so forth. But if they do so with a label of "for younger
readers", in the American market that would be a shroud of doom.

> Disney comics are written on such a level that it's suitable for
> kids. And it _is_ made for children, isn't it?

I only speak for myself as a writer and/or artist, but I definitely do not
make my comics for kids. I'm happy to know that kids are reading them, but I
do not create my stories with the idea that the reader will be a child. I
create the stories for "someone like me, someone who enjoys what I enjoy".
What the age of that person might be never crosses my mind. But there is no
reason, *especially* in America, to go out of the way to proclaim these
comics "for kids". Let the readership fall where it may without being
labeled in this peer-conscious society. The reason that violent superhero
comics and weird manga are so successful here (at least with the tiny % of
American kids who buy comics) is because these types of comics superficially
*look* like they are "for adults" and often have "for mature reader" labels.
If American comics all had cover labels saying "for younger readers", well,
American comics would surely have become extinct 30 years ago as we were all
expecting them to, before the advent of the "direct sales" market.
One of the awards I've won in the European market hangs on the wall here...
dated 1997, I've forgotten exactly what it says... this one came not from a
comics group but from something like the Swedish Literary Society or
National Library Society or sumpin'... and it was for producing "the best
stories for children"... and when I accepted it, maybe at the Gothenburg
Book Fair or wherever I was, I started the acceptance speech by saying that
I did not know I was producing comics for children, but if children are
reading them too, that was really great to know.

> From: "Lars Olav Karlsen" <donald at lokarlsen.com>
> Subject: RE: Royalties
> The Walt Disney Company owns all the characters and they rent out the
> rights to Gemstone and other publishers around the world. Here in
> Scandinavia it is Egmont that publishes it.
>
> The different publisher then hires story writers and artists to do the
> work and they pay them for that work.
>
> Let's take Don Rosa as an example since we all know him. He works for
> Egmont in Scandinavia and get paid from them. His boss is Byron Ericson
> and he is editor in Denmark (if I am not mistaking). If Don Rosa want a
> raise then he speaks with Byron Ericson at Egmont.
>
> So the artists are not working for Disney at all, they are working for
> the publishers like Egmont and Gemstone.
>
> But the payment that the artists receive is not a part of the royalties
> to Disney. Disney is getting royalties for the right to use the
> characters and names, and the artists are getting paid for the work.

That is all completely correct, and the only completely correct comments
thus far on the topic.
One other element... Disney does not forbid the payment of royalties to the
creators of the stories as long as Disney naturally gets the partial royalty
they fully deserve for owning the original characters involved in the
stories. How could they forbid a relationship or consideration between an
independent publisher and freelance creators? And why would they want to?
Even if they could do so, forbidding royalties or special considerations
would harm the ability of the publisher to get the best work available, sell
more comics, and increase the profit for everyone involved, *including* the
% of the profits that Disney is paid.

I can not answer many of those questions because I am not working in
either Egmont or Gemstone, but I bet that those with the knowledge
doesn't answer as well because much of it would be considered classified
business information. Who gets what money should not be of interest to
us I guess.

All I know from my knowledge of the Walt Disney Company is that they
maintain full control over most of their asset so I can't see anything
different here. I bet there are lots of clauses in the contract between
Disney and the publishers. But I do not believe that the Walt Disney
Company is doing much to interfere with the publishers.

But I can answer this question: "And last but not least: May the
publisher or Disney change anything created by the creator? Can a
creator demand _not_ to have his name on his creation?"

Again, the Disney Company are not doing much to interfere here (from
what I believe), the artists can't have much contact with Disney and I
know for sure that Don Rosa clearly expresses that he isn't working for
Disney.
But I do know that the publisher has the complete right to change
whatever they want in the artwork. I have several times seen Don Rosa
write that this or that was changed by the publisher. The contract
between the artists and the publishers must include some clause that the
publisher owns the rights to do whatever they want with the cartoons.

When it comes to signatures the Disney Company demands that nobody
else's signature shall be on the work then Walt Disney's. It was not
until the 80's that people found out that the artists were and that Carl
Barks became famous. So to answer your last question: the artist can
demand neither to remove nor to include the signature. The signature
will never be there.
This is the reason to why Don Rosa must hide the D.U.C.K dedications
that he has because it looks too much like a signature.

But when I read along with your conclusion I see that you have made a
mistake because from what I know it is the publisher that remains the
rights to the stories, but Disney owns the characters. That means that
Disney can not just take the stories to another publisher, but they can
take the characters to another publisher (if the contract between Disney
and the current publishers allows that). You must remember that there
are complicated contracts that both parties must withhold. As long as
Egmont has a contract with Disney they would be stupid to pay what they
have to and not make new stories. Only Egmont would loose money on that
because Disney would still get what they always did.

You also state that the cartoons are hot in America, but I have
understood it totally opposite. The last publisher Gladstone had to
close down and the current Gemstone are not that successful either on
the American market. In America the kids are more interested in Marvel
comics and superheroes then in good old Donald.

Lars Olav Karlsen
Oslo, Norway

-----Original Message-----
From: Cord Wiljes [mailto:cord at wiljes.de]
Sent: 4. august 2004 12:52
To: 'Lars Olav Karlsen'; dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Cc: Cord Wiljes
Subject: AW: Royalties

Lars Olav Karlsen wrote:

> So the artists are not working for Disney at all, they are
> working for the publishers like Egmont and Gemstone.
(...)
> Disney is getting royalties for the right to use the
> characters and names, and the artists are getting paid for the work.

So what happens if Gemstone reprints a story which was produced by
Egmont? Does Egmont get any payment for this reprint? Are there cases in
which the creator does get an additional payment for a reprint? Can
Gemstone chose stories from any Disney publisher worldwide - and just
pay royalties to Disney?

Would Disney object any individual contract between a publisher and a
creator in which the publisher promises payments to the creator for
future reprints?

And last but not least: May the publisher or Disney change anything
created by the creator? Can a creator demand _not_ to have his name on
his creation?

If we compare the role of Disney creators with an actor who is paid for
acting in a movie: The finished film is the sole property of the studio.
And the actor will get no additional payments for the DVD-Release, TV
airings etc. The difference seems to be that a studio filming a Tarzan
movie will pay royalties to the heirs of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but will
own the finished movie. Whereas Egmont will pay royalties to Disney and
_not_ own the finished comics. Why is this so? Especially considering
the fact that (at least in the U.S.) Disney comics are that hot a
property that Disney could pick and choose among interested publishers.
So what would happen if Egmont said: "From now on we want to own the
stories we pay for - or otherwise we will stop having any new ones
created?"

Cord

Sorry I'm so tardy re: replying to this.

Chris Hilbig wrote:

> Sorry my post rubbed you the wrong way or wasn't what you had in mind.

Your post didn't rub me the wrong way, except when you brought up Iraq.
And I didn't expect you to reply in one way or another -- if I knew
everybody's opinion in advance, there would be no point in being a
member of this or any other message board. I simply disagreed with you
on how likely it is that political correctness has been a factor in Il
Gatto's absence the last many years. (Shrug)

>> [Il Gatto] seems like a standard "journalist with no morals" to me.
>> Is it just a coincidence that he hasn't been used much the last many
>> decades?
>
> I guess you wanted a yes or no answer?

Nope. I was genuinely curious why this very early Italian character
(debuted 1938) isn't used in Italy these days, when other obscurities
such as Gedeone (1956) and Sgrizzo (1964) have been revived within the
last few years.

> But political slant happens, in movies, TV, and yes, even in comics.

Agreed.

> Intentional or not, I don't wet my pants over it, and neither should
> you.

I don't wet my or anybody else's pants over this either. I've tried to
keep my opinions out of my own Disney stuff and yet, when I look at
those stories with the benefit of hindsight I notice the opinions keep
popping up. (Or, in some cases, the scriptwriter's opinions pop up.)
Obviously, my subconscious will make sure those leanings of mine
somehow sneak into my stories.

So there's no point in getting irritated because a story contains a
political message one might not like. When reading Disney comics, I just
ask myself whether I like the story. If I do, then the writer's personal
opinions are irrelevant. If I don't, then those opinions, however
sympathetic to me, are still irrelevant.

> Use [Il Gatto] how you wish. If your going to be fearful of being
> labeled as one thing or another, don't.

I've long since stopped being fearful of being labeled. Those labels are
probably going to be wrong, anyway -- I had an analysis institute tell
me I fell so much outside most of their categories, I was pretty much
useless for their market research. Sounded good to me.

Lars

I seem to recall hearing that Western-Whitman did provide royalties throughout the 1950s and provided Barks and others with insurance coverage. Of course this is when sales were in the two million or higher range, and they ended it with sales dropped in the late 1950s.

--
Steven Rowe
SRoweCanoe at aol.com