Keskustelujen arkisto

> From: "Lars Olav Karlsen" <donald at lokarlsen.com>
> When it comes to signatures the Disney Company demands that nobody
> else's signature shall be on the work then Walt Disney's. The artist's
signature
> will never be there.

You are in Europe so you must surely know this is incorrect. Artists'
signatures appear on published Disney comics, often even on the cover
(usually even bigger than the fake "Walt Disney" signature), often on
full-page pin-ups, and including magazines published *by* a Disney-owned
company such as in the France and Italia. And also in America on many other
types of Disney artwork done for various purposes, notably the limited
edition and "collectibles" market, and including art involving the "classic
characters", the artists' signatures do appear. Again... why not? The appeal
of the certain, specific artists responsible is how the work is often being
promoted and sold, so everyone involved *wants* the artists' names to appear
prominently on the work. It increases sales, it increases profits.
As we have discussed before, the (now rare) decision to not list creator
credits or not use artists' signatures is a decision by the individual
publishers, not one dictated by Disney.

> 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.

This is the reason that I started to hide the dedication 18 years ago, but I
could now post the dedication in "broad daylight" and it would appear in
most all editions (except probably the Dutch). The reason I continue to
*hide* it in the art is because readers enjoy the game, and so do I.

> 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

Oooh, how wrong you are!!! And this is the single most AMAZING aspect of the
deal that a company like Egmont has! Egmont creates thousands of pages of
the *world's best Disney comics* ever year, decade after decade. They
publish very successful comics using those stories. Then they turn over
*complete ownership rights* to those stories to the Disney Company... and
(get ready) PAYS Disney to accept it all! Then Disney sells the right (as
part of the license fee) to the reprinting of those Egmont stories to other
licensed Disney publishers around the world and several other places
(including Gemstone). Egmont is obligated to supply photostats or scans of
those stories, at some reasonable fee for the copies, to any publisher that
requests them by code number or whatever. And the same goes for other
publishers who supply Egmont with copies of their works, like the Italians.
Someone asked if Egmont or any other Disney publisher makes a profit, other
than to cover expenses, for submitting the use of their stories to other
Disney publishers? I am told they do not.

> As long as
> Egmont has a contract with Disney they would be stupid to pay what they
> have to and not make new stories.

Egmont makes new stories only because no other publisher is doing so (or
probably could do it as well as Egmont or supply enough material to suit
Egmont). But Egmont does reprint stories from the Italian and Dutch
publisher, as well as many old classic American comics from the 40's-60's.
If there was an adequate selection of great new stories to suit Egmont, then
the opposite of what you say would be true -- Egmont would be stupid to pay
what they have to and *also* pay to make new stories". And this is one
aspect that we hope will help the American comics -- surely Gemstone pays a
hefty license fee... but why should they pay so much and *also* hire writers
and artists to make new stories when they already have the history of the
world's past and present production of great Disney comics to pick from?
Better they use any profits to secure their position on the American market,
maybe "buy" rack space in check-out lines, maybe place ads, whatever.
Gemstone money should be going to its production and marketing divisions,
not writers or artists.

Thanks for the reply, boy was I wrong. As I wrote I am not expert on
this but I really thought I was correct on those assumptions.

When it comes to the signatures I thought the rule was still as it was
before because I never see a signature in the art itself. Here in Norway
it always state below the first cell who wrote draw and inked it but
that is not in the art itself. I also know that they print your
signature on the covers when there is one of your stories because that
increases the sales. They also use the Barks signature but never anybody
else.
Could you write your signature in the art itself if you wanted to?
But I do agree with you and I do like the idea of the artist getting the
credit, I only hate that you never get to know who made the front page.

But I was amazed to see that Egmont never retained the rights to what
you and other made for them. I always knew that Disney had amazing
contracts with other companies but that one was really amazing.

I should really have stopped after my first post because that one was
all correct :)

Another question to you Don Rosa, and it is really of topic. I see that
some members here write to you with just Don, and some use Don Rosa. Is
it ok to shorten it down to Don? Would it be correct to just use "Don"
because I thought that you never could use that part of the name without
the last.

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 Don Rosa
Sent: 4. august 2004 16:56
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: RE: DCML Digest Issue 5

> From: "Lars Olav Karlsen" <donald at lokarlsen.com>
> When it comes to signatures the Disney Company demands that nobody
> else's signature shall be on the work then Walt Disney's. The artist's
signature
> will never be there.

You are in Europe so you must surely know this is incorrect. Artists'
signatures appear on published Disney comics, often even on the cover
(usually even bigger than the fake "Walt Disney" signature), often on
full-page pin-ups, and including magazines published *by* a Disney-owned
company such as in the France and Italia. And also in America on many
other
types of Disney artwork done for various purposes, notably the limited
edition and "collectibles" market, and including art involving the
"classic
characters", the artists' signatures do appear. Again... why not? The
appeal
of the certain, specific artists responsible is how the work is often
being
promoted and sold, so everyone involved *wants* the artists' names to
appear
prominently on the work. It increases sales, it increases profits.
As we have discussed before, the (now rare) decision to not list creator
credits or not use artists' signatures is a decision by the individual
publishers, not one dictated by Disney.

> 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.

This is the reason that I started to hide the dedication 18 years ago,
but I
could now post the dedication in "broad daylight" and it would appear in
most all editions (except probably the Dutch). The reason I continue to
*hide* it in the art is because readers enjoy the game, and so do I.

> 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

Oooh, how wrong you are!!! And this is the single most AMAZING aspect of
the
deal that a company like Egmont has! Egmont creates thousands of pages
of
the *world's best Disney comics* ever year, decade after decade. They
publish very successful comics using those stories. Then they turn over
*complete ownership rights* to those stories to the Disney Company...
and
(get ready) PAYS Disney to accept it all! Then Disney sells the right
(as
part of the license fee) to the reprinting of those Egmont stories to
other
licensed Disney publishers around the world and several other places
(including Gemstone). Egmont is obligated to supply photostats or scans
of
those stories, at some reasonable fee for the copies, to any publisher
that
requests them by code number or whatever. And the same goes for other
publishers who supply Egmont with copies of their works, like the
Italians.
Someone asked if Egmont or any other Disney publisher makes a profit,
other
than to cover expenses, for submitting the use of their stories to other
Disney publishers? I am told they do not.

> As long as
> Egmont has a contract with Disney they would be stupid to pay what
they
> have to and not make new stories.

Egmont makes new stories only because no other publisher is doing so (or
probably could do it as well as Egmont or supply enough material to suit
Egmont). But Egmont does reprint stories from the Italian and Dutch
publisher, as well as many old classic American comics from the
40's-60's.
If there was an adequate selection of great new stories to suit Egmont,
then
the opposite of what you say would be true -- Egmont would be stupid to
pay
what they have to and *also* pay to make new stories". And this is one
aspect that we hope will help the American comics -- surely Gemstone
pays a
hefty license fee... but why should they pay so much and *also* hire
writers
and artists to make new stories when they already have the history of
the
world's past and present production of great Disney comics to pick from?
Better they use any profits to secure their position on the American
market,
maybe "buy" rack space in check-out lines, maybe place ads, whatever.
Gemstone money should be going to its production and marketing
divisions,
not writers or artists.

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

> From: Lars Olav Karlsen [mailto:donald at lokarlsen.com]
> To: 'Don Rosa'
> Another question to you Don Rosa, and it is really of topic. I see that
> some members here write to you with just Don, and some use Don Rosa. Is
> it ok to shorten it down to Don? Would it be correct to just use "Don"
> because I thought that you never could use that part of the name without
> the last.

Why would you think that? Are you one of the folks who assumes that "Don
Rosa" is a nom-de-plume? A fictitious name I use as an ahrteest, like so
many European cartoonists?

OLAF WRITES:

> Hm ... OK. I hope that you understand that it is very hard
> for a Scandinavian (at least for this particular one) to
> understand that. To me, what you're saying almost sounds like
> Americans don't have free human minds, but are just a bunch
> of zombies who walk around without purpose, watch some TV and
> eat the food they see advertised there, vote for whoever
> spends most money on their election campaign and read
> whatever comic they know for sure wouldn't be appropriate for
> their children.

AND I RESPOND:

By George, he's got it!

> And ... whenever I talk to an American (on
> this list or anywhere else), I get a stronger feeling that
> Americans are NOT like that, but free individuals, able to
> think individually like everybody else in the world.

That's because you are communicating with the tiny minority of US residents
who recognize that there is a world beyond the borders of our country, and
that there is nothing wrong with freedom of thought. The vast majority of
US citizens believe in being different, but only as long as they are
different in exactly the same way all other Americans are. In other words,
they only THINK they are individuals. In reality they are automatons
directly under the influence of the advertising and marketing industries.

Most Americans will take the easiest route available to get through life.
Thinking for one's self is way too hard for most of us; it is much simpler
to be spoon fed and told how we should dress, eat, and talk, especially if
what we are being told doesn't require us to sacrifice anything but money.
As Steve Martin expressed so eloquently when introducing an exceptionally
healthy looking celebrity on the Academy Awards presentation: "I'd do
anything to look like this guy, except of course, eat right and exercise."

Why do you think most Americans will never see a foreign film? Do you know
how hard it is to read subtitles and still pay attention to movement on the
movie screen? Why will people in this country pay $10 per ticket to see a
movie they already know will be bad, but are scared stiff to watch a film
that critics unanimously praise?

Why do movies that feature car chases and explosions and meaningless
dialogue continue to overshadow those that actually tell a story? Watching
things blow up real good is easy; paying attention to storylines that don't
radio ahead the ending is hard. Witness the barrage of movie trailers that
lay out every plot twist or intended surprise that the director and
screenwriter probably hoped would remain a secret until the patron was
sitting in the theater. If Hitchcock's PSYCHO were being marketed today you
could count on Anthony Perkins having been revealed as his own mother and
that Janet Leigh would not be alive halfway through the picture.

Which Disney character toys and clothing sell best in America? Donald and
Mickey? Guess again. Ask an American the origin of Winnie-the-Pooh. Don't
expect to hear A. A. Milne anywhere in the reply. Americans are told what
they should like, and most Americans want to keep it that way. And don't
forget, if anyone (like me) suggests that there is anything wrong with this
scenario we will hear the trumpet call that we are absolutely un-American
and we should leave these shores forthwith.

Dan

> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:42:49 +0200, <dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se> wrote:
>
>>> From: "Olaf Solstrand" <olaf.solstrand at andebyonline.com>
>
> Hm ... OK. I hope that you understand that it is very hard for a
> Scandinavian (at least for this particular one) to understand that. To me,
> what you're saying almost sounds like Americans don't have free human
> minds, but are just a bunch of zombies who walk around without purpose,
> watch some TV and eat the food they see advertised there, vote for whoever
> spends most money on their election campaign and read whatever comic they
> know for sure wouldn't be appropriate for their children. And ... whenever
> I talk to an American (on this list or anywhere else), I get a stronger
> feeling that Americans are NOT like that, but free individuals, able to
> think individually like everybody else in the world. Anyhow ...
>
> If this is a matter of how the American mind works, you would know that
> better than me. It just seemed strange to me. I thought we were talking
> about what lays in the word "suited for a younger audience", but if you
> were talking about how Americans interpret those words, I quit arguing
> because I know you have a much better knowledge of that than I do.
>

Olaf,

This is really off topic, but I can't help commenting anyways.

As a Norwegian living in the US for the last 8 years I've seen both sides
of the coin, and I MOSTLY agree with what Don says. Of course there are
lots of exceptions, but on a daily basis I see things that constantly
amazes me.

I can list several examples.

I go to the movies, often R rated movies with plenty of violence,
absolutely NOT for children. Even so, there are always lots of small
children in the audience, children who have NO BUSINESS being there. I'll
never forget the time I saw Alien Resurrection, and heard children and
babies crying in the audience.

I took my 18 year old step-daughter to see Farenheit 9/11. She showed
plenty of outrage during the movie, but after the movie she told me she
preferred not to know.

My manager at work and her family totally lives on junk food and take out
meals. Her lunch, every single day, is a frozen, microwaveable "lean
cuisine" pizza. Every day. She thinks it's healthy (it does say lean
cuisine, after all).

My wife and I take our 4 year old son to the doctor, and find he has an
ear infection. Of course the doctor wants to give him antibiotics. So does
my wife (born and bred american). I point out to the doctor that in Norway
they usually do not recommend antibiotics for ear infections. Dr says he
knows that, but in the US, they do it anyways. Even though it (should be)
common knowledge that overuse of antibiotics is a huge problem.

Some time ago I told a couple of co-workers that my son was ill and had a
minor fever. When they heard that I did not give him Tylenol (common fever
reducer), they were almost ready to accuse me of child abuse. I informed
them, calmly, that if the fever is minor, the child is alert and happy and
not showing signs of any pain, there is no reason to medicate him. That
was such a foreign concept to them. To them any fever means medication.
Period.

Most americans still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Most americans, even though they have the worlds cheapest gasoline,
complain loudly when the price increase a few cents. Pointing out to them
that what they pay the same for one gallon of fuel that a Norwegian pays
for one liter has no influence on them (most wouldn't know what a liter
is). They still insist on driving their huge, gas guzzling SUVs, and take
any suggestion that they might consider a more economical car as an attack
on their personal "freedom". Not to mention their right to pollute.

I ride a bicycle to work every day. Most people around her think I'm nuts.

My wife drives the car to the neighborhood swimming pool. It is 3 minutes
away. If you WALK.

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. And just for the record, I do
know a few americans who don't fit the stereotype. It's just that there
are so few of them...

> To everybody in Gemstone: Congratulations on the award! You deserve
> the award, and you deserve the congratulations.

Thank you, Olaf.

Gary

> You forgot to mention that while American non-comics readers are fuming
> about the increasing price of gasoline (or petrol to our enlightened
> European friends) they continue to shell out 4 times the amount for
> bottled
> water. Water! In a country where most residents can turn on the tap and
> receive just about the cleanest, best tasting H-2-O on the planet!
>
> Did you know that the Coca-Cola company (whom Keenan Wynn claims Peter
> Sellers still has to answer to) charges MORE for 16 ounces of water than
> they do for their name-sake main product? And millions of Americans
> gladly
> pay it? And yet I still beef about the cost of Gemstone comics because
> I'm
> afraid that the price will steer people away from some good reading. I'm
> tapped in a world I never made.

Ok, I know we're WAY OT here, but...

This is NOT just an American phenomenon. There have been numerous stories
in Norwegian newspapers regarding this as well, since bottled water is
even more expensive in Norway, and even less necessary.....

I live in Houston, and our tap water taste like it's straight from the
swimming pool. It's just plain awful! First time I tasted it I was
gagging. So for a long time we got the huge 5 gallon bottles of water
delivered on our door from Ozarka. The bill would vary between $30 - $80 a
month. I tried the carbon based water filters that attaches to the faucet,
and it marginally improved things, but you could still taste the chlorine.
I finally spent $250 on a reverse osmosis filter (the one with a tank
under the sink), and I've never been happier. Bottled water is now a thing
of the past in my household.

Sverre

You learn as long as you live. I for one should be the first to know
this since I have 2 first names myself.

I have heard about your whole name before but never heard the story
behind it so that was really fun to know.

Then I know a little bit more then I did before, and learned that I may
have been brighter as a kid then I am now.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se]
On Behalf Of Don Rosa
Sent: 4. august 2004 18:07
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: RE: DCML Digest Issue 6

> From: Lars Olav Karlsen [mailto:donald at lokarlsen.com]
> To: 'Don Rosa'
> No, I have always believed that it was your real name (although as a
> child I thought Don was your first and Rosa was your last)

That's what you thought "as a child"? What made you stop thinking that?

Sure, my first name is Don and my last name is Rosa. Simple as that.
Well, not quite that simple. Actually, Don is one of my two middle
names...
my full name is Keno Don Hugo Rosa, Americanized from Gioachino Dante
Ugo
Rosa.
I ended up with 4 names because my original name was just Don Hugo Rosa.
But
I was the only male grandchild -- I was (am) the last of the Rosa
family. So
when I was still a kid, my grandfather Gioachino paid my father $1,000
to
legally redo the certificate and change my first name to Keno which is
the
name my Grandfather had gone by in America since about 1900.
And I never saw my share of royalties from that reprint, either! I was
being
prepared for the future!

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