Another week is done and dusted, and a new one emerges in the mist. Andrea here, writing to give you the details of what you may have missed in last week’s comics news. For all of our San Diego Comic-Con coverage, follow our editor-in-chief Nola Pfau, who has been live blogging for WWAC. A massive congratulations to the team at WWAC for their third Eisner win.
Okay. Let’s get straight to the biscuits.
The Marvel Creator Equation (sucks)
The Hollywood Reporter wrote a banger of a piece about Marvel Studios’ less than stellar contracts for comics creators. It may not surprise you that, yet again, the comics industry is using a slimy-perhaps-pseudo contract of adhesion to squeeze every nickel and dime out of an IP, but that doesn’t make it any less depressing.
Writer Devin Grayson and artist J.G. Jones believed they would take home $25,000 each for her appearance in Black Widow thanks to paperwork they signed outlining how much they would receive for films, TV shows, video games and action figures featuring Yelena. But when Grayson and Jones, who created Yelena in 1999, eventually received payment in November, that $25,000 dwindled to about $5,000 without explanation.
When The Walt Disney Company (Disney) bought Marvel Entertainment, Inc (Marvel) back in 2009, there were a lot of messes to clean up. Marvel was emerging from bankruptcy with the help of Disney’s $4 billion buyout. When the merger was announced, some creators attempted to reclaim their rights to their characters. A legal right extended to owners of copyright after a period of time. This right, however, applies to owners of the copyright. And that’s really where this all comes down. Who owned this copyright? Disney and Marvel stipulate that creators have no claim to copyright protection as the work product is made under work for hire. (AKA, the bain of our mutual existence).
Perhaps, the most notable case to come out of the post-merger era involved the Jack Kirby heirs filing on behalf of the legendary comic book artist and creator. Disney settled with the Kirbys for an undisclosed sum of money. I know what you are thinking. Andrea, this was back in 2009. It’s 2022. What are you talking about?
Marvel began employing special character agreements to give the impression that character creators had a more toothsome contract. The widespread use of these agreements also emerged in 2009, probably to prevent the continued existence of legal fights like this one or this one. The Special Character Agreement signed by Yelena Belova’s creators, Grayson, and Jones, was signed in 2007. Does it entitle creators to a sum of money when their characters are used in film, TV, or other commercial appearances? Sure. But how much? Well, that’s some magical arithmetic.
A 2021 report in the Guardian looked at the treatment of creators at both DC and Marvel. Neither company is going to get an award for the most equitable treatment of a human. Still, according to the report, the consensus is that Marvel finds a way to dick people over using every tool in their considerable legal arsenal.
“One source told the Guardian that Marvel subtracted its own legal fees from a protracted negotiation over royalty payments.”
Point of this very long summary? Marvel does not own the inequitable treatment of creators. It’s an industry-wide problem and telling creators to get an attorney simply falls short of helpful advice. While yes, you should get an attorney to review the terms of a contract, many creators aren’t in a financial position to afford what they may deem to be a luxury.
“I’ve been offered a [special character contract] that was really, really terrible, but it was that or nothing,” says one Marvel creator, who asked not to be named. “And then instead of honouring it, they send a thank you note and are like, ‘Here’s some money we don’t owe you!’ and it’s five grand. And you’re like, ‘The movie made a billion dollars.'”
ANYWAY, Unions…
Did someone mention unions?
Over on ThePopverse live blog of Marvel’s EIC C.B. “I used to write under a fake Japanese pseudonym,” Cebulski bravely fought for creator rights. I apologize. I’m just getting some new information drilled into my ear from our news desk. Cebulski valiantly deflected the question.
Q: Would Cebulski support comics labor unions? “It’s a difficult question,” says Cebulski, calling it “too deep to answer here,” and saying that it’s not his department. “I’m not trying to avoid the question, it’s just not something I can answer here.”
Alas, the old “not my lane” approach. A profile in courage.
My dude. This isn’t an official Congressional hearing. You can’t just submit answers to the audience at some later time. How deep is it really to answer? The question is framed as a simple yes or no.
A truly great one
We close out this edition of Previously with an homage to the great writer Alan Grant, who passed away this week at 73. Grant’s decades-long career is perhaps best known for his work on 2000 AD and Batman.
In 2020, the Scottish-born writer helped his local community devastated by the economic impact of COVID-19 by helping publish a book chronicling the town of Moniaive experiences. The team at 2000 AD published an absolutely loving tribute to Grant on their website, which reads in part:
“For the generations who grew up reading Alan’s work for 2000 AD, who were touched by the pathos and compassion of his characters, who felt the joy of their victories and the sting of their deaths, Alan’s passing is a painful gut punch.
His impact on comics and standing in the industry simply cannot be understated. But he was more than just a giant in his field – he was a fascinating man whose sharp wit and boundless warmth touched all those who met him. One cannot separate 2000 AD from Alan Grant, his humour, humanity, and intelligence made it what it is, and his talent was integral to its success.
We are forever poorer without him.
Our deepest condolences go out to his family and his friends.
Rest well and thank you, Alan.”
It seems fitting for us to end there. Rest well, Alan.
