I'd certainly consider it. A lot of it would depend on what I'd be writing, a lot of it would depend on my comfort with the company and their long-term prospects... and a lot of it would be based on when it is you ask me. Right now, I like my work-at-home, set-my-hours lifestyle... but a few years from now, if my wife and I decide that it's time for kids and she wants to stay home to raise them, we would need a more stable, more certain income.

Well of course, that makes sense Nat. And you're working consistently doing it freelance, so at this point there's no reason to stop doing so. I think what I'm trying to get at however, is that working a day job is by definition "work for hire," and all your creations would become property of your employer. You'd still be getting a comfortable wage and benefits, but you would not own anything you were creating.

This is the real situation in hundreds of thousands of "real world" jobs; employees of advertising agencies, graphic & industrial design studios, architecture firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers, biotech companies, auto makers, etc. etc. work under these conditions and have for many years. In some cases there are royalty agreements or bonus payments or even rewards of stock or stock options for outstanding creations by employees. But, except in parts of the entertainment and media industries, this is the NORM. People work and create and are paid a decent, competitive salary and sometimes bonuses for it, and that's that. I'm doing a job like that myself, any art I do here at work belongs to the company, not me -- I had to sign an employee agreement where I acknowledge that anything I create for the company is a work made for hire. And I'm fine with that, since they pay me a salary and benefits and I can live my life and pay my bills with some peace of mind.

So why is it so different with comic book creators? Commercial artists of all types work in salaried positions and draw and design and create all the visual media we see every day, and they don't get royalties -- they get steady employment and benefits and peace of mind. Many of them are unionized even!

But in film, TV, music and publishing, the originating creative talent is almost exclusively freelance -- although obviously there are lots of staff writers especially in TV. I guess there are a lot of reasons for this, some financial and some in terms of "how do you find and hire creative people who will consistently turn out what we need?" And as I've mentioned in two other threads (ABC thread in Comic Books and Work for hire thread in News) there's the ugly psychological fact that there are a lot of people out there who want to get "FAMOUS," which IMHO is what poisons all those industries. If someone thinks to themselves, "I don't want to do anything else but -insert creative method here- to make money, and/or I want to be a famous and rich -insert creative type here-," then they are setting themselves up to, bluntly, whore themselves for fame's sake. And that "anything for fame" mindset is what skews these industries so terribly.

There wouldn't BE a "casting couch" if people weren't often willing to lie down on it.

As long as people WILL abrogate their personal rights in this fashion for the sake of ego-gratification, the problems of copyright abuses and work for hire abuses will continue. I was amazed to find out that prominent creators didn't use lawyers to handle contracts that they later (of course!) got screwed by, or even worked WITHOUT contracts! WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?? Especially when doing business with people who have PROVEN they cannot be trusted? That's just ASKING to get buggered.

Remember that my advocacy of "Giving it Away" is in terms of NEVER selling off the rights to your own stuff -- that's NOT what I'm advocating giving away. But working under those conditions is "giving it away" in a very DIFFERENT way: that's giving away your rights to your creations and your right to be treated equitably in a business deal. I must again point out that as regards the original topic, even if copyright law is weakened or rendered unenforceable by easy digital copying and distribution, there will still be a way to control your copyrights: HANG ON TO YOUR STUFF AND PUBLISH IT YOURSELF.

No, you probably won't get rich and famous, at least not overnight. If that's what you want, if you wanna be a famous and rich writer/artist/whatever... well I'm sure the same avenues will always be available to you; there will always be unscrupulous folks who will manufacture you the fame, and just enough money so you THINK you're doing great -- probably more than you've ever seen -- but your continued fame will depend on whether you do what they tell you to or not. You wanna be somebody's bitch? That's usually the price of fame, if you go sucking up to someone to make you famous.

Not saying you can't make equitable business deals, as Nat has shown it's quite possible to work out a deal that is satisfying to you and to the other party. I'm glad that Nat has done so, he's a smart guy. I've been able to work very nice contracts with my clients as well. It IS possible to work out a good deal! But a lot of people don't bother, they accept whatever terms are offered because they think they have to, or they agree to terms verbally and never get it in writing. GET IT IN WRITING! ESPECIALLY if you're selling something YOU created and not working on someone else's properties.

Frankly I'm now thinking that all the legal maneuvering that made the current (non-Net-related) erosion of copyright law has been made possible (in part) by creators (all types) being STUPID, naive and fame-obsessed and not standing up for their rights, giving their creations away to people who made insane amounts of money off it, which eventually allowed those ripoff artists to afford Congressional lobbyists who got Congress to change the law in their favor. Creators bitch and whine about being exploited, when it was some creators' lack of business sense and self-respect and desire for fame and glory that allowed unfair work-for-hire contracts and copyright "theft" to become "standard business practice" in media industry! WE AGREED to play ball with these assholes. WE didn't have to. WE could have held out for equitable business deals, but WE DID NOT. And for what looks like stupid reasons too.

It really depresses me to think that, that the whole copyright mess is due in part to creative types just being business idiots. And now with copyright as a whole in danger of being rendered a moot point, we creators are not in a good position -- UNLESS we are determined to keep our rights by never signing them away.

Hmm, I've gone off a bit... so back to the thought of "day job" type creative employment. Following from what I just wrote, the media companies have been able to exploit naive creators, thus avoiding having to actually pay them anything like what they're worth. So, there's really no reason for them to hire full-time, benefit-and-bonus-receiving creatives, is there? Hey, I hear that Disney has FIVE TIMES as many MANAGEMENT personnel as creatives! And you know what? THEY all have salaries and benefits packages! (Creatives at Disney seem to be on a revolving door basis, being hired and fired as projects need, but they get benefits too.) I bet everyone who works on the BUSINESS end of Marvel and DC have salaries and benefits too! Note that these people DON'T CREATE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD TO PAY THEIR SALARIES AND BENEFITS. They have "day jobs." OUR WORK PAYS THEM... but often not us. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT'S FUCKED UP???

So anyway... anyone else? If DC or some other publisher offered you a salaried, benefitted steady job, where you were on their payroll to write or draw comics, would you do it - knowing that what you are creating will NEVER be yours, but that you'll be making a good living?

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics
www.pagancity.com

Short answer? Hell yes.

I worked for Morgan Stanley for a year, and spent every minute feeling like I was selling my humanity down the river. A friend of mine is doing a Flash job for one of the biggest diamond sellers in the world. Can you say "slave trade"? I don't think doing a WFH DC comic would be anywhere near as bad as that. There's this product, you've been hired to make it. It's either Superman or Big Macs, and Big Macs clog your arteries.


I have no idea of the history surrounding copyright. But tell me, what do you think of unions? Do comic creators need them? There's a graphic artists union, why aren't comic artists a part of this? Film gets away with being considered an art and an industry at the same time (as opposed to, say, painting), so why not comics?

I've been hanging out on the Warren Ellis forum over at Delphi. You should check it out, some smart people hang out over there. Ellis seems to be of the mind that the WFH situation is inherently bad. Well, personally I hate working for the man, so in that case I agree. But in relation to other industries? Hell, the people who write blockbuster screenplays almost never own the product afterward (unless you're Shane Black or something). So, I'm not clear why people see comics as something different.

I don't think, however, that most people get into comics to make money. There's only a few artists-- and maybe one writer-- who have even inadvertantly givent the impression they make big wads of cash off comics. And none of these people is ever *famous* outside of comics circles.

Now, people have almost always desired huge popularity in film, and how many of the people involved actually own the finished product there? Guy with the most money wins. Its always been like that. The difference now is that you can ignore it. Spike Lee, Kevin Smith, Wim Wenders, they don't give a shit about the studios. The difference is that a successful film will pay you enough to live like that. It takes a certain kind of person to be that way in music (which is why most DIY stuff turns out to be punk, because how many jazz musicians are interested in sleeping on strangers' floors?), and it takes someone with a dayjob to do that in comics. And then we're back to the merry-go-round of when the heck do you do your books?

So, like I said before, if I'm going to do a dayjob that keeps me from drawing comics, I'd rather it be something that a) didn't make me feel like a whore for Satan; and b) actually honed my skills. Sounds like WFH comics to me.

Ok, I have not yet read the whole thread so forgive me if this has already been discussed but...

you all may not be familiar with this but here in canada we have something called Can-Con, it’s a law enforced by the CRTC, the government body responsible for deciding who gets what radio or television broadcasting licenses and what they can broadcast on that channel/station. The law is basically that a certain number of hours a day, and specific at what time of the day (so that it is not marginalized, shows or music featuring Canadian Content, ie:songwriters, tv directors, geographical production, talent....ect) that canadian stations must play content that is considered Canadian. it was instituted to keep from having all the media here be American.

that part of the law has been somewhat controversial, but some would say successful. But there is a clause of this law that may be just the way to warranty a fair system of payment for use of content for publishing on the web to creators.

Here in canada whenever a radio station plays an album containing canadian content they must pay a small amount of money to Can-Con which is given to the creators.

So every time such an such band has a song played on a station they get something like 2cents...maybe a little more. Not much but the idea is that if you get a lot of play you can make a lot of money accumulatively. I’m not sure how well this works but the idea could be used on the web.

Every time Nap-star or i-crave-tv registers a download they must pay a small fee to the ORIGINAL CREATORS of the music. Royalties, not to the labels or networks, but to the artists to pay for the use of there service - providing content over the web. The amount would be small but fair, say two cents, but would ad up to a worthwhile amount of money for the creators (the creators p.o.v.) if there work is popular enough to merritt payment (the distributors p.o.v.). Nap-star would have to track what was what and they could make money the same way they are now...advertising if im not mistaken, like public broadcast tv. A fair price to pay to the creators.

did that make sense, i working this out on the fly but it seams to me to be a good possible solution.

I think you'd find comic creators quite hard to organize; we are a cantankerous and disagreeable bunch.
(I, for one, would prefer not to see a union in this business. I don't want that sort of third party trying to force itself into my relationships with my publishers, while trying to extort money from me for the privelege. Other earnest creators feel quite differently.)
How would you feel if I stole your toaster and then left a few pennies in its place? And didn't even leave them for you, but for the person that made the toaster? Would that make you happy? Would that be fair?
Musicians' rights are already horribly abused by laws that force them to license out their material whether they want to or not. Why should yet another scummy business be allowed to strip them of their control?

I don't know what the heck happened to the message I wrote. Sorry about that. Well, this is it pieced back together from my spotty memory:

Nat, I think WFH comics are no different than WFH acting, screenwriting, textbook writing or signpainting. All of these things require artistic skill, and the finished product may in fact be perceived as art by the audience. But that's not what you're hired to make. You're hired to put together a product, no different than the woman pounding fenders on a Ford line years ago.

So with this view (I don't know if you share it), a comic writer or artist should get the same compensation some of these people get (insurance, 401k, etc.). So, a union would protect that.

If a union is wasting your money ("extorting" it), then you, as a member, have a responsibility to take the union leaders to task. Is this a pain in the ass and a distraction to the business of creating art? Better question is whether it's more or less a distraction than fighting to get paid for services rendered.

I didn't mean to drag this into a discussion of unions. I just brought it up because it seems like the next logical leap from a consideration of WFH comics as assembly-line commercial production. Of course, if you don't see the business like that, this line of reasoning won't appeal. I think this all goes back to a core issue: how we perceive this business, and how that perception influences what we expect from creators, publishers and the market.

[This message has been edited by Jamesmith (edited 10-29-2000).]

Interestingly, both the Graphic Artists' Guild and the AIGA accept comic artists into their ranks, and the GAG even publishes lots of information about comic art and page rates etc. in their Handbook... so actually a pair of large, powerful artist advocate organizations -- they're not really labor unions per se -- ALREADY exist that could bring some heat to bear on unfair practices by those who hire us. IF we would take advantage of them, that is...

But we don't. Why not? Why should comic artists (sorry writers)not be considered "professional illustrators," when that's what they do?



So, since we're a bunch of cranky, unprofessional, antisocial misfits, we should consign ourselves to getting ripped off -- since because of our own personal oddballosity we can't get our shit together and ask for the respect we're due? That STINKS, Nat. That just stinks.



Well I'm certainly not saying that we should call up the AFL-CIO anytime soon, obviously unions have a pretty bad rep these days for numerous reasons. And maybe a union wouldn't be the greatest thing for comic artists. I'm just thinking that we need to, not necessarily as an organized group, but individually-collectively stand up for fair business treatment in our freelance and work-for-hire employment!

I'm just appalled at just how unprofessional and un-businesslike us comic creators are, and how we seem to EXPECT that and think it's OKAY -- when we're trying to make a living at it in the modern business world. What, are we REVELING in our misfit weirdness SO MUCH that we can't even ask for common, everyday RESPECT and CORDIALITY in our business dealings? That just SUCKS, and the weirder and more unprofessional ANY of us are, the less chance ANY of us have to make even a PITTANCE at what we do.

Some of you creators might want to sit there and wallow in your miserableness, while smugly looking at the rest of the world as you convince yourself that you're better or more pure than everyone else (if so, maybe you should open a comics & collectibles store, and sit behind the counter and pontificate like that guy on the Simpsons). But then you'd BETTER stop bitching about getting ripped off and accept that it's going to happen as long as you stay out of sync with how biz really works.

I've seen this crap happening with other "artistic" career paths, and it makes me ill. Art is art, but business is business. Making money is BUSINESS. If you can't handle business, then either LEARN IT or STOP COMPLAINING that you're not being treated fairly.

Comics (and other arty disciplines) and copyrights are in BIG TROUBLE, and a lot of it is BECAUSE of this unprofessional cranky whiny misfit crap! Copyright law would probably be a hell of a lot more in our favor if we art idiots could have grasped some business savvy early on and thus earned respect from the people who hire us. Instead, by lots of us being cranky, disagreeable, egotistical, idealistic, impractical, sycophantic, approval-chasing head cases (if that doesn't describe an artist I don't know what does), we've let the people who should be treating us with respect gain power over us.

I believe the only way to regain any of that power is to GET professional, DEMAND the respect due us, and RETAIN control over our creations -- or at least make sure we're being dealt with as fairly as possible. That's one reason why destruction of copyright doesn't frighten me much -- it may afford us a unique opportunity to renegotiate the whole deal. HOWEVER... it will NOT reward lack of business savvy and antisocial behavior!!! If ownership is controlled by the creator, effective publishing will mean creating lasting relationships with your publishers and marketers -- which being a bitchy "artiste" will not help you do.

If you're cantankerous and disagreeable, you better think about hiring an agent, should this all go down. Maybe you should anyway. Life and wealth doesn't get handed to you unless your parents/grandparents/etc. busted their asses at some point and you inherited it. Not many of us have trust funds... so life and wealth must be EARNED THROUGH HARD GODDAMN WORK. If you think that because you've got artistic talent, you're entitled to be recognized and paid for it, you're living in dreamland. Destruction of copyright will certainly end THAT little conceit, what?

If you've got a big ego about creating art for art's sake, then get a day job and make your art for free in your spare time. And stop whining about it.

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics
www.pagancity.com

Jeff:

We don't all equate being a member of a club with being a professional.
I didn't say that cranky misfits can't stand up for themselves. They can and do. I don't see "forming a union" as being the same as "not getting ripped off".

Jamesmith:
You might want to look into what "extortion" is. It isn't wasting it. It's taking it via undue force. Unions try to force you to give them money in order to be allowed to work in a given field.

Sycophantic?!

Well, Jeff, is it safe to come near? I agree with what you said, except:

"I'm just thinking that we need to, not necessarily as an organized group, but individually-collectively stand up for fair business treatment in our freelance and work-for-hire employment!"

How can you have it both ways? Either you're individual or you're collective. If individuals all stand up for themselves, but in different ways, then they've only got the bargaining power of one, and they will continue to be treated as they are now.

And Nat, my original post was much more sage and well-reasoned (trust me), but it got lost. At any rate, do you see the GAG as being useless then? Or at least antithetical to your views? Not having the extortionist aspect to it, does the advocacy not appeal to you at all?

Not being a Graphic Artist myself (I'm a writer-guy), I haven't looked into that specific guild. However, from what I've seen of general guilds, they seem to offer a lot of good: shared information about rates and opportunities, accesses to group insurance rates, and so on. I don't have serious problems with such groups until they try actively to prevent non-members from getting work.