Well, I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen today, and I can't think of any fresh ones that would be likely to convince anybody else, so this'll be short and sweet.

On the matter of a creator willing his equity as he pleases, I agree with Kurt and disagree with JM. It's his, and he may dispose of it as he will -- even if that means his collaborator has to deal with Aunt Agatha and Rufus.

Depending, of course, on the exact agreement between the collaborators.

Again, tho, in the absence of a clear and concrete statement of Charlier's wishes, either for the character or for the disposition of his interest in it, it seems to me Giraud is within his rights.

Great thread!

Quack, Don


------------------
GRAPHIC NOVEL REVIEW FOR LIBRARIES
P.O. Box 55148
Phoenix, AZ 85078

I would FIGURE Kurt would take the writers' side in this debate....I am surprised at Kims' position, which I agree with..

Enough of creators' rights....What about CREATORS'S LEFTS?????

SDC

Samuel Catalino
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I would FIGURE Kurt would take the writers' side in this debate...>>

Then no offense, sir, but you haven't been reading closely.

I'd take the same position if it was Giraud who had died and his heir was trying to keep Charlier from recasting BLUEBERRY as a spokesman for the NRA here in the US.

It doesn't matter if it's the writer or the artist -- it's about equal co-owners having equal say, and the ability to will that equal say to whomever they wish. Subject, of course, to any pre-existing agreements they've made covering such eventualities.

kurt

I think Kurt is very logical and consistent with his position, which I happen to disagree with.

I found the PINK FLOYD case reported by EricR utterly fascinating. Myself, I agree with the Court, of course. IMHO too, they should have been allowed to call themselves PINK FLOYD.

I'm going to introduce another analogy: holograms. If you cut a hologram in two, you don't get half an image but two images. Each bit of the hologram contains the entire image.

Same with a creation -- each PINK FLOYD member *was* PINK FLOYD.

If X-MEN had belonged by Claremont & Byrne, and they'd split, I think each could have done his own version of X-MEN.

Hell, if one of them had subsequently died, I'm also OK with his heirs continuing "their" X-MEN. (After all, there were two versions of the KATZENJAMMER KIDS at one time, except that one was called CAPTAIN & THE KIDS, but they looked exactly alike.)

I just *cannot* subscribe to Kurt's theory of "there must be a consensus or else everything stops."

If there was a legal agreement signed by both party that clealy specified that, well, OK then. There, I'd agree with Don: let's abide by the agreement. You make your bed, etc.

But there never is, never to that extent. The mere act of co-creation / co-ownership (unlike what you think, Kurt) does NOT automatically grant one party (or even more so his Heir(s)) the right of absolute veto over the other party's decisions.

(If that is what you desire, Kurt, you better get it in writing now from your partners.)

In fact, the Court (whether in France, Belgium or England) appears to back me up on this.

So in the absence of an ironclad agreement of the kind between the parties, I remain in favor of a free-for-all.


JM

EricR's Pink Floyd analogy is indeed fascinating, but begs to be taken further. Are the Beach Boys still the Beach Boys without any Wilson brothers on stage? Should the Rolling Stones change their name because initial leader Brian Jones (whose contributions to his band were lessening in the same manner as Syd Barrett's were in his respective group) drowned, or elderly bassist Bill Wyman wanted to spend more time with his 16-year-old squeeze? Could the Beatles tour with Julian Lennon on rhythm guitar? How about the Allman Brothers Band? Spice Girls? Menudo, for god's sake?

I think it's all subjective, ethically and legally...the Who came back after Keith Moon's tragic death, and although the reasons for their decision to carry on under the same name are certainly debatable, when I saw them two years ago on their "Quadrophenia" tour, they were most definitely the Who (with percussion ironically provided by Zak Starkey, Ringo Starr's son, and at other gigs by Jason Bonham, son of the late John Bonham, whose group Led Zeppelin, excepting one performance, did in fact disband after his death, so go figure).

Back in the mid-'70's, there were 3 or 4 bands touring the country as Steppenwolf, all with at least one original member and none with lead singer John Kay. This led to a myriad of lawsuits, and ended up with Kay touring with his own version (incidently, the Steppenwolf I saw way back when sucked mightily). I'd say a band should (and usually do) change their name when the primary creative force is no longer participating. In Pink Floyd's case, each member contributed creatively to lesser or greater varying degrees, so Waters' departure didn't affect a complete stagnation of the band's output (again, a debatable point).

A slippery slope, to be sure, and I'm certain each comics case would be every bit as complicated and convoluted as their musical analogies. Each will have to be hashed out legally, and each decision (regarding those with animosity between the two sides) will likely suck for at least one party involved. It's the nature of the collaborative beast, unfortunately.

As far as my humble opinion of the "Blueberrygate", I'd have to side with Giraud (and Kim Thompson...I can imagine the good Lieutenant tripping out) in this matter. Charlier Junior can either cash the checks or rip them up.

Gotta go, Wimbledon's on...



------------------
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain










[This message has been edited by buck futter (edited 07-02-99).]

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I just *cannot* subscribe to Kurt's theory of "there must be a consensus or else everything stops.">>

Understood...

>>So in the absence of an ironclad agreement of the kind between the parties, I remain in favor of a free-for-all.>>

...but let me ask one last question, which I brought up before:

What if it's Charlier fighting for the right to create a BLUEBERRY theme park, and Giraud fighting to prevent it -- would the fact that it's an objectively-attractive theme park deal, superior to standard industry practice, be enough to make it appropriate for the courts to declare that it's better to say yes and the money's good, so strap yourself in to the Chihuahua Pearl rollercoaster, J.G. -- and cash the check? It seems the French courts would consider Giraud's refusal to take that money to be an abuse of right, and an unfair burden on poor Charlier, unless Giraud want to make up for Charlier's loss ... and that sure doesn't seem right to me.

Under the "free-for-all/yes-is-a-morally-superior-answer-than-no" scenario you advocate, and see as the just policy of European courts, the result would seem to be that Giraud can't stop the Ghost Tribe Haunted House from being built and operated, and that you think that's the way it should be.

Is this so?

kurt

Kurt,

The writer bit was just a jest, not to be taken seriously. It is my sincere wish you were not offended.

I do give you credit (although I am a cash kind of guy) for your consistency in your argument. Although I do not agree with it, you present a strong point which I must respect.

From what I have read, you project an idealist thought pattern, and I sure wish things could be solved like that. Unfortunately we are all imperfect beings at times enslaved by petty emotions, hence conflicts.

Hope all is well with you and yours,

SDC

Kurt:

I too will be consistent in my philosophy. If Charlier wanted to license BLUEBERRY to a theme park company, assuming everything else checked out OK, and if the only objection Giraud had was in effect "I don't wanna cuz I say so", I'd side with Charlier.

Giraud can cash the checks, or not. Tell everyone in the press he objected to that park being built, etc. Fine by me.

Conceivably, I could argue that in BLUEBERRY matters a *live* Giraud ought to outvote a *dead* Charlier. But if both creators were dead and it became an Heir vs Heir battle, then I'd go with the "yes, let's do it" rather than the "no, let's do nothing" side.

The PINK FLOYD argument reminds me of the BEATLES. Since there was once a fifth BEATLES, who quit, the band ought have changed its name then, according to your line of thought, no?

Creator-ownership has been a fact in French comics since the start. The creators who launched their series after WWII are now retiring or passing away. The industry is confront to a spat of artistic and business conflicts:

-- Albert Uderzo vs the daughter of Rene Goscinny (ASTERIX),

-- Morris vs the wife of Rene Goscinny (LUCKY LUKE -- that was before the wife died),

-- Morris vs the new art team who took over the YOUNG LUCKY LUKE series;

-- Charlier's Son vs everybody (:-) -- no, vs. Giraud (BLUEBERRY), Colin Wilson (YOUNG BLUEBERRY), Hubinon's widow & Troisfontaines (co-creator) (BUCK DANNY), Eddy Paape (co-creator) (MARC DACIER)...

All of these are lawsuits (well, not Giraud yet), matter of public record... And I'm sure there'll be more forthcoming...

Hey Kim, isn't there matter for a good article in TCJ?

I ask: Is this the face of Christmas Future for creators in an even-more litigious US society?

Without depriving heirs of the money that is rightfully theirs, I ask: isn't a form of benevolent corporate (ie: publisher)'s ownership or control better than internecine squabbling?

Take BATMAN for instance: it is my understanding that Bob Kane (if not Bill Finger alas) continued to derive some sort of royalty from DC all these years. Can a case be made that DC managed BATMAN better, both financially and artistically (Neal Adams, Frank Miller) than Kane alone would have done, and hypothetically Kane's squabbling heirs?

JM

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I too will be consistent in my philosophy. If Charlier wanted to license BLUEBERRY to a theme park company, assuming everything else checked out OK, and if the only objection Giraud had was in effect "I don't wanna cuz I say so", I'd side with Charlier.>>

Fair enough. I think Giraud being forced into such a deal is worse than no new BLUEBERRY at all, but at least we've found the heart of our disagreement.

>>Without depriving heirs of the money that is rightfully theirs, I ask: isn't a form of benevolent corporate (ie: publisher)'s ownership or control better than internecine squabbling?>>

I don't think so, myself.

>>Take BATMAN for instance: it is my understanding that Bob Kane (if not Bill Finger alas) continued to derive some sort of royalty from DC all these years. Can a case be made that DC managed BATMAN better, both financially and artistically (Neal Adams, Frank Miller) than Kane alone would have done, and hypothetically Kane's squabbling heirs?>>

A case could be made for it, but why not ask Giraud, the next time you're in contact, whether he'd prefer to have the squabbles with Charlier Fils, or no control at all?

Me, I'd rather risk the squabbles and take my chances than let someone else decide for me who should write and draw ASTRO CITY this month, regardless of the income.

Mark Evanier can probably better supply a list of pop-culture characters -- starting with TARZAN, I think -- who became international icons while owned and "managed" by the creator and/or his heirs.

kurt

I may have misstated myself somewhere in the BATMAN analogy. I don't mean to imply that the creative control ought to be wrested away from the creator himself while alive and legally competent.

Of course, if Bob Kane having full artistic control had chosen to nix DARK KNIGHT, it would have been a shame, but ultimately I do grant him that absolute right.

As you know, my position is to give the living creator all the artistic powers previously vested with his deceased collaborator.

It's after the last creator's death that the real problems begin. For one TARZAN (and even then, we all heard stories about how difficult the ERB estate once was), I can think of many THUNDER AGENTS or old comic strips characters that lie virtually forgotten because no one is still around that has the ability and competence to do something about them and/or because the Heirs are too contentious, difficult to deal with, whatever.

A friend of mine works at Henson, and that firm too seems to be suffering from the inability of the five (I think) children to agree on certain common courses of action...

But I'm also more than willing to admit that corporations too can be negligent, incompetent, or simply not care. DC has done well overall with BATMAN but their management of SUGAR & SPIKE could not be worse. I bet Sheldon Meyer's Heirs, even if they were turnips, could have done/do better with that property...

Somehow, companies like DC ought to be forced to surrender a property back to its creators' Heirs if they're not exploiting it.

My friend Will Shetterly (a science fiction writer with left-leaning views) believe that any character or work of fiction should immediately go in the public domain as soon as the creator dies. He doesn't think anyone, not even family members, should inherit an artistic property.

I've kind of made both sides of the argument here, haven't I?

JM