JM Lofficier:
"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. "

While there's a part of me that would absolutely relish that kind of creative anarchy, I would have to come down on the side of Capitalism in this case. In any other walk of life, a person is able to pass along the fruits of their labor to their heirs. To say that creative people -- and creative people alone -- can't leave their work to the kids strikes me as manifestly unfair. Don't artists have enough to worry about without having to fret disproportionately about their offsprings' livelihood?


------------------
J. Kevin Carrier
Fantasy Theater
http://members.aol.com/jkcarrier/fantasy.htm

To be fair to Will's position (with which I disagree myself), he's not saying you're not passing on the royalties to your work, etc. The son of ER Burroughs would continue to be the ONLY ONE making money from the ERB TARZAN books.

But TARZAN itself would be in the public domain. Anyone could write a TARZAN book.

One of my objections to this is -- what about corporate properties, like say Mickey or Superman? Corporations (unlike people) don't die, so it would be inherently unfair.

JM

[This message has been edited by JM Lofficier (edited 07-03-99).]

I'm coming into this in the middle so the following is not everything I know or think about this topic...

First off, in the matter of SUGAR & SPIKE, Sheldon Mayer did not want the characters done by anyone else. He simply loathed the idea and is said to have reacted almost violently when he was shown some drawings or animation that were done in the 60's for a proposed SUGAR & SPIKE cartoon series. He told me in a letter once that he was then promised by DC that, even after his death, no one would do SUGAR & SPIKE stories -- and that if he hadn't received that promise, he would probably not have been able to write or draw any further stories.

In other words, the prospect of others someday tampering with his characters, or even merely making them "their" characters, was extremely injurious to the creation of the work in the first place. Someone I know who is or was close to Bill Watterson told me that something of the sort was applicable in his case; that if he'd believed CALVIN & HOBBES would have eventually been handed over to others, he would not have been able to create the work in the first place.

I dunno how this applies to this debate but I suspect it's relevant...and that it occurs to a lesser extent on many works.

I worked for a time for the Edgar Rice Burroughs Estate...and I have had dealings over the years with the Jay Ward Estate, the Walt Kelly Estate, the Bob Clampett Estate, the Jack Kirby Estate and perhaps one or two more. I have never encountered the greedy/squabbling relatives stereotype. I'm sure it exists -- especially in later generations and/or where the creator has botched his will -- but my observation is that it's less prevalent (or, at worse, no more prevalent) than the mismanagement of properties by corporate owners.

No one can say what would have become of BATMAN if Bob Kane had retained total ownership. Yes, we might not have had DARK KNIGHT...but we also might not have had all those "Interplanetary Zoo" stories. Perhaps Kane would have hired Julius Schwartz or Mort Weisinger to manage things for him. Perhaps he would have made Bill Finger a partner and then Finger would have supervised the character's handling for decades. If you want my best guess (which is worth very little), Kane would just have licensed the thing to DC and the money split would have been different -- but the main difference to the content of the comics would have been that DC would have been under the threat of losing the character if they didn't do a good job of it.

Bottom line, though, is that we'll never know. I certainly don't buy the argument though -- if indeed, anyone is making it -- that a creator or his heirs will necessarily do a worse job of managing a property than a company that wound up owning it.

I'd also add that not every property HAS to be exploited. I don't think mankind would suffer if there were no new TARZAN novels or if no one else ever draws SUGAR & SPIKE.

I also don't think that the measure of how well a property is managed is wholly in its dollar grosses. In cases where I have first-hand knowledge, I would say that a key element to preserving the reputation and longevity of a work is being willing to turn down a lot of very lucrative offers.

I'm not a big fan of public domain; I don't see it as quite the public good that many view it as. To me, it leads to a lot of schlock videocassettes and to the demotion of certain artistic works to a second-class status. There are exceptions, of course -- but if the Shetterly view were ever to prevail, I think it would lead to authors and creators approaching their work with an attitude of, "I'd better milk every cent I can from this thing before I croak." And they would know that there was no point in saying no to even the most offensive kinds of exploitation...because someone else would do them if they didn't.

And I think I've said more than enough...




[This message has been edited by Mark Evanier (edited 07-03-99).]

>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?>

Actually, it's more complicated then that. There was a fifth Beatle, one of John's friends who played the bass and left the band to become a painter and died of a brain hemmorage before the Beatles became famous. There was also the drummer, Pete Best, who was kicked out of the Beatles and replaced with Ringo.

The way I see it, neither the bassest nor Pete actively contributed to the writing prossess and were never essential to the group (which is why one left and the other was booted).

Really, in my mind, it's not a matter of some stone fast rule or legality, simply a matter of respect. There are all sorts of grey areas here, where you could argue who contributed what, but I think everyone knew that the Beatles were really John and Paul with a little George, and that if Ringo were to die he could be replaced with no real harm to the essance of the band. Likewise, I think that it is clear that Moebius and Chalier TOGETHER made Blueberry what it was, and out of sheer deferance to Chalier, Moebius should realise that writing it himself, and changing the whole feel and direction of Blueberry perverts the essance of the character and of the work. I think that Moebius is essentially pissing on Chalier's grave.

ER

[This message has been edited by EricR (edited 07-03-99).]

Sorry to keep harping on tangents, but wouldn't we all be better off if Sugar & Spike were in-print and available? And Scribbly? The Three Mouseketeers?

Just asking.

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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...>>

They've abided by Mayer's wishes, at least, which is to their everlasting credit. I just wish they'd reprint the stuff. Or at the very least send me copies of the S&S stuff Mayer did that never got published in the US. [Hmm. Maybe I should try making that a contract demand, next time I have to negotiate something with DC. Just gimme Xeroxes, Paul...]

But you know, a Sheldon Mayer series about a squabbling family of greedy turnips would probably have been fun, too.

kurt

PS: The advantage of corporate control, to whatever degree it is an advantage, could be duplicated if the owners of a property wished -- all they have to do is form the corporation itself. It still runs the risk of being headed up by squabbling relatives, but then, there's no guarantee that any corporation won't wind up with fractious owners who can't agree on how to proceed.

Mark Evanier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I'm coming into this in the middle so the following is not everything I know or think about this topic...>>

It's just like BEETLEJUICE. You say the name, and presto!

At least it's not like CANDYMAN...

kurt

Kurt,

Make it a contract demand!!

SDC

I was about to say DC is still mismanaging Sugar and Spike, even tho they're very commendably following Sheldon Mayer's wishes in not having anyone else do it. Proper management would call for keeping it in print! (Wouldn't the format of Gladstone's Carl Barks albums, marketed through regular bookstores as books for beginning readers, be ideal?)

Of course, I fully agree on the subject of "squabbling greedy turnips". The concept of Sugar and Spike is really cute, and full of potential for wonderful stories -- but it was Mayer who made it sing. Without him, it would be flat and lifeless. With him -- indeed yes, they could just as well have been turnips, and I'd still enjoy every episode.

When DC did those digest editions, reprinting some of the overseas stuff that had never been published here, I was under an impression they'd pretty much wiped out the unseen-in-America inventory. I gather, then, this is not the case?

Kurt, if you ever do get DC to give you xeroxes, I'll trade you a xerox of #1 for copies. (As far as I know, that's the only place where Spike's actual first name is revealed.)

Or maybe they could just finally get around to doing #100, and make it whatever size is needed to use up that overseas inventory.

Quack, Don

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

Don Markstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>When DC did those digest editions, reprinting some of the overseas stuff that had never been published here, I was under an impression they'd pretty much wiped out the unseen-in-America inventory. I gather, then, this is not the case?>>

Not according to Paul Levitz. He says there's more.

>>Kurt, if you ever do get DC to give you xeroxes, I'll trade you a xerox of #1 for copies. (As far as I know, that's the only place where Spike's actual first name is revealed.)>>

I think that if I showed any likelihood of distributing copies of the stuff, and thus "publishing" it, I wouldn't be allowed to have it. Heck, it's probably the risk of that that would prevent anyone outside DC getting it in the first place.

kurt

Some replies...

>>EricR: I really don't see it as "pissing on Charlier's grave". If Giraud decided to trash BLUEBERRY -- say a hardcore porn version, or sending him to Mars, or turning him into a cyborg, or a mass murderer, or pretending the old stories were all a dream, well, yes, that would be offensive.

But while I concede that Charlier would not have done the type of stories that Giraud would now like to do, I think they (the new stories) show an integrity and a respect for the character.

>> Mark: I didn't know about DC respecting Mayer's wishes a la Watterson / CALVIN & HOBBES. It is nice and I approve.

But I'm not convinced that someone else couldn't do these strips. CAPTAIN & THE KIDS was in some respect better than THE KATZENJAMMER KIDS, and as a member of the public, I'm glad we go the chance to find out. I guess we'll never know with SUGAR & SPIKE et CALVIN & HOBBES...

Still, this does not mean that DC could not keep the original material in print (as pointed out by others), and perhaps exploit it for the benefit of the Heirs?

Hypothetically, someday, CALVIN & HOBBS will belong to Watterson's wife / kids, etc. I'll be curious to see if they'll respest Watterson's s wishes, in particular re: the absence of merchandising, or will cave in to the pressure.

Herge had made it clear (from what I gther) that he did not want his last TINTIN book to be finished or published -- yet, that's the first thing his Heirs rushed out in print after his death. ("The world has the right to see etc etc...")

We sort of got sidetracked (but that's fun too).

JM