JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wups -- I meant to let it go, but I find it next to impossible to dismiss an opinion stated as a fact, particularly when it characterizes me as thinking something I don't believe. Sorry; I'll be brief:

>>But you see, by preventing books to be published, you're violating the rights of the other half-owner...>>

I don't think so -- unless the book already exists. I thought this was being decided before the work was done.

>>So no matter what you do, you're still hurting someone.>>

True. I've never argued that no one gets hurt, merely that the owners should do that which they can agree on -- just as Charlier and Giraud theoretically did when Charlier was alive.

>>In the event of an irreconcilable difference, you're advocating enforced silence over freedom of expression.>>

Giraud is still free to express himself. Just not with a property he doesn't fully own. The "freedom of expression" you refer to would be just as forced -- on the other guy.

>>But let's hear it from other folks.>>

Yeah. Hey, Chaloner, Thompson, Markstein! You must be as tired of this as we are!

kurt

Hey Jean-Marc,

What a fascinating conversation about creator rights and all that, and the differences in sensibilities between Yanks and Europeans.
I weigh on the side of Giraud too, for all the common-sense reasons other people said before me and a few more. Some impressions for what they're worth.

* From what I've seen of Blueberry, it is a "lifework," if you will, coowned by Giraud and Charlier. That's something we've hardly seen at all on this side of the pond on the comics side. The closest thing us Yanks can compare it to, at best, is the Lee/Kirby FF run of about 10 years that neither party owned except in the minds of us former preteens. Or maybe Gaiman's Sandman, but with all the miniseries and whatnot out now, even that seems to be breaking down.

* Does this argument swing on the work itself? Thinking about the starving artist argument, I wonder what would happen if Dave Gibbons really needed the money and did his own Watchmen sequel without the approval of Alan Moore's heirs. If I were a judge or arbitrator who had to render an opinion, could I defend Moore's heirs, denying an artist's right to make a living over the diverse opinions of heirs, who would rather leave well enough alone? I don't know.

* As I said before, this conversation brings to mind the few creators who have enjoyed the success owning or having great control over their signature creations--Burroughs and Tarzan, Lucas and Star Wars, McFarlane and Spawn, Roddenberry and Star Trek. It just goes to show how rarely creative people have any control at all over the work, how people react to it.

I leave with more questions, than cogent answers or opinions. But thanks for the brain food anyway...

Wayne

... my head hurts ...

... seriously though, I'd offer this opinion concerning my own projects in the hope that it is relevant to the subject above:

Years ago, Englishman Stephen Jewell and I co-created "The Olympians" for Epic. If he or I wanted to do any more Olympians stories, out of simple respect (beyond anything else) we would consult each other first. He and I produced a six page Olympians story for an Australian comic shortly after the initial U.S. series was released, but I certainly wouldn't entertain doing anything with the characters without his permission. If I did want to do something, but didn't want him involved or he didn't agree with it... I would at least offer to buy his co-ownership of the property from him. If that didn't work, the project wouldn't happen.

As far as the other characters I have created, "The Jackaroo", "Flash Damingo", "Red Kelso" et al... the control of those characters will be left to my wife or son after my spectacular and sensational demise. Like my Last Will and Testament, I would expect my instructions as to how they will be handled to be respected and carried out in full... or I'll come back and haunt them! (And boy, I'd make a bloody ugly ghost.)

No, Kurt, I wouldn't say I'm tired of this argument -- just a little stunned by how much of it has taken place since the last time I checked. In some ways, checking in only once a day saves me from insanity; in others, it has the opposite effect.

You've made very good arguments, Kurt, but I still side with Giraud. I found your description of the agreements you have regarding Liberty Project, Johnny Demon and Astro City particularly interesting -- the point being that you have such agreements.

We're dealing here with a situation in which a specific agreement does not exist, or can not at this point be reliably reconstructed. I'd say that puts the surviving creator in the driver's seat.

No doubt, it would be nicer to follow the wishes of the deceased creator -- but unfortunately, all parties, including Charlier fils, must guess at those intentions. The heir bases his guess on (a) an outline written 15 years before his father's death and (b) his belief that his father just wouldn't do anything like that.

I'd say that's fairly flimsy even on the face of it (my own father was quite capable of surprising me, as are most human beings) -- and the case is further weakened by the fact that the alleged deviation is, as JM put it, "So far, not much, but you can hear the train whistling in the distance..."

If Charlier pere were to come back and say "No, this violates my wishes for the character", then I'd say Giraud should change his plans. Failing that, if he'd left clear, specific instructions about the continuation of the series (the descriptions of the outline don't make it sound like it specifically excludes what Giraud is doing) or a clear, unequivocal statement that his son was to represent his interests in artistic as well as business matters, then again, I'd say Giraud should change his plans.

But apparently, this is not the case. Nothing I've seen in this thread convinces me that Giraud is under any obligation to follow anyone's vision but his own.

Quack, Don


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

Don Markstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I found your description of the agreements you have regarding Liberty Project, Johnny Demon and Astro City particularly interesting -- the point being that you have such agreements.>>

Actually, just to correct a misconception -- I have such an agreement on ASTRO CITY. On JONNY DEMON and LIBERTY PROJECT, it's stright co-ownership, no embellishments. I just figure that straight co-ownership works the way Gary Chaloner describes -- the co-owners do what they agree on, and absent an agreement that specifies otherwise, a co-owner willing his co-ownership to an heir is willing the whole shebang, not just the right to profit; the need for the owners to agree on a course of action doesn't dissolve after one co-owner's death, unless artistic and business rights have been specifically separated by some existing agreement.

If I write down somewhere that if I die, Ann keeps the profit split on JONNY DEMON but Neil Vokes gets total control of the property, then that's how it should work. But absent that, my control goes to Ann, and Neil doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants with a property now co-owned by him and Ann. He and Ann together have the right to do whatever it is they can agree on.

Just to flip an example Jean-Marc gave yesterday:

What if James Fry and I are living in France, as he postulated, and there's a $1 million dollar offer for movie rights to LIBERTY PROJECT -- but this time it's James who's the fabulously-wealthy entertainment magnate, and I'm living in a garret burning my treasured copies of MÉLUSINE and LES LUMIERES DE L'AMALOU to stay warm? James really wants that $500,000, so he can buy a really, really, really, really nice pair of skis (these are expensive skies we're talking about here) and I'd rather starve before I allow the LIBERTY PROJECT characters to be turned into movie fodder. Where's the sympathy now? Based on what we've been told about French courts, James is going to get his skis and I'm going to get a check I don't want and my creative sensibilities steamrollered -- but that's okay, because saying yes is morally superior to saying no. But is that really the proper result?

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.

I'll happily grant that Giraud is the more significant talent over Charlier (even the deceased one), but that only affects what I as a reader would like to see -- more Giraud stuff, and plenty of it -- rather than my sense of what's "right."

But I seem to be writing another treatise, when I should be writing AVENGERS FOREVER dialogue...

kurt

Absent any specific agreement between the parties, if one member of a co-equal collaborative team dies, I say all the financial benefits accruing from the work go to the heirs, but none of the creative control. (Aren't these "moral rights" laws designed to prevent exploitation or mutilation of the work by people other than the creator? It seems to me their being applied against one of the creators by the heir of the other creator is something of a misuse...)

I would say the most that could be done is that Charlier's heirs could demand that Charlier's name be removed from any future non-Charlier-kosher BLUEBERRYs (while still receiving full financial benefits from them).

For those creators who, like Kurt, feel this is an unreasonable situation, I would suggest that the Moebius/Charlier BLUEBERRY hubbub reminds us all of a gray area of potential conflict that should encourage collaborators to articulate their specific "deals" with one another.

Maybe Charlier fils is peeved at the widespread perception that BLUEBERRY owes its success more to Giraud than to Charlier, which I think is in fact an accurate perception. Giraud is a world-class cartoonist, and Charlier is a journeyman writer (none of his other comics are considered "classics" except in the slightly condescending sense of "stuff I loved when I was growing up" -- is that an accurate assessment, Jean-Marc?) -- the reason BLUEBERRY's as good as it is, by logical deduction, is almost certainly more Giraud than Charlier. I'm not sure that should affect one's perception of the legal and moral issues (any more than the mention Jean-Marc slipped in there that Charlier fils had already alienated one BLUEBERRY illustrator, which seems to suggest a trend of, ha ha "heir-splitting"), but it probably does.

And I guess it's also colored by the fact that I'd love to see a Moebius BLUEBERRY in which he does 'shrooms.

The great thing about this thread is that it provides food for thought in what is after all a remote, non-personal conflict to all of us.

>> Kurt, you wrote:

"Actually, just to correct a misconception -- I have such an agreement on ASTRO CITY. On JONNY DEMON and LIBERTY PROJECT, it's stright co-ownership, no embellishments. I just figure that straight co-ownership works the way Gary Chaloner describes"

I think were a crisis to develop between you and your partner, whether artistic or business-related, you may find that your ownership is not absolute. There could be instances in which you may be forced to let something happen that you don't want to. This is true of *any* partnership.

"If I write down somewhere that if I die, Ann keeps the profit split on JONNY DEMON but Neil Vokes gets total control of the property, then that's how it should work. But absent that, my control goes to Ann, and Neil doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants with a property now co-owned by him and
Ann. He and Ann together have the right to do whatever it is they can agree on."

I think that at the very least you'd have to get Neil to sign a paper to that effect for this to be automatic. I'm not so sure that your understanding or wishes would be carried by the courts here either.

Hypothetically, what if you and Ann have three children, then Ann dies. Must Neil follow the wishes of all three children? What if one of your kid disagree with the other two? Is it a majority vote then?

The same hypothetical questions could be addressed to Chaloner.

Do we in effect turn over the artistic control of a property to a committee made up of legal heirs, including Great Aunt Agatha who may disapprove of nudity in all forms (including horses), and born-again brother Rufus who sees a sign of Satan in BLUEBERRY's sheriff star?

Or do we, for better or worse, entrust that vision to a single creator, the man (or woman) who after all *worked* with the deceased (instead of sharing his bed/food/water/last name)?

>> Don: there is a legal agreement between Giraud and the Charlier family, but it is mostly concerned about money. It does state that the Heirs are vested with the deceased's rights and powers (but that's the law anyway), that business decisions must be made jointly, but that Giraud alone can choose other artists/writers (to work on the spin-offs series) after *consulting* with the Charliers.

There's nothing about a right of veto over future scripts and the likes.

As to the Droit Moral, in the Uderzo/Goscinny case, the Court appeared to limit it to the actual works produced by the deceased, which would arguably leave out future sequels. As someone stated, they could after all take the Charlier name off the books they disapprove of.

(In the same fashion, in Belgium recently, the EP Jacobs family got the right to remove his name from the first BLAKE & MORTIMER graphic novel produced by others after his death.)

>> Kim, I fully agree with your description of Charlier's creative heritage. BLUEBERRY far outdistances any other co-creation of his, critically and commercially. BUCK DANNY would be next, catering to a somewhat fossilized nostalgic audience. None of the other series matter that much (TANGUY, BARBE-ROUGE) and some are downright forgotten (MARC DACIER, KIM DEVIL).

Opening the discussion even wider:

Isn't it interesting to see that what sort of problems the French creators face (as opposed to the US creators) as the consequence of full creators' rights and ownership, and the passing of time, of course?

JM

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Hypothetically, what if you and Ann have three children, then Ann dies. Must Neil follow the wishes of all three children?>>

If I actually willed my equity in JONNY DEMON to all three children equally, then Neil would have 50% and they'd have a little under 17% each. He wouldn't be the "majority stockholder," but he'd only need the agreement of one kid to achieve a majority.

But even if they all agreed, Neil doesn't have to "follow their wishes" any more than they have to follow his. What they have to do is find a course they can agree on.

>>What if one of your kid disagree with the other two? Is it a majority vote then?>>

That's how equity generally works, as I understand it. It sure gives Neil a massive advantage, doesn't it?

>>Do we in effect turn over the artistic control of a property to a committee made up of legal heirs, including Great Aunt Agatha who may disapprove of nudity in all forms (including horses), and born-again brother Rufus who sees a sign of Satan in BLUEBERRY's sheriff star?>>

Who is this "we"? I think that if Bob Creator wants to entrust Great-Aunt Agatha and brother Rufus with the rights to his property -- well, it's his property. He should have the right to do that whether you and I like Agatha and Rufus or not, just as he could become a born-again Christian while still alive and take steps to repudiate what now appears to him to be Satanism in his own work whether "we" think that's the best way to handle things or not.

We're the audience. We don't get to manage the creator's career for him, or choose his heirs -- he gets to do that.

>>Or do we, for better or worse, entrust that vision to a single creator, the man (or woman) who after all *worked* with the deceased (instead of sharing his bed/food/water/last name)?>>

I think "we" should leave that decision up to the creator himself, who was capable enough to co-create something of value and who should be considered capable enough to make his own choices as to what to do with it, unless he's judged no longer competent. But sound mind and sound body, and all that. Certainly, if John Byrne and Chris Claremont co-owned the X-Men, Chris is the last guy John would want to will total control to -- and very likely vice versa.

No offense to anyone here, but if I choose to will my equity in what I've created over the years to the current generation of the Von Trapp Family, that's as much my choice as creating the stuff was, and none of you guys should get a voice in it. Similarly, I don't get a voice in how Don Markstein disposes of his intellectual property, how Jean-Marc L'Officier disposes of his, and so on.

And my collaborators are just as free to turn their equity in our co-creations over to Reverend Moon as a love offering, if they think that's the best thing to do. They've _earned_ that right by co-creating the stuff under an equal-ownership deal, and if I don't like it, I shouldn't have walked into a situation in which that could happen.

For all that you're providing caricatures of evil, misguided heirs and painting the collaborator as the best man to make decisions (even if he's the one who becomes born again and wants to withdraw the work from circulation and redo it all to glorify Judy Garland, I suppose), what you're talking about is taking a right away from the creator -- the right to choose who he wants to vest with control of his property.

I think creator ownership should include the right to sell, bequeath, assign or otherwise dispose of your equity, just as surely as it includes the right to determine the character's middle name.

kurt

Alright, I'm going to try and simplify this. In my mind all this talk of "creative vision" and children and "equity" and legality is all completely irrelivant. Moebius ceasing work on Blueberry after the writer's death should have nothing to do with whether or not the write would have liked Moebius' work, it should simply be a matter of respect to a dead co-creator - respect for his status as the writer and co-creator of Blueberry.

Let's use another music analogy, which will be a bit long, but I'm trying to make a point. Pink Floyd was founded by Syd Barritt, and was comprised of Roger Waters, Nick Mason and Rick Write. Barrit was responsible for almost all the songs on Floyd's first album, but began to go insane and was only able to write 1 song for the second album before being kicked out of the band. He was replaced with David Gilmore. By Dark Side of the Moon, Roger Waters was writing all the lyrics for Floyd. Five albums later Waters quits the band and declares Pink Floyd dead. But David Gilmore gets the other two together and decides to put out more Pink Floyd albums. Waters sues Gilmore and loses.
Now, my point is that Syd Barrett Floyd, Roger Waters Floyd and David Gilmore Floyd are all completely differant - generally you could listen to each of them and not realise that they're the same band. In my mind they are differant bands - totally differant. Why did they keep the title? For the name recognition (ie money). This is simply wrong, whatever the law says. Floyd should have changed names when Barrett left and again when Waters left - that would have been accurate and moreover respectful to the creative people who labored under a band title to establish it's reputation. David Gilmore's band posing as Floyd is at best disingenuous. I have much more respect for the members of, say, Bauhaus who, when their lead singer left, changed their name to Love and Rockets (hmmmm) or even the Dead when they changed their name after Jerry died. Clearly the Dead can't be the Dead without Jerry Garcia. Equally Blueberry can't be Blueberry without JM Charlier. Whether the Moebius written books are BETTER is irrelivant. It's not Blueberry. It's something else with the same name. And it's disrespectful.

sorry if you hate Pink Floyd,
EricR

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