JM -

My exposure to BLUEBERRY has been mainly through Marvel's reprints of several years ago.

Kim Thompson mentioned previously that he'd enjoyed Giraud's post Charlier Blueberry, but he's a well-known multilingualist (not that there's anything wrong with that), so I'm sort of presuming he'd have read the original French editions.

My inquiry is - have these post-Marvel reprint stories been published in English? Are they still available?

Dear Baden:

Not counting the short story THREE BLACK BIRDS publishred in the first Mojo Press reedition, there's been two full blown BLUEBERRY graphic novels subsequent to ARIZONA LOVE, which was the last Charlier-Giraud collaboration and whose only US edition was in CHEVAL NOIR #46-50...

-- MISTER BLUEBERRY
-- OMBRES SUR TOMBSTONE (Shadow Over Tombstone)

There's no plans to put them out in English, a sad state of affait for which I blame the collapse of distribution in this country. (This ought to be carried on the Two. Years. Part 2 thread in the Distribution forum.)

JM

Well, I'm coming late to this discussion (meant to start being a regular on comicon), but all put in my two cents. This isn't because I have much new to add, though...

All in all, I lean against the talented Giraud on this one. Several people have put forth arguments that seem to boil that the dead man should not be able to pass creative control on... but then go on to act as if that's the same as the control going to the collaborator.

If I understand US law correctly, both Girauld and the son would have the right to do derivative works, with the real conflict coming up if someone wants to do something exclusive.

Those who are saying that collaborators should work on such things in advance are correct. Collaboration is a messy business, and it is sometimes in everyone's best interest for there to be someone clearly in control of the rights. (I am currently putting together a new project with a talented artist. I had to wrestle with my conscience for a while before deciding that it was already for me to maintain control, whereas she just gets a significant financial involvement. In this case, my control comes not only from me being there when the page is blank, but also from my paying her to create the original samples and designs. I'm investing effort and money to get equity and control, while she invests effort to get equity and money.)

It also dances close to an interesting question that has danced around my head for a while: if a comic is created with a full script being written and passed on to an artist, is the resulting comic *legally* an original collaboration? Or is it a derivative work from the script?

(I couldn't help but chuckle at people who worried about bands keeping the same name with different members, mainly because I'd always imagined the same arguments against sports teams. "Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig are gone... how dare they keep the name the same?")

I wonder if abiding by Sheldon Meyer's wishes is actually discouraging DC from reprinting his work? Since he didn't want anyone else working on his characters, that would seem to rule out things like an S&S TV series. If there was a possibility of a TV series, however, DC might be moved to put out some edition of the work just to make it look like a "living" property.

--Nat (who will note that Time/Warner also owns the rights to some Nat Gertler stories -- Jetsons, Flintstones -- that were published overseas but never in the US. Somehow I doubt we'll see a lot of fans clamoring for them.)

This is to Nat. (Hi, Nat!)

From what I can tell, SUGAR & SPIKE tops a long list of strips that the folks at DC would love to reprint if they thought such a book wouldn't be a sales catastrophe. The belief seems to be -- and this is my impression; not something anyone said to me -- that the marketplace for vintage reprints is viewed as a fragile one, where each new release may cut into the sales of the others and any one spectacular sales disaster might drastically reduce the reception of the next few "classic" reprints.

SUGAR & SPIKE has been often mentioned for reprints but the reaction from dealers (and the sales on that one-shot issue a few years ago) seem to have moved it more to the risky category -- i.e., "Let's wait until the BATMAN reprints sell a little better before we gamble on this stuff." While I am quick to criticize publishers for being cowardly about investing in new areas, I'm not sure this is where I'd wager my bucks if I were in charge.

I really have no idea how "firm" any promise made to Mayer is about no one else ever doing SUGAR & SPIKE. My sense is that it's one of those things that will be dealt with if and when there's a reason to. I know that Dick Giordano vetoed a few proposals by various creative folks to guest the kids in other comics or to do a short story somewhere -- in other words, IF they are to ever allow someone else to do those characters, it won't be for some gratuitous little appearance. If and when there's the potential for SUGAR & SPIKE to be a significant profit center, they'll deal with it. I think.

Hi Nat:

For whatever it's worth, French courts have ruled that comics are indeed a collaborative medium, like film and opera. The script (or libretto) is nothing without the art (director, composer).

The odd thing is, that ruling was then used by a writer to claim the same percentage from the sale of original art (sold by the widow of a deceased artist) than defined in the publishing agreement. Needless to say, artists have not been thrilled.

Personally, I think writers (or artists) who want to pass on their *artistic* rights (not financial stakes) to their heirs over their (presumed) long-time collaborators and/or other competent creative people are showing the same hubris (and ultimately foolishness) as titans of industry who insist that their sons must succeed them instead of competent managers. Talent is not something that can be passed on.

>> To Mark: if I recall correctly, Kim Thompson said here that Fantagraphics had approached DC to license a reprint of SUGAR & SPIKE. I suppose DC turned it down because the deal must not have been worth the legal expense ('tho a straighforward one-shot licensing agreement is pretty easy). Any insights?

JM

On the other hand, Jean-Marc, there is a linkage between creative and financial controls that some creators may not wish to fret. And someplace between those categories is the issue of personal concern; for example, a creator who simply wants to make sure that his work is not expunged or forgotten, or that his character is not turned into something else.

I'm not sure a blanket policy here is possible. Charles Schulz does not want any PEANUTS strip created by anyone after he dies. Other creators -- like Dik Browne and Chic Young -- not only wanted that but, long before they died, had their sons working on the strips.

I know nothing more about the Charlier/Giraud matter than what you have posted here and I see strong arguments for both sides. But here's a question: What if, while Charlier was still alive, he suddenly decided he didn't want there to be any more BLUEBERRY stories? Suppose he'd up and said, "I think we have done all that can be done with this character and I don't like the ideas my collaborator has for continuing this. I would rather end it now." Would he have had the legal right to terminate the series? In your view, would he have had the moral right?

Regarding DC: It is my understanding that DC has turned aside every offer (and they've had many) from outside publishers to reprint old DC comics. This stems from a company policy decision made a few years back. It was explained to me but I'm not sure I can re-create the explanation in sufficient detail to have it make sense. It devolved from some sort of master Time-Warner corporate plan for vertical integration that holds that the goal of each division should be to control all aspects of a property's exploitation, just as the WB Stores now control a goodly chunk of the retail end of Bugs Bunny merchandising. But there's more to it than that so don't go by my explanation.

But there is a great difference between passing on the ownership rights to someone and insisting that the person who gets those rights actually do the creative work himself. The son needn't write the comic; he can let others do the writing, and his job is not so much one of being creative as in being selective. Had the writer willed his rights to, say, Evanier instead of to his son, would that change in your mind what rights the inheritor had?

And I disagree that a script is nothing without the art. If that were true, why would we bother writing them? One can publish a script on its own. One can give the same script to two different interpreters and obtain results that have some strong similarities.

Mark:

If Charlier was alive and had decided to stop BLUEBERRY, yes, Jean wouldn't have done it without him.

What it boils down to now is, Jean, knowing how much of himself he put into BLUEBERRY, and having his own (even if imperfect) understanding of the character, does not think it's up to Philippe Charlier to tell him what to do.

I, too, can see both sides of the equation, but ultimately I'd site with the survining, creative member of the team.

Re: the licensing of DC properties. I assume this brilliant policy was adopted *after* the licensing of the BATMAN strips to Kitchen Sink?

>> Nat, legally, the way I remember it, it's the finished product that counts: comic book, opera, film, etc. Something written, or drawn, for the purpose of making that finished product is indeed important, even vital, creatively-speaking, but is deemed to be only a component of the sum total.

The courts drew a difference between, say, a novel which is then adapted to film, and a script written for the intention of making a film. The intent of the parties is made material in the publishing agreement.

Which is why they also ruled that the writer was entitled (in the absence to a provision to the contrary in the agreement) to the same split on sale of art -- and the artist would equally be entitled to the same split were the writer to publish the script separately.

JM

To Jean-Marc...

Okay. So if Charlier were alive and wanted BLUEBERRY to cease, Giraud would have respected that desire...but why? Out of respect for a collaborator? Or because it would have been personally messy to try to do more with Charlier running around, saying they should not be done?

While we're at it: Supposing Charlier designated a writer in his will to carry on BLUEBERRY. You have said a problem is that Charlier's son is not a creative person. Leaving aside the fact that there are plenty of people writing comics world-wide of whom that might be said, what if a "creative person" had been annointed...but Giraud thought this person was a dummy with no understanding of the character?

Regarding the DC/Kitchen Sink projects. I believe that the policy to which I alluded was not as firm when those were initiated...but I believe also that there was some recognition by DC that, in this particular case, Kitchen Sink could bring something to the enterprise other than publishing. DC did not have decent copies of those newspaper strips; Kitchen had access to copies and a willingness to do a lot of labor-intensive reconstruction work that DC did not feel would be, for them, immediately cost-efficient. So DC got their property restored (and recopyrighted) by agreeing to this one.

And, as I said, the policy was not then set in cement. Actually, it probably isn't even set in cement right now; more like real, real dry Play-Doh.

Not that this affects any of the underlying issues, but it was PLASTIC MAN DC didn't let us get our mitts on, not SUGAR & SPIKE.

I'm still trying to find out who owns the Carl Barks M-G-M Barney Bear stories. Since everyone I've contacted at M-G-M basically professes total ignorance of any of this material, the temptation to just start reprinting it and see what happens is pretty great. Although I guess there'd only be a few more years until it's public domain and we can all do with it as we please, and in the meantime, there's that non-authorized European edition...