Mr. Busiek--
You are one HELL of a right-on, radical dude!

James wrote: "Umm.. Hello?? Self Published Comics in 1938? Have you ever heard of Cerebus and Dave Sim? First self published comic in 1979?"

If you think Cerebus is the first self-published comic, you are off by decades. Someone has already pointed to The Spirit, which was written, drawn, and published by Will Eisner before WWII. And I won't even claim that that is the first one.
(Also, while I don't have my reference handy, I think you'll find you're off by a couple years.

James: "Self Published Superman Comics in 1938 was not possible. Fanzines done locally perhaps, but not comics distributed around USA on a returnable basis. "

Which was not the only way to have done Superman... as S&S clearly knew, since it was not intended for comic books in the first place.

I think letters to Time-Warner are a good idea. Hey, it works for Amnesty International. But a lot of people have to write.

This is something non-comics-people can relate to too. For example, shouldn't somebody tell the world's most famous Superman fan, Jerry Sienfeld?

Sadly, I can't be an effective boycotter because I already boycott Superman comics because they suck. (OK, not all of 'em. By far the best recent ones were Scott McCloud's Superman Adventures).

Mind you, I think the real battlefield is going to be the courtroom. But a little public pressure can't hurt.

Maybe everyone who writes can come back on here and report that their letters are in the mail (that's similar to how Amnesty Int. does it--only they meet).

>>>I find what we are doing here is a better way of using that "energy" that we would otherwise use to fight over what Green Lantern is better Hal or Kyle.<<<

Nothing to fight about. Clearly Hal is better than that snot-nosed-little-maggot Kyle. And Richard D. Parsons would probably agree. Let's ring him up and ask.

[img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

------------------
*If The Red Bee Should Fall*
www.delphi.com/smithee/messages/

Hi Nat,

I know Eisner did some self publishing in the 50's I believe. I'm not 100% sure if The Spirit comics were it, but I do know he published a book about Kewpies. I don't know about any stuff done previous to WWII, that's something I'll have to research one day. My understanding is that his (and others) attempts to self publish were not successful.
Thus, making the point that two teenagers self publishing Superman comic books was not an option in 1938.

I should have re-worded my bit about self publishing, perhaps to say that Dave Sim was the first one to be successful at it.

As for the date of 1979, I wrote that on the fly, and I think I'm correct. Sorry If I'm not.

And yeah, I know Superman was originally ment for the strips. Lord knows they might have gotten a better deal if one of the papers/syndicates would have nibbled on him. I mean, if Bud Fisher made a million way back then..

------------------
Regards,
Jamie Coville
The History of Superhero Comic Books!
http://www.sigma.net/comichistory/

THANKS KURT!

I'm starting my certified letter as we speak.
Look (to anybody else that is reading this post) it may or may not result in anything but I'm going to try!
Getting screwed is a part of life. "A sucker is born every minute" I know that I accept that.
But I can't stand by with my arms crossed and see a widow and her daughter, that already suffered their husband and father's ordeal go through something similar again.
I'm drawing the line and making my stand and staying with it.
Again, Kurt thanks for the address and guys and gals outthere -- c'mon let's show comic book creators we are not geeks or freaks!
Let's show them we care! Write today and spread the word!
Do it NOW!

If there is a E-magazine or letter page ANYWHERE I'm going to write and express my feelings about this.

The Visitor:

LOL! Y'know? I was thinking the same thing last night.
What would Sienfeld think about this?

Anybody got his address?

Hey David:

LOL! With the kind of wit you've shown in those quick few lines I KNOW we can make a difference.
Man! I'd love to see the letter you'd write to Parsons!

Let's do it!

Edmalex wrote:
<>

While I agree that a publisher should be working to the author's advantage (one of the primary goals in my position as an editor is to improve -- or optimize -- the work of my writers), the publisher's primary motivating factor is to make money. Anyone who enters into a contract with a publisher thinking otherwise is hopelessly deluded. Yes, the creator is the "primary force" (in the sense that without them, the publisher wouldn't have anything to publish), but an assumption that the creator is due restitution based on his or her creations is flawed (see below). And, as for the creator being considered the "primary force" "everywhere else in the publishing world," that's an erroneous and grossly misinformed conclusion. Do you truly feel that, in the world of computer program publishing,for instance, anyone even considers who did all the actual programming (i.e. writing)? A good deal of the programmers who put together your web browser are likely credited somewhere in the program, but have you ever thought to yourself, "Wow, that Bob Johnson does some nice programming -- I'll have to check out his next work"? No, you think to yourself, "Wow, I really like Netscape Communicator -- I'll have to check out the next version." Further, while I'm always impressed with the work of the Oxford English Dictionary's current editor, I associate the work with the publisher first. The contributors are hired because they do good work, because they'll be credited for their work, but are under no impression that they'll be considered the "primary force" in the book. That's always going to fall on Oxford Press.

Charles Reece wrote:
<>

Yes, a more immediate pension would have been nice, wouldn't it? I'm not denying that. I think that's an appropriate expectation for anyone who produces a considerable amount of work for any one employer.

Reece again:
<>

First, it was hardly a moral principle for me not to expect kickbacks on something I'd sold outright. Of course, if there was a way for me to get more money out of it, I would (I'm a hopeless money-grubber), but I would hardly expect it.

Kurt Busiek wrote:
<>

Why do you only make assumptions that benefit the creator? Okay, silly question. Nonetheless, your reasoning for Siegel's heirs' rights is peppered (nay, littered) with statements like "As far as I can tell," "but very likely," "I don't know for sure, but," "I don't know what S&S signed, but..." and so on. I'm making assumptions for the side of the publisher simply because everyone else is making assumptions for Siegel and Shuster. I'm trying to balance the assumptions for the sake of argument.

Busiek again:
<< >>In my opinion, Marvel's outright (and completely illegal) theft of Jack King Kirby's art is infinitely more evil than DC's treatment of the Superman creators.>>

How so? DC didn't return Shuster's art either.>>

I should have amended that statement thusly so as to more accurately reflect the argument I was aiming for: "...Marvel's outright (and completely illegal) theft of Jack King Kirby's art is infinitely more evil than DC's treatment of the Superman creators as regards the signing away of copyrights." Sorry for the confusion.

Busiek again:
<< I'd never have expected that a TCJ editor would be this unaware of what's actually being claimed in a major comics-industry news story, or be this ready to assume that in the absence of any evidence, the publisher must be right.>>

For you to claim that I'm uninformed because I'm making the opposite assumptions as you was pretty unexpected by me, as well.

As promised the letter I'm going to write to the president of Time/Warner.
Remember it's just a draft.

Dear Mr. Parsons:

Superman.
Forgive me if I sound a bit maudlin but how can I not?
As many did during their childhood (and later try not to admit) I also tied a towel around my neck and proclaimed to all within earshot that I was going to save the world. I wanted more than anything to fly high in the clouds and touch the face of God. In the sixty years plus of this character's existence the potency of that first impression is still as strong as ever.
But there is another feeling, just as strong, that shadows this fictional character -- the very real feeling of bitterness. Truly, it is the only constant that survives the varied and, at times, conflicting stories about the creators; Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
The simple days when the shake of a hand and a man's word being sufficient to broker and seal a deal are long extinct. It's not possible in this day and age of rampant cynicism.
As I'm sure you are fully aware, the surviving heirs of Mr. Siegel have laid claim to fifty percent of the rights to Superman. This has had the effect of reopening old wounds.
It doesn't have to be this way. When men assemble and put their minds to a positive goal they can accomplish great things. History constantly proves itself on this fact.
You, sir, find yourself in the most unique and, others would consider, unenviable position to authorized Mr. Paul Levitz to take action which would possibly erase the years of bitter struggle that have dogged the creation of Superman with the stroke of a simple pen.
Mr. Parsons, nobody will win in a prolonged battle. The Siegels, nor your company, nor the thousands of fans and creators. A solution can be reached. I honestly believe that.
Be a hero. Save the world. Do it because you can. Isn't that a worthy legacy to have your name forever associated with.
Richard D. Parsons, the man who saved Superman. And all that without tying a towel around your neck.

Sincerely,

Ricky Cruz