Eleven pages and Mr. Broderick - who seems like a nice enough guy and whose work I've always enjoyed, particularly in GREEN LANTERN - has yet to explain his claim that DC "screwed" him. I have no problem believing it happened, but if he's going to put this claim out there he should explain what happened. Did the contract he signed - long after the woes of the golden age creators of Superman and Batman were well known - specify that he was entitled to some sort of compensation when his work was adapted into other media, or didn't it?!

techmann/Pat,
I warned you a few months ago. Comicon can bite sometimes. Thanks for sticking it out.

anything under the Vertigo imprint which offered a different percentage. From my experience with the company this battle goes all of the way back to when I left the Rag Man limited series due to the abuse that I was expected to suffer under Kevin Dooley, Andy Helfner, and Dan Raspler Which I did not tolerate. It was later reported to me by the Editorial coordinator of a conversation which that person had with their business manager that “they needed to make an example out of me” for leaving. Same business manager is , I believe, still there.
long grudges....... Pat

Every creator which has worked for DC during those years all signed the same contract form. It included a set payment for merchandising, film, television, live action, animation, based on the DESIGNS created by each artist. If it was a creator owned series, such as my Lords of the Ultrarealm series. Or later anything under the Vertigo imprint which offered a different percentage.Pat

Really. What do you do?


Stevv put it quite well, "If you call someone a hypocrite, you are pretty much by definition undermining their credibility."


This was not "drift" nor was it a tangent designed to engage the participants in further conversation. It was a private matter. And one by Michael's own admission WASN'T LATE, they had agreed upon a new deadline, "You know, I promised the man I would give him till' Dec. 5th...so I will keep my mouth shut until that date..."

But obviously Michael doesn't have the integrity to honor his own words.


Just as myself and others have the right to point out you and michael are wrong.


Many people have gone to the trouble of explaining why they disagree with you and it is not that we, "want to trivialize it simply because it doesn't involve some big evil corporation," if you are going to defend the man's action at least respect the arguments against it by reading them. Carlton stated it very well when he said, "This really isn't the place to air your personal problems with Mr. Broderick. If you have business of this nature to conduct with him, please do it via e-mail. As it is, it's coming off as if you're trying to shame him publically, and that's really ugly of you."

You and Michael obviously don't see any difference in the topic at hand and his unprofessional tactic so we'll just have to agree to disagree here. And no matter what the purpose of the commission, I'm sure Michael's enjoyment of the piece has only been enhanced by his recent actions. I'll bet he proudly tells the tale of how he heroically acquired this piece.

There's some piss-poor communication between Pat and Michael, for sure. But without getting into their problem, I'd like to abstract from it the issue of whether there's a difference between making complaints about a bad corporate behavior and bad one-on-one business transactions. On that, I disagree with you and Carlton: if a person is selling a service and isn't meeting his commitments after taking your money, then that's a legitimate thing to complain about publicly. Lawsuits are another (public) option, but they can be more trouble than they're worth (particularly when there's not a lot of money involved, just headache).

Again, I'm not taking sides on the particular example being discussed (other than my previous comment that Michael should've kept his word to wait until the 5th).

I would agree there is room to debate the difference, and would welcome the discussion. But my problem with Michael was that by his inserting this here it was not to discuss the topic but purely an opportunistic attempt to get some sort of leverage over Mr. Broderick. A problem that was being dealt with by his own admission, (he had agreed to a new deadline).

Yes there was bad communication, and I have accepted my part of that process. But the work has been sent, and I’m sure it’s been received by now. As to the specifics of my contract I have posted all that I wish to post. This is still an ongoing process with all parties. My whole point is to keep this situation open to the public, short of scanning the contract and posting it on any discussion board, which I will not do.
Pat

I was thinking, if I were looking for a Real Estate agent in the Schaumburg area, how hard would it be to find one.

Well, I'm coming in on this conversation late, but I'm curious, does the current DC talent liaison offer any help in these situations?

I know, years ago, a woman named Pat (whose last name I cannot recall) was in that role and, from what I recall, was lauded as being a big help to creators.