Oh, and Paul, since you obviously know so much and I so little, you might want to tell your pal Aric Shapiro the final demerit he received was for creating an alias on the Byrne board named Bob Kanner.

Keep up the good work, Paul!

I don't think even Scooby Doo can help you. You've never been right about anything you've said about Byrne and his board.

You are loyal though, I'll give you that.

Do you actually enjoy the comics he's doing at IDW now?

Because he wants someone to pay him his normal page rate to work on him.

Erik, do you think a comic publisher should pay a creator his normal page rate to work on a character he owns or should there be some kind of deal, maybe a lower or no page rate in exchange for royalties?

Because he wants someone to pay him his normal page rate to work on him.

Erik, do you think a comic publisher should pay a creator his normal page rate to work on a character he owns or should there be some kind of deal, maybe a lower or no page rate in exchange for royalties?

I see. One of the JBF's rules is to not post under an alias & someone who was fully aware of this rule was banned?

Where's the justice???

do you think a comic publisher should pay a creator his normal page rate to work on a character he owns

That's a damned good question, especially as posed to a (former, I think) publisher of Image Comics. Not because it'll make for a cool argument between Byrne and Erik Larsen (which it would), but because it's a very legitimate question to ask if comics are ever to get away from the work-for-hire-or-nothing mentality. Publishers are entitled to make money as well. Although nothing I've heard indicates Image is less than completely fair, there's still issues raised, like the percentage they expected from a reprinting of Rick Veitch's "Bratpack". Again, this could make for a good argument, but I'm more interested in what a publisher deserves from a character he has no intrinsic right to.

It's very easy to complain about the injustice Siegel and Shuster suffered. It was an injustice. But that injustice made possible whatever version of Superman attracted anybody under the age of 80 who is reading this. There's no control group, so no one can say whether or not Superman would have been as successful under Siegel and Shuster's vision as under DC's editorial power. It's long been pointed out that if DC or Marvel had given Jack Kirby the same deal any new freelancer has gotten for the last 30 years, he'd have been a happy (and wealthy) company man for life.

Byrne, personally, seems to approach the characters in the sense that he's more interested in doing what's right by fictional superheroes than in asserting the rights his undeniable talent deserves. I've never read ROG-2000, I don't care about ROG-2000, but Erik is absolutely right asking why he's never done anything with ROG-2000 if he has the right to do so, and the slightest interest in doing so. It's his character, doesn't he care? Or does he assume he'll create more characters, just as popular? And, in this case, where is Byrne doing the next ROG-2000?

Most comic book artists need a publisher to bring their art to the printed page. However much one defends creator's rights, that's a fact. Likewise, however much one defends creator's rights, the publishers need to earn a living too. If Charlton had seen any way to exploit ROG-2000, they could have done it, and with Byrne's full support. Dark Horse or Image won't give him the same deal, even though their contracts might be better for Byrne.

So what options are available to the publishers? If we acknowledge every single one of the complaints against them (and they are legion even if we think tons of them are just sour grapes), what option do the publishers have? Sure, Dark Horse will make more money from Frank Miller doing "Sin City" or Mike Mignola doing "Hellboy" than on almost anything else, even though they don't own it. Damn right they get a chunk of the movie money. But unless they have the big-budget movie option right in front of them, why on earth should they go out of their way to publish any comic book where they don't have any rights to the characters?

So what should they pay for?

Look at the Gaiman/Eclipse/"Miracleman" problem. Why should Eclipse have done so much to make that comic happen if they didn't have a share in the character? And why don't they deserve a bonus for their work? If it turns out that they never had a share of the character (after untold legal bills have been paid) then don't they still deserve something for publishing those stories that wouldn't have been told otherwise and would be undeniably profitable if they were still published?

Fine, Byrne wants to be paid the rate he's accustomed to in order to work on a character that he owns. This isn't about Byrne, it's a damned good question to ask Erik Larsen. What should a publisher pay for? Where should the distinction be made between creators and publishers and what each are entitled to? You can't make everybody happy forever, but morally, where is a good line to be drawn, and what payment is deserved as a result?

I think they certainly could do that--but they'd probably want a bigger participation on the back end. When First was around and getting decent numbers--I'm pretty sure they were paying page rates. I can't fault a creator for wanting security and the best possible deal but those kinds of demands, these days, means unpublished work (like You Go, Ghoul) and having to draw Star Trek comics. I dunno--maybe John prefers doing that. I prefer doing my own characters but there are other who clearly enjoy working on other people's characters.

Given the track record of Byrne lately--I doubt many publishers would be willing to take the risk on paying him a full page rate for something he created. The numbers just aren't there.

I didn't say Byrne was wrong in banning him since he broke a rule but since Aric posted here acting like he didn't know why he was banned, I thought I would let you know the reason.

Carry on.