ACT OF CREATION: CREATED BY...?

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/general/ActofCreation/Artist.jpg" align="right"><i>by Dave Elliott</i>

CREATED BY…?

Two words that define so much in a persons head, not so much about who did/does what but, about who created the whole character, the concept, the supporting cast…

Picture this (in an awesome Rod Sterling voice); a talented artist sits alone in his studio wanting to be appreciated for his ideas as well as his artistic talents. On his drawing board sits a rendering of a superhero. This character is dark and brooding, like any good piece of art it speaks volumes. We can see he is angry, that he prefers to serve his form of justice at night and violently. The poor state of his costume shows that he has either had a bad night or that he lacks the wealth of a Bruce Wayne. Along the bottom is written "THE MIDNIGHT FREAK".

Ding – dong. The doorbell rings and his friend turns up with whom he is going to see a movie, this friend is a writer.

So the writer sees the drawing and thinks it is amazing, what's more it inspires him to come up with ideas that the artist didn't. Now the artist makes it clear he only wants this character doing a certain sort of thing, in a certain sort of way. The writer has no problem with that and as the two head to the movie theater he comes up with several ideas for a supporting cast and even the beginnings of an idea where and when this could all be set.

This guy is a high school student who actually gets a real rush out of fighting evil and we later find out that the cause of this is his living within an abusive family; the father is in a gang or the mob. Together they come up with the title "MIDNIGHT HIGH" for the first story arc and the writer starts fleshing out the whole scenario.

At the theater they meet with another artist and enjoy the movie. Afterwards they have a coffee and continue discussing the idea, where the other artist throws in some ideas and a few sketches for slight costume changes and some supporting cast ideas of his own.

Our first artist takes this all on board and that night goes home and feverishly makes changes to his character. Meanwhile the writer is writing up an outline and e-mails it to the artist to read. It's about 30 pages long, so the artist reads the first page. It sounds like what they discussed so everything is great.

They decide to try pitching it to a comic company that the artist is working for. The artist sets up an appointment and goes and makes his pitch. They like what he is talking about. Love the character designs that the two artists have drawn. They would like to read an outline so he tells them he will e-mail the outline the writer has written.

But here they frown a little. They like the project, but they have their own ideas for who is going to write this. Artist says it's not a problem, it is all his. He created it. It's his character. They say great and when he gets home he e-mails them the outline.

Then he doesn't hear anything for weeks.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/general/ActofCreation/Writer.jpg" align="left">He calls and on his tenth attempt he finally gets the editor. "What's the problem?" He asks. "I thought you liked this." The editor sighs, "We did, but I told you, we wanted one of our own writers to handle the script."

"That's not a problem," the artist says quickly. "You can hire who you like because I own this."

"Not according to the outline you gave us."

You see, the writer felt that by now this was his project as much as the artist. He had created a whole supporting cast, created an environment for these characters to be set, and more importantly, he felt he had actually been the one who breathed life into MIDNIGHT FREAK. If the artist had read the entire outline, not only would he have read a lot of extra material that he had added, but at the end there was two lines that would have made him turn white.

The writer had copyrighted the concept to the two of them and had gone the extra step of registering the outline in both their names. A decent move to protect them both.

The above is based loosely on a true story. Artists beware… Read everything the writer gives you, if you're not prepared to do so you are wasting both of your time and efforts, plus you risk looking like an ass in front of others. Also all writers and artists should know what their limitations are and acknowledge them.

So, who do you think created "MIDNIGHT FREAK"? The writer, the artist, or both?

The next question is, whether or not the can decide on who created the character, who owns him?

Difficult choice isn't it? Not if you're one or other of these creators. One feels that he created the character, and he did, <i>but</i>, the writer did most of the creation of the world, fleshed out the character of the character, made him three-dimensional. Spider-Man isn't Spider-Man just because of Peter Parker, it's Aunt May, Mary Jane, Gwen, Harry, Norman, Flash, Doc Octopus, Vulture, Kraven, Chameleon, Uncle Ben, the crook that shot Ben, Sandman, the list goes on and on… They weren't the creation of just one person. Now, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created enough that anyone following them could not be counted as a creator of Spider-Man, although they might be able to take credit for a particular new character, as that world had been defined by then. Any one else is just coming in to play with Stan and Steve's toys.

While certain creators can create, write and draw a project themselves, most can't. Some one can come up with a cool idea and character but eventually it needs to be visualized. At that point, what importance to you put on that visualization? Do you keep asking artists to do it until you find one that will not take a claim on any rights or do you try and find the best artist you possibly can who will really make your idea shine?

I've seen writers start a project over again because the artist has inspired them to the point that they will base more of their idea on what the artist has come up with.

You see, comics are very much like film, as in they are a collaborative process and the more the artist and writer are open to input from the other the better the project will be.

Writers always think that they are the most important element and artists feel the same way. But in the context of this argument, before you discuss ideas with anyone else and incorporate them, whether written or visual, you must make one thing clear. This is <i>your</i> idea. They can offer ideas but this is not to be shared. That person may balk at that and not help you or they might want to negotiate. What will you be open to and how valuable do you see anyone else's input?

You might think this is difficult to do with a friend, but if you want to keep them as a friend, get this straight upfront. If it is someone who is going to do more than offer a few ideas over a beer and really collaborate with you (as writer or artist) make sure they understand the situation between the two of you. If they are an artist and you can't afford to pay them any money then you will more than likely have to agree to share the copyright and all profits with them, but make sure who has deciding vote if Hollywood comes knocking. I know writers who will not take a penny from any royalties and give them all to the artist on a project to make sure they have the control of the property while sharing any profits with the artist from outside the sale of the comic itself.

If you do not clarify all this upfront it can only get ugly or take up way more time later down the road.

Both writers and artists aware that you fellow collaborator is probably viewing their importance the same as yours and that they are talking about this project the same way you are. This is <i>my</i> latest concept/project/idea. I really do have to keep stressing that point.

If you have a studio and are paying people to do something, sure, take all the rights. Whereas if you are not receiving any payment, you should be justified in taking both equal share of the copyright and an equal share of any other royalties that might come. But don't take the <i>credit</i> for what others have done.

In my experience, it helps if more than one person is involved in a project. Sometimes there is a person involved you wished wasn't, but you have to make the call, is it worth it to proceed with this project with them, if without them you don't have one at all? The person who brings the most to the table usually ends up being the one that often gets to call a lot of the shots. Is it fair? Usually it doesn't feel like it, but there will always be other times when the shoe is on the other foot and someone is probably thinking that about you.

But <i>please</i> remember the most important thing, get the legal work or at least a letter of intent set up between you all as soon as possible, because you'll regret it later…

Now seriously, guys, who is the most important… The WRITER or the ARTIST?

<i>Dave Elliott, a comic industry veteran, is the editor at ThrillHouse Comics</i>

[AllAboutMe]

Like the new column. Very interesting topic and many good and valid points. In this situation, with all the input the wirter friend had with Freak, I would call it a collabrative effort and both creators share the character. Now, if said artist were to completely abandon every idea the writer came up with, maybe he has sole ownership of the character. But, like you said, it is a sticky and murky area here!
Reminds me of how Todd McFarlane used to crow about how HE created Venom rather than David Micheline who was the writer who came up with the concept of the character. McFarlane must have figured that the look of the character was what made Venom the phenom he was (is) rather than Micheline creating the whole idea of Venom. Hopefully this isn't another bone of contention when Spidey 3 hits the theatres and creators are vying for their slice of the pie.
Looking forward to the next column!

[Scott King]

Now seriously, guys, who is the most important… The WRITER or the ARTIST?
Comics are like film in the sense that it is a collaborative medium. You can’t simplify it down to something like this.

[WildKard]

Hopefully this isn't another bone of contention when Spidey 3 hits the theatres and creators are vying for their slice of the pie.
Looking forward to the next column!

It won't be since Marvel owns the rights and the creators signed over all properties to Marvel before they even started working on Spider-Man.

[Bill_Nolan]

I'm surprised there aren't a lot more situations like there was in "Ultimate Adventures" where Ralph from the Howard Stern show got credited with designing the costumes, but not as a creator of the character. That's basically what a lot of artists do who are listed as co-creators: they designed the characters' clothes. Now, whether or not that should count as "creating" the character is debatable, since comics is a very visual medium.

- Bill

[tiso_spencer]

Interesting to see a scenario in this type of work. I am interested in writing but never know I had to worry about that too.

[The Bry]

This is a huge help to me, I'm currently working on a novel based on a character of mine, well recently I wanted to do more with the world he lived in so I took part of the novel and now I'm in the process of turning it into a comic and I was wondering how exactly would this work since everything we're doing for this comic I had already created but hadn't used the way the writer I'm working with is using it for the series so it always made me wonder did he now own part of my series? even though I originally created it and even have it in the novel prior to the two of us working together hopefully this column will more questions of mine as it progresses

Thanks a bunch Matt!!

[James Seals]

It's the ol' Bob Kane/Bill Finger argument. Who created what?

Personally, I feel Bill Finger hasn't ever received the proper recognition he deserved and this is no way a slight to the wonderful vision of Bob Kane. Both men worked hard making that character what he is today, we just tend to forget one in the credit sequence.

But that could be because I’m a writer, so take with a grain of salt.

-James

[Snowspinner]

It's the ol' Bob Kane/Bill Finger argument. Who created what?

Personally, I feel Bill Finger hasn't ever received the proper recognition he deserved and this is no way a slight to the wonderful vision of Bob Kane. Both men worked hard making that character what he is today, we just tend to forget one in the credit sequence.

But that could be because I’m a writer, so take with a grain of salt.

-James

Bill FInger is at least as much a co-creator as Jerry Siegel was. The only difference is that Kane had submitted a much, much earlier proposal for Batman to DC before Finger weighed in.

[Superfrick]

Now seriously, guys, who is the most important… The WRITER or the ARTIST?


The Inker!

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

[Moriarty]

Very interesting and informative. Thnaks, guys.

[NielsVanEekelen]

Now seriously, guys, who is the most important… The WRITER or the ARTIST?
Well, I'm a writer, so I know what I'd like to think...:rolleyes:

But practically speaking, it's apples and oranges--the only thing that's really important is that neither tries to screw the other over.

I actually just ended a co-operation, where an artist friend decided he wanted to write the story himself. But there was no fight or anything unpleasant because we were both clear from the start that in this case I was helping him on his concept. So I agree on the advice that you should bring this sort of thing up with your collaborators as early on as possible.

Good article.

[H.W.]

Who's more important? No one. Everyone is (or at least should be) putting the best efforts in making the best sequential story possible. Seriously. Take any comic you love dearly. Now eliminate just one thing (inks, lettering etc.). What do you have now? Creating comics is a team effort. Always has, always will be. Okay, there are some creators who can kick it on their "own," but they still need to work with editors, the publisher and so forth to get it to you.

As for the "who's the creator?" I've heard many twists and turns about this. Some argue about it and lawyer up, others say at the get go that "they" all are the creator of XYZ and then there are those who just come out and say "I" own it and if you want to work with me, that's how it's going to be. It depends on the situation and the people involved how that pans out.

[johnchrist]

The writer or the artist?
Now that's a tough one, I consider myself both (sure as amature as I am) and would at first say they are equally important.
But then you think... well... would there be a story to read without the writer... NO, then again, where's the visual w/out the artist? And comics are visual.
I guess I tend to lean towards the writing side as I've seen a good story sell crappy artwork but rarely have I see great artwork keep alive a crappy story.
In the end I say both parties should split the profits down the middle but the creative rights should go w/ whoever thought the idea up in the first place.

[AllAboutMe]

It won't be since Marvel owns the rights and the creators signed over all properties to Marvel before they even started working on Spider-Man.


Let us not forget that Marv Wolfman created Blade while under contract form Marvel and he brought suit to Marvel wanting his share from the flicks. Marv and George Perez in fact get revenue from the Teen Titans cartoon because of Cyborg, Raven and STarfire yet have no ownership. So I would say it is not certain that McFarlane and Michiline will not be heard from.

Who is more important? Almost impossible to answer. But if I have to choose, in a highly visual medium, the nod goes to the artist. Especially, when, outside of those of us who are hardcore fans and know all the writers and all the artists and know what to expect of each, the first thing 'common folk' notice in a comic is the art. The cover is the first impression and a crappy cover on a book written by Alan Moore is going to be less of a success than a book written by Joe Blo with an Alex Ross cover. A bad costume on a great character is probably gonna fail 9 out of 10. Me, I know I can count on a good read from Alan Moore even if it was drawn by Joe Hack, but non-fans are gonna see crummy art and chuck it.

[invisiblist]

Thank you very much for this. I'm approaching this situation now for the first time. I used to suggest to a friend of mine that is an artist that we should work on a comic with him drawing and me writing. He always shrugged off the idea.

Recently he came up with some characters and wanted me to build the story around them. Outside of a very basic background for the characters (one with no background at all) he wanted zombies involved.

I've since come up with a finite story to be told with these guys, and everyone I run it by is impressed. But when it some down to it, he came up with the frame of the house. So we'll be having this convo sooner than later. I may even email him this article.

[350z]

The "chicken and egg" question, again. In the example that Mr. Elliot gave in his scenario, I am not sure that the writer was as entitled to do what he did. That is, the artist had a rough concept and a visual design for the character. While the character didn't have a millieu, the artist did have a concept about the character and how the character should and should not act. In my opinion, the writer took something that already existed and refined it. I am not sure that he should have the right to have any creative claim to the character other than what the artist was willing to give to him. In comics, writers and artists are always revamping characters and millieus so that those things don't even look like their original versions. I think what has happened here is something similar. A thing existed and then that thing was developed further so that it didn't resemble its original state. The difference in this example is that these people are paid to revamp, revise, and refine ideas and, unfortunately, the writer in this instance was not.

But, wow, if this situation really happened as was penned here, then that was really unfortunate--especially in today's marketplace when an intellectual idea can have lasting financial influence outside of the comic book genre.

Whenever I have had friends ask me to help them develop ideas (art or writing), I make our relationship clear from the start--always. I have a really good friend, and he is a writer. He knows that I have a degree in art and English, so he has solicited my help with a few things from time to time. Any project that he has that he wants to involve me with, we are always clear on the terms before any creative work starts. I have known this friend for well over twenty years. We're good friends. There are many understandings between us that we don't even have to speak about (even creative ones). But we are always clear about who does what, and who gets what on a project. I think the key is to be clear up front--even with your best friends.

[NielsVanEekelen]

The "chicken and egg" question, again. In the example that Mr. Elliot gave in his scenario, I am not sure that the writer was as entitled to do what he did. That is, the artist had a rough concept and a visual design for the character. While the character didn't have a millieu, the artist did have a concept about the character and how the character should and should not act. In my opinion, the writer took something that already existed and refined it. I am not sure that he should have the right to have any creative claim to the character other than what the artist was willing to give to him. In comics, writers and artists are always revamping characters and millieus so that those things don't even look like their original versions. I think what has happened here is something similar. A thing existed and then that thing was developed further so that it didn't resemble its original state. The difference in this example is that these people are paid to revamp, revise, and refine ideas and, unfortunately, the writer in this instance was not.
One might argue that while the artist created the character, the writer then took that and created the series.

If the artist wanted to take the character back to what he started out with before the writer cam on board, fine, but he tried to sell the book as the pitch the writer wrote. I don't think it's fair that her could then cut the writer out. (Should the writer have discussed putting that copyright notice on the proposal? Well, to be fair, they both should have made sure of what the other was thinking.)

[johnchrist]

The Inker!

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Don't make me quote Mallrats!

[Dave Elliott]

Now seriously, guys, who is the most important… The WRITER or the ARTIST?
Comics are like film in the sense that it is a collaborative medium. You can’t simplify it down to something like this.


Exactly my point. Every case is different.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

The writer or the artist?
Now that's a tough one, I consider myself both (sure as amature as I am) and would at first say they are equally important.
But then you think... well... would there be a story to read without the writer... NO, then again, where's the visual w/out the artist? And comics are visual.
I guess I tend to lean towards the writing side as I've seen a good story sell crappy artwork but rarely have I see great artwork keep alive a crappy story.
In the end I say both parties should split the profits down the middle but the creative rights should go w/ whoever thought the idea up in the first place.

As I said above, every case is different. Over at Marvel John Bryne and Chris Claremont ultimately parted ways over not so much creative differences, but rather (I suspect) who gets credit for them. Some artists are great when they get a script by someone like Alan Moore where he describes everything in such detail that the artist never has to think. Other artists shun such scripts and prefer to work with writers that will at least craft a story more to THEIR liking, thus getting a much better end result. Neil Gaiman's Sandman is the best example of this. A good script that plays to an artists strengths and likes gets a much better end project than something where two creators are shoehorned together writing and drawing one or other don't care for what they are doing.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

I'm surprised there aren't a lot more situations like there was in "Ultimate Adventures" where Ralph from the Howard Stern show got credited with designing the costumes, but not as a creator of the character. That's basically what a lot of artists do who are listed as co-creators: they designed the characters' clothes. Now, whether or not that should count as "creating" the character is debatable, since comics is a very visual medium.

- Bill

Hi, Bill

I wouldn't say that based on my experience. When an artist gets credited as co-creator they usually did more than character designs. Many late night phone conversations and hours sitting in starbucks nurturing a $1.50 coffee bouncing ideas off one another. I know personally that a piece of artwork can act as an inspriation to do better. Some things that an artist might see or feel he has leeway on can create a slue of new ideas for the writer. These are difficult things to place a value on.

There are some artists, like Dave Johnson, whose designs are so good and fresh that they would deserve a piece of any potential pie because if may be their artwork that sells the project.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

The "chicken and egg" question, again. In the example that Mr. Elliot gave in his scenario, I am not sure that the writer was as entitled to do what he did. That is, the artist had a rough concept and a visual design for the character. While the character didn't have a millieu, the artist did have a concept about the character and how the character should and should not act. In my opinion, the writer took something that already existed and refined it. I am not sure that he should have the right to have any creative claim to the character other than what the artist was willing to give to him. In comics, writers and artists are always revamping characters and millieus so that those things don't even look like their original versions. I think what has happened here is something similar. A thing existed and then that thing was developed further so that it didn't resemble its original state. The difference in this example is that these people are paid to revamp, revise, and refine ideas and, unfortunately, the writer in this instance was not.

This was the core of the article. But what I will follow up in my next piece is the difference between BATMAN and Batman. Doesn't seem like much does it? But if I said BATMAN is the character, Bruce Wayne and commissioner Gordon, then Batman was the same but Alfred, Robin, Two-Face, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Bat-Girl, Batwoman, Joker, Arkham Asylum, Gotham city, Batcave, Batmobile and everything else we have come expect of what makes up Batman. This is an example of where someone comes up with one character but so much else was created by others. Do you think they shouldn't get credit? I known dozens of artists who say they have created a character by doing a few nice drawings of a few characters and an idea of what their powers are, maybe even a name for their civilian identity. Sure, they have created that character, but if it takes two people to breathe life into that character by creating an entire world and adversaries and friends for him to interact with, then two people should get credit. Creating a character is just that. Joker, Catwoman, Robin, Batgirl, Gotham and Arkham Asylum have all had spin-offs. Should one person get all the credit when it was many?

I'm not setting out to say one is right or the other. Each creative group must work this out at the very beginning. Once everyone is in agreement then that is that and they can proceed.

It ain't easy. But get this out the way first and the ride will be smoother.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

The Inker!

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.


You won't get any argument from me there, I made my living for years as one. The pressure on the inker to ink entire books over the weekend and then get trashed because he 'ruined' such-and-so's pencils. They nearly have it as bad as the letterer and colourist.

:)

Dave

[350z]

Dave this is a fantastic discussion. Like I said in my earlier post, I am not so sure about the answer to the question that you put forth--and it is a good one to ask. I know it is a small way of looking at things, but if I was a judge and the creators brought this case before me, I would take few tylenol (washed down with a serious blast of tequila) and try to figure out: Can a thing exist if its antecedent did not exist? Should an entity receive credit for creation of that thing--especially if that entity has added the same (and perhaps more or less) creative effort and contribution to said thing than the creator of the original thing? I completely understand the scenario and just how much of a sticky mess the creators have. But, is it logical--fair--right--to give credit to a creator who has created a millieu for a character when that millieu would not have existed if that character didn't exist beforehand? I guess the larger question that you ask is even more difficult to answer: Is a comic book character a visual representation or is he the total of the experiences that he (the character) and his audience have shared over the years? For some people, the answer to that question may seem obvious, but looking at it more closely and following the same logic, those who have helped to breathe life into Batman over the years have contributed just as much--more even--to Batman than his original creators. But do they have a right to say, "I created Batman"? I am not sure if they do have that right.

Dave, for me to answer that one, I am going to have to leave someone out of the loop (unfairly), so I am going to need more educational tools and a bigger bottle of tequila to help me make the right choice.

[Dave Elliott]

so I am going to need more educational tools and a bigger bottle of tequila to help me make the right choice.

Pour one for me, my friend...

I think the most important line of divide is that of two people collaborating in the very early stages, no matter which of them came up with the initial concept, and the instance of some who creates and sells an idea, but where other creators come a long later to continue building it far beyond what the original creator was capable of.

But this is a complex issue which can only be decided by the creators in each and every instance.

Dave

[Juisarian]

IMHO in the semi-hypothetical scenario here:

If two people collaborated on developing an original character, in their own time, and then one of those people - Person A - takes that in pitches it, on his sole behalf, to a publisher, he should definately make it clear beforehand that his "friend" - Person B - is merely being employed to contribute to A's property development, and is not a co-creator. Otherwise it's only reasonable for B to assume he is co-developing a property for their mutual benefit. A should not be shocked to discover B thinks this way, if he hasn't been paying B for his time up until now.

[KELPIE]

I would just like to clarify something though.

Created by does not equal Owned by?

Correct me if I am wrong, however as no money exchanged hands each individual member retains ownership of their own work and is free to seek out a replacement artist/writer. This would then ultimately end up in a new creation.

By deciding to go forward and the artist consulting the writer for an approval to submit the pitch would that not be an acceptance of joint creative interests?

[Dave Elliott]

I would just like to clarify something though.

Created by does not equal Owned by?

Correct me if I am wrong, however as no money exchanged hands each individual member retains ownership of their own work and is free to seek out a replacement artist/writer. This would then ultimately end up in a new creation.

By deciding to go forward and the artist consulting the writer for an approval to submit the pitch would that not be an acceptance of joint creative interests?

This is very difficult. If A & B start work on a project based on an initial idea by A but is then changed and heavilly developed by the two of them, when they reach a point that they decide the two cannot work together, A has to go back to what he first started with and move in a completely different direction and B cannot really use any of what he put in because it was created in collaboration with A, unless it was something or characters he created that had absolutely nothing to do with A's character or concept.

On your point of "Created by does not equal Owned by?" Yes that is correct. Some people have created their character and own them, for an example most of the original Image guys owned the characters they started, but if you create a book for Marvel or DC you will not own it. The concept of Ownership gets very Gray. Some companies give the creator certain ownership over copyright, but do not give them the ability to take that idea somewhere else (and the publisher may own the trademark). Also when you pitch a project to some companies you may get to keep copyright and trademark, but you have to give up control of your property for other media (film, TV, videogames, etc...). You will benefit from the sale in those forms, but it is tandamount to giving a free option to the publish to shop it where they want and often have more control over how your property is developed for those other medias.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

IMHO in the semi-hypothetical scenario here:

If two people collaborated on developing an original character, in their own time, and then one of those people - Person A - takes that in pitches it, on his sole behalf, to a publisher, he should definately make it clear beforehand that his "friend" - Person B - is merely being employed to contribute to A's property development, and is not a co-creator. Otherwise it's only reasonable for B to assume he is co-developing a property for their mutual benefit. A should not be shocked to discover B thinks this way, if he hasn't been paying B for his time up until now.

Everything is different if A is paying B. But if they don't have anything in writing and A doesn't make clear to B with a signed agreement and he's not paying anything to B for his input then B is quite right to assume he is a partner on this project (and a court would most likely agree with him too).

[The Champion]

A very informative article, Mr. Elliott. I agree with your conclusions.

Just one minor quibble. It's Rod Serling, not Sterling. No big. Lots of people get his name wrong. :)

Alex.

[Dave Elliott]

A very informative article, Mr. Elliott. I agree with your conclusions.

Just one minor quibble. It's Rod Serling, not Sterling. No big. Lots of people get his name wrong. :)

Alex.

Thanks. Alex

Even editors need editing.

;)

Dave

[LoneStarFinn]

Don't make me quote Mallrats!

...Chasing Amy, actually. Putting Keven Smith aside though, this was a great article. Personally, being a writer I would tend to side my own kind. I think in the instance mentioned though, the artist had it coming. I mean, honestly, he stole the writer's outline and sent it to the publisher as though it was his own. Someone like that deserves to be rejected. And I think the writer wasn't really stepping on any toes as long as he puts both of them as the creators. That's my thought, anyway.

[Dave Elliott]

...Chasing Amy, actually. Putting Keven Smith aside though, this was a great article. Personally, being a writer I would tend to side my own kind. I think in the instance mentioned though, the artist had it coming. I mean, honestly, he stole the writer's outline and sent it to the publisher as though it was his own. Someone like that deserves to be rejected. And I think the writer wasn't really stepping on any toes as long as he puts both of them as the creators. That's my thought, anyway.

I agree. The artist thought that the drawing he did was "it." That it didn't need anything else. He probably didn't see it as stealing because it was all based on his drawing and his conversations with the writer.

Now sometimes an artist genuinely has worked it all out but lacks the confidence to write it themselves. He has seen hundreds of scripts, but writing one himself can be very intimidating.

I agree as well that the writer was right to put his name on it, but it should all have been worked out in the open before it even came to this. Honesty is everything, especially if you are going to be working together for the next few years (or more).

I know of a case where a writer registered the treatment because the artist kept promising him a contract, money and a percentage of anything it made in any medium, but after working for several months he still didn't get a contract and an animation deal plus toyline was on the table based on his ideas and treatment. He didn't try copyrighting the idea, just the work he did, just as many screenplay writers register pitches and treatments they do on other peoples or companies characters so they can't be ripped off.

Best

Dave

Dave

[babydave37]

I think the writer created the character. Until the writer started formulating the actual "character" of the character he was just a guy in a funny costume on a piece of paper. If/when this project would be optioned for further development outside of comics, the writer's work is what they're buying. The idea behind the character is the key--and if it's hollywood, it's the idea that they can corrupt and water down until it's nothing like the original premise.

That's not to say that the artist doesn't have a claim to the creation of the property. It's his artistic inspiration which fueled the story in the first place. I think it was a dick move to cut out the writer like that, and I think it's weird for a company to buy a design instead of a story. If companies go around buying designs like that, that's a testament to some way out logic. In this case since the company was basically buying the guy in the funny costume on the piece of paper, the artist would have the right to cut the writer out. Sending the writer's work to clinch the deal was another dick move, and he screwed himself over by doing that and it was a well-deserved screwing of oneself over. That's why the guy should have turned the page over when the doorbell rang. That's why I am hesitant to send out script pages when recruiting artists.

Having said that, both of them created the character together. Once a person starts to open their mouths to influence another, it's the listener's job to tell them to either shut up or keep going because that determines who gets credit for the creation. There's nothing keeping the artist from killing the deal to work out the project with his writer friend, but that's not the easy money scenario he was looking at previously. And it's the money that causes most of the problems....

Which is more important--Writer or Artist? Both. Neither. Comics can't be made without one or the other. Comics can't live up to their potential without each doing their best. Artists without writers you get early IMAGE. Writers without artists you get indie comics you never hear about. You need both for a good comic. Outside of comics, that's a different story--I think ideas and stories are what sell into other mediums. Besides, it's easier for artists to get work in comics. Writers are almost completely ignored. Just because I have fully formed comics in my head doesn't mean I would cut an artist out of their share. However if I could afford to pay as work for hire, I would. Either way, both individuals deserve something for what the put into it. That's just not the way the world works anymore... people are always looking for a way to one-up the next guy.

[Nat Gertler]

If/when this project would be optioned for further development outside of comics, the writer's work is what they're buying.No, they take it all. I can't think of a major superhero movie where they completely abandoned the costume design. The visual language of the comic is often very important to the big-screen interpretation.

[comicpod]

No, they take it all. I can't think of a major superhero movie where they completely abandoned the costume design. The visual language of the comic is often very important to the big-screen interpretation.

Yep.

Just take a look at the opening credits the next time you watch Spider-Man or X-Men or Fantastic Four.

The credits read something like: Based on the comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko or Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, not just Stan Lee.

Of course, it's not always a question of writer vs. artist because some creators are able to do both really well.

[Dave Elliott]

I think it was a dick move to cut out the writer like that, and I think it's weird for a company to buy a design instead of a story. If companies go around buying designs like that, that's a testament to some way out logic. In this case since the company was basically buying the guy in the funny costume on the piece of paper, the artist would have the right to cut the writer out.

In this instance he verbally pitched the idea that the two of them had come up with and then sent the proposal. The problem here was EGO. The artist thought, and then presumed, that his idea was SO important that anything else was just inspired by his artwork and therefore his property.

Big EGO + no BUSINESS sense = FLAWED project and doomed to failure or law suits.

Dave

[Dave Elliott]

No, they take it all. I can't think of a major superhero movie where they completely abandoned the costume design. The visual language of the comic is often very important to the big-screen interpretation.

Do you remember that Captain America TV movie where they put a crash helmet on him and changed his costume? That's one of the reasons why they don't do that any more.

I think it is also why a lot more comic properties don't get picked up. They might have great ideas but if the visuals need to be completely updated or changed they drop it. Many books have such a 70's and 80's feel to the costumes they would only work as comedies (many characters would look like they were part of a glam rock band if brought to the screen).

Dave

[babydave37]

No, they take it all. I can't think of a major superhero movie where they completely abandoned the costume design. The visual language of the comic is often very important to the big-screen interpretation.

X-Men

Besides I wasn't really thinking of superhero comics when I wrote that part. Hollywood changes everything. I seriously doubt the costume is what sells the idea to Hollywood. The story gets bought so that's reflective of the importance of the screenwriter, and the art of the story is more like storyboards they don't have to pay for because they're already done.

I believe an artist should get a cut of a development deal, but I don't think they should get an equal cut for just drawing up the idea.

The writer-artist relationship has much more infinite detail than can be summed up in an article. I think the point is to take precautions.

[babydave37]

In this instance he verbally pitched the idea that the two of them had come up with and then sent the proposal. The problem here was EGO. The artist thought, and then presumed, that his idea was SO important that anything else was just inspired by his artwork and therefore his property.

Big EGO + no BUSINESS sense = FLAWED project and doomed to failure or law suits.

Dave

What you're saying is he used the writer-guy's input to help sell the story (he verbally pitched the idea that the two of them had come up with ) which is a really horrible thing to do.

The only thing the artist owned was the picture he drew. After that, he was part of a collaborative process. If I had been the writer, I would have let him pursue the project without my story as long as he sold the pitch only based on his picture and as long as NONE of the things discussed before the pitch meeting made their way into the final product. EGO is always a problem because everyone is trying to make money to live and it's difficult to spare(or share) and idea thereby sharing the wealth.

With all of the recent movie deals (Tag, Talent, Leading Man), I wonder about the details of those deals... who got what percentage, how much did the publisher get, etc.

[Dave Elliott]

The story gets bought so that's reflective of the importance of the screenwriter, and the art of the story is more like storyboards they don't have to pay for because they're already done.

I believe an artist should get a cut of a development deal, but I don't think they should get an equal cut for just drawing up the idea.


I came up with these articles to let people know everything isn't always cut and dried and to see a little bit of the inside of the entertainment industry and how complex even the simpliest things are.

If the writer pays the artist then the deal should be in favour of the writer. If the publisher pays both then the deal will be split three ways with the creators sharing a percentage that ends up being less than the publisher (they usually get a producer credit of some description as well that brings with it a separate payment).

If the writer and the artist work for no upfront money on a book then any deal from Hollywood deserves to be equally shared. While it takes longer to draw than to write, you don't know how long the writer has been developing their ideas for. That is work as well.

Also you have to decide who has the right to make the final decision about what happens when Hollywood does come calling. What if two studios make an offer? While one is a larger financial offer you might feel that the other company will make a better film/videogame which would be better for you in the long run. Who makes that call?

Never gets easier...

Dave

[Nat Gertler]

X-MenThey kept elements of costume design, and major amounts of character design.
The story gets bought so that's reflective of the importance of the screenwriter, and the art of the story is more like storyboards they don't have to pay for because they're already done.The visual sensibility is very much what they buy. Watch Flash Gordon or Sin City (to name two comics-to-film adaptations) and then try to tell me that the visuals were incidental to what the studio wanted.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have a situation where the writer's contribution is that much more important than the artist's, but it's not the default.

Additionally, the artist general has more time invested in the effort.

[babydave37]

They kept elements of costume design, and major amounts of character design.
There were significant changes.


The visual sensibility is very much what they buy. Watch Flash Gordon or Sin City (to name two comics-to-film adaptations) and then try to tell me that the visuals were incidental to what the studio wanted.

Sin City was not developed by Hollywood. It's an invalid example. It was developed by Austin. Furthermore, Sin City was a single person's vision so it's not admissible there either.


Additionally, the artist general has more time invested in the effort.

For which they are compensated.

The stories in my head are mine. Just because I can't pay an artist up front to draw my story doesn't mean he/she should get half of my non-comics development deal. It does mean he/she should get half of the profits from the comic though.

I don't think it's as rigid as Dave said in the post above Nat's. I also think these articles will be an invaluable tool and can only help others through the similar situations they will undoubtedly face.

Thanks Dave! I look forward to more of these.

[Dave Elliott]

I don't think it's as rigid as Dave said in the post above Nat's. I also think these articles will be an invaluable tool and can only help others through the similar situations they will undoubtedly face.

Thanks Dave! I look forward to more of these.

Read again, mate

They aren't rigid. They are average, sure, but not rigid. Everyone has to make their own deal. You can't expect someone else to think of what is best for you, but if everyone is reasonable then you should be able to work out something that everyone is happy with. If not, be glad you found out now.

Best and good luck,

Dave

[babydave37]

Read again, mate

They aren't rigid. They are average, sure, but not rigid. Everyone has to make their own deal. You can't expect someone else to think of what is best for you, but if everyone is reasonable then you should be able to work out something that everyone is happy with. If not, be glad you found out now.

Best and good luck,

Dave

Agreed.

If the writer pays the artist then the deal should be in favour of the writer. If the publisher pays both then the deal will be split three ways with the creators sharing a percentage that ends up being less than the publisher (they usually get a producer credit of some description as well that brings with it a separate payment).

If the writer and the artist work for no upfront money on a book then any deal from Hollywood deserves to be equally shared. While it takes longer to draw than to write, you don't know how long the writer has been developing their ideas for. That is work as well.


This is what I was referring to. You used "should" and "deserves" so it's not exactly rigid, but it just read like you were setting the terms. I agree with most of what you've said so far in the article and the comments section.

Trying to find an artist who will work for back-end pay in the first place is terribly difficult.

[Nat Gertler]

For which they are compensated. These days, ongoing financial involvement (both as royalties/profit participation and in derivative works) in the product is a major part of the compensation. In fact, it's often the only compensation.
The stories in my head are mine.And if you want them to stay in your head, that's a good attitude to have. If you want them to get on the page...
Just because I can't pay an artist up front to draw my story doesn't mean he/she should get half of my non-comics development deal.Wait a minute, I thought you just justified it by his being compensated.

Here's a suggestion: if you want to maintain all the rights and profits for non-comics development deals, don't develop the project in comics. Do it in prose. Do it as a screenplay.
It does mean he/she should get half of the profits from the comic though.Half? Are you taking as much money for writing it as the artist gets for drawing it, as well as cutting him out of equal play in the ancilliary income?

Really, with your view of things, why aren't you taking the prose route instead?

[babydave37]

And if you want them to stay in your head, that's a good attitude to have. If you want them to get on the page...

They probably will stay in my head.


Wait a minute, I thought you just justified it by his being compensated.

Yes, for drawing the story. The artist would get half of the profits from the comic for his/her part in its creation. The story itself which would be optioned by another medium is mine, and I shouldn't be required to give the artist anything. Which isn't to say I wouldn't, but he/she definitely doesn't deserve half. Besides, the rights to a project can be downwards of 1% of what money is made from it. When an actor gets paid 25mil for a movie and the screenwriter gets a few hundred thousand and the studio makes 200mil off of it... It's pennies by comparison. The artist didn't create the story with me, but I think it's very fair to split the comic 50/50 with them. I think it's also fair to NOT split anything else with them 50/50. I'm not devaluing the contribution of an artist in the creation of the comic book, but just because there's no up front money doesn't make them automatically a co-author of the story.


Half? Are you taking as much money for writing it as the artist gets for drawing it, as well as cutting him out of equal play in the ancilliary income?

I don't see the problem. They're buying the story. Having it previously illustrated saves the buyers a step, that's all. Should everyone from art direction to directing get an equal cut of a comic book or novelization made from a movie they worked on? The person who created the story probably doesn't even get a cut--just the studio and the author of the secondary work.


Really, with your view of things, why aren't you taking the prose route instead?

Because I like comics, and comics affords more control for the author. Just because I'm not Marvel or DC and can't pay up front shouldn't grant someone access to the rights of my "intellectual property". That isn't ego; That's fact.

[Dave Elliott]

I think it's also fair to NOT split anything else with them 50/50. I'm not devaluing the contribution of an artist in the creation of the comic book, but just because there's no up front money doesn't make them automatically a co-author of the story.

It gets more complicated than that. The artist is joining with you to create this property. It is more than your idea, it is his storytelling that may sell it. In all honesty, there isn't much money to be made drawing comics so you're offering to give him 50 percent of the comic royalties is like offering to buy him a beer if he'll draw your comic. You have to offer him part of the bigger pie. Maybe not 50 percent but you've got to go into this preparing to be more generous. It's not like you'll be writing the screenplay, hardly anyone gets that chance. If you're successful maybe you'll make more money selling your second project and that might be based on a script or treatment without an artists help.

But, man, please the artist is VERY important and you won't find many takers on just offering 50 percent of comic sales. As good as your idea may be you need him.

Dave

[Nat Gertler]

The artist would get half of the profits from the comic for his/her part in its creation.So the guy who does most of the work only gets half the profits from the comics and less if any from the ancilliary? This is fair how? And the odds are' good that there won't be any profits from the comic -- so you should get thousands of dollars worth of free presentation art for your Hollywood pitch because...?
The artist didn't create the story with meYes, he did. If the people are seeing and optioning the comic, the story that they're going after was definitely created by the artist as well as the writer.
but I think it's very fair to split the comic 50/50 with them.Yes, I'm not surprised that you think it "very fair" to give yourself a larger-than-normal cut of the writer&artist money for the comic, in addition to giving yourself a larger-than-normal cut of the licensing income.
I think it's also fair to NOT split anything else with them 50/50. I'm not devaluing the contribution of an artist in the creation of the comic book,Yes, yes you are.
but just because there's no up front money doesn't make them automatically a co-author of the story. If they aren't co-author of the comics story, then why do you need them? Authoring a comic isn't just writing the script, it's creating the work.
I don't see the problem.I understand that.
They're buying the story.If you're confused that "story" is just "plot concept", then that's where you're confused. It's not. They're licensing rights to the whole kit'n'kaboodle.Having it previously illustrated saves the buyers a step, that's all. If that's true, then you should just be sending around your script, and not bothering with an artist. When they want to license something, they're generally responding to the entire package, they're not going "hey, this looks great, but it's because there must've been a script description that sounded good".
Because I like comics, and comics affords more control for the author. Than prose??? Just because I'm not Marvel or DC and can't pay up front shouldn't grant someone access to the rights of my "intellectual property". And yet, you want the rights to the artist's "intellectual property".
That isn't ego; That's fact.Ummm, no. Your opinion of what should or shouldn't happen isn't "fact", it's merely your opinion.