KID KLASSICS: A COMICS CONTROVERSY - CARE TO COMMENT?



Superman's first issue of his own comicbook

Consider, if you will, the
following scenario.  A person
buys an ornament for £2 from
a charity shop.  Later, upon
reflection, they decide that
they don't really like,it, so
when someone collecting for
a jumble sale chaps their door,
the ornament is handed over
to help raise funds to repair
a leaky church roof.

Ten years later, the
first person is watching
ANTIQUES ROADSHOW
and sees "their" ornament
declared as being worth
£20,000.  Do they have a
moral or legal claim on any
of that money if the current
owner decides to sell?

Now consider this.  Someone asks an artist to paint a picture of their
house and gardens.  He charges them £300 and is extremely pleased at
the amount he has secured for himself.  Five years later, a visitor to the
purchaser's house is so enamoured of the painting that he offers them
£5,000 for it.  Over the years, it changes hands for increased amounts
until it's worth £50,000.  Does the artist have a moral or legal claim
on any of the money it has changed hands for over the years?

The answer is surely "no" - isn't it?

So - what's the difference between those two examples and
what happened to SIEGEL and SHUSTER over SUPERMAN,
or JACK KIRBY and the many characters he created or co-created
for MARVEL or DC COMICS?  Or the work LEO BAXENDALE
(or any artist you care to name) did for D.C. THOMSON or IPC/
FLEETWAY?  I would suggest none at all.

If you consent to sell something outright for an agreed fee,
then it's really nothing to do with you what the purchaser does with
his purchase or how much he profits from it in the years to come.  If you
buy a house for £80,000 and then sell it for £100,000, the previous
owner (even if he built the house) is neither legally nor morally entitled
to a share of your profit.  And, back in the day, that's the way it
was done in the world of comics.


Batman's first issue of his own comicbook

That's not to say that
I have anything against
present-day creators'
rights, profit-sharing,
copyright ownership,
artwork return, or any-
thing like that - because
that's the way things are
done nowadays.

However, back in the
1930s (until the late '70s,
early '80s), comics were
just a job to the writers and
artists - 'twas the publishers
who took the financial risk
in launching a new comic-
book, so why shouldn't
their share of the profits
proportionately reflect
that risk?

When a publisher bought a character, they bought it outright - if it
was a success, they made money, if it was a failure, they didn't.  It's a
safe bet that there were a lot more failures than successes in those
days.  That was just the way the cookie crumbled.

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?  Let's hear them.

Posted in: Cartoons