Sunday, October 16, 2005
I can't post at the Creator's Conference (late to the table, alas. Maybe in a few months), but there's a thread over there regarding contracts - specifically new creators giving up a majority percentage of their ownership rights in order to get published. http://www.the-engine.net/forum/messages.php?webtag=ENGINE&msg=426.121
I wanted to support Lea Hernandez in that thread, and I think her opinion is an important one that got may have been lost on some people.
To me, the issue isn't strictly Tokyo Pop. They're a business and they'll do what businesses need to do.
It's the attitude of creators that bothers me the most. As artists, we've all been offered those jobs for "exposure." You know the ones: They want your expertise and skills but in the same breath they say they can't pay a lot of money but it'll be great experience, something for your portfolio and great exposure.
That crap plays off of the natural inclination of artists to doubt themselves and their worth, especially at the beginning of a career.
I can assure you, beginning electricians do not take jobs for the exposure, or for their portfolio. They either can do the job or they can't, and they expect wages commensurate with their experience level.
Creators shouldn't confuse the idea of "paying their dues" with "screwing themselves."
There is a difference between being a publisher and a property owner. Publishers do not suffer if a book becomes successful and it makes a lot of money.
They also do not suffer if they do not own the rights to that property and the creator then sells the movie rights. They didn't come up with the idea, they shouldn't cry about money that they didn't earn.
The argument that they're taking a chance publishing unknowns and should be compensated for it is bull. That's the business. If the people they employ don't make good publishing decisions, they should hire people who can.
To sell ownership rights before you know if a book is going to go on and be successful is insane. Especially a controlling interest. Do you think Ian Fleming did that? J.K. Rowling?
As far as I know, no reputable agent in the mainstream prose industry will let a creator sign onto a deal that gives away those kinds of rights for such a pitiful amount of money.
This is one reason I just roll my eyes at the comics industry in this country. With such poor self-esteem that allows this kind of exploitation, comics as a business is going to remain a third-string, marginalized medium. For ever.
And every creator who agrees to these kind of terms is also screwing over the creators who come after them.
That's one of the reasons I seek non-traditional comics publishing options. Because any publisher that insists on ownership isn't a publisher - they're a collector.
And that means they're not looking out for your best interests.
I wanted to support Lea Hernandez in that thread, and I think her opinion is an important one that got may have been lost on some people.
To me, the issue isn't strictly Tokyo Pop. They're a business and they'll do what businesses need to do.
It's the attitude of creators that bothers me the most. As artists, we've all been offered those jobs for "exposure." You know the ones: They want your expertise and skills but in the same breath they say they can't pay a lot of money but it'll be great experience, something for your portfolio and great exposure.
That crap plays off of the natural inclination of artists to doubt themselves and their worth, especially at the beginning of a career.
I can assure you, beginning electricians do not take jobs for the exposure, or for their portfolio. They either can do the job or they can't, and they expect wages commensurate with their experience level.
Creators shouldn't confuse the idea of "paying their dues" with "screwing themselves."
There is a difference between being a publisher and a property owner. Publishers do not suffer if a book becomes successful and it makes a lot of money.
They also do not suffer if they do not own the rights to that property and the creator then sells the movie rights. They didn't come up with the idea, they shouldn't cry about money that they didn't earn.
The argument that they're taking a chance publishing unknowns and should be compensated for it is bull. That's the business. If the people they employ don't make good publishing decisions, they should hire people who can.
To sell ownership rights before you know if a book is going to go on and be successful is insane. Especially a controlling interest. Do you think Ian Fleming did that? J.K. Rowling?
As far as I know, no reputable agent in the mainstream prose industry will let a creator sign onto a deal that gives away those kinds of rights for such a pitiful amount of money.
This is one reason I just roll my eyes at the comics industry in this country. With such poor self-esteem that allows this kind of exploitation, comics as a business is going to remain a third-string, marginalized medium. For ever.
And every creator who agrees to these kind of terms is also screwing over the creators who come after them.
That's one of the reasons I seek non-traditional comics publishing options. Because any publisher that insists on ownership isn't a publisher - they're a collector.
And that means they're not looking out for your best interests.
