Irony and True Disgust
At work, I really have more time on my hands than I know what to do with. ADD poster boy that I am, I make a habit to scan the Livejournals of people in fanfic. That's how I found the below...
http://pollards-picks.livejournal.com/169783.html
Gary Jones: On one hand I hope that Kirby's family do get a share of the copyright because I love his work so much but on the other hand I don't see why comic creators are entitled to them in the first place, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.
If I work for Volvo and develop a new carburettor, then I am not the owner of that device or have any right to it as it belong to Volvo.
Why therefore do people who work for a comics company get to own things created for that comics company?
I hope I've explained my question correctly.
Dino: Considering that is perhaps the worst possible analogy in history for an intellectual property, there is obviously no explaining this to you. As a creator, I'm actually insulted by that comparison
Gary Jones: Then give me a better one. How is being creative by writing or drawing any more creative than being mechanically creative.
I really don't understand why creating something for one company means you get to share the rights when in another industry you don't. Both to me have been equally creative.
Dino:If you don't see the difference, you are not a creator. Simple as that.
Several things struck me as wrong with that exchange.
First and foremost, the post was created to denounce the rude behavior of others to strangers, and yet here Dino is trying to brow beat a fellow writer. If the behavior of the 'fanboys' is disgusting, then the attitude Dino displays to Gary Jones is doubly so, as this is someone he knows, even in passing.
This isn't the first time someone's jumped on Gary Jones because they know he's a passive guy. Likely won't be the last. But anyone who does so should be ashamed. Anyone who knows Gary knows that he won't make an issue of things, even when he's in the moral right.
Second, the implication that car designers, architects and those that work with their hands, are not 'creators'. Airplanes, buildings and everything else designed by hand did not come into existence by themselves. They were created by people who had an idea and made it reality.
As writers, we only imagine people flying. But it takes builders and visionaries to truly make them soar. Pen to paper is important. We uplift the soul. But that doesn't make reality reflect our will or desires. Hammer to steel, does.
People who create with their hands are no less creators than those who rely on their mind. As someone who has done both, I'm vaguely insulted.
Lastly, I find myself in agreement with Gary, in principle. Marvel Comics is in the business of publishing comics with their characters and only their characters. In the 1960s, I cannot imagine that Kirby's contract said anything other than 'These characters belong to use, forever and ever'.
Kirby should have gotten a better deal, but in the end he did sign on the dotted line. I'm not an expect on intellectual property (boring class, actually), but I'm pretty sure that everything he did for them counts as work product. He was employed by them to create characters for them. In return, he was given the time and money that enabled him to create.
It may not seem fair, but that's the way it breaks down. If Kirby wanted a better deal, he was free to quit and go elsewhere, like he eventually did.
So barring some copyright reset that wasn't covered in his contract, I really don't see how his family is entitled to anything. Legally and morally can be two different things.
And yes, I am a creator. And a damn good one at that.
http://pollards-picks.livejournal.com/169783.html
Gary Jones: On one hand I hope that Kirby's family do get a share of the copyright because I love his work so much but on the other hand I don't see why comic creators are entitled to them in the first place, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.
If I work for Volvo and develop a new carburettor, then I am not the owner of that device or have any right to it as it belong to Volvo.
Why therefore do people who work for a comics company get to own things created for that comics company?
I hope I've explained my question correctly.
Dino: Considering that is perhaps the worst possible analogy in history for an intellectual property, there is obviously no explaining this to you. As a creator, I'm actually insulted by that comparison
Gary Jones: Then give me a better one. How is being creative by writing or drawing any more creative than being mechanically creative.
I really don't understand why creating something for one company means you get to share the rights when in another industry you don't. Both to me have been equally creative.
Dino:If you don't see the difference, you are not a creator. Simple as that.
Several things struck me as wrong with that exchange.
First and foremost, the post was created to denounce the rude behavior of others to strangers, and yet here Dino is trying to brow beat a fellow writer. If the behavior of the 'fanboys' is disgusting, then the attitude Dino displays to Gary Jones is doubly so, as this is someone he knows, even in passing.
This isn't the first time someone's jumped on Gary Jones because they know he's a passive guy. Likely won't be the last. But anyone who does so should be ashamed. Anyone who knows Gary knows that he won't make an issue of things, even when he's in the moral right.
Second, the implication that car designers, architects and those that work with their hands, are not 'creators'. Airplanes, buildings and everything else designed by hand did not come into existence by themselves. They were created by people who had an idea and made it reality.
As writers, we only imagine people flying. But it takes builders and visionaries to truly make them soar. Pen to paper is important. We uplift the soul. But that doesn't make reality reflect our will or desires. Hammer to steel, does.
People who create with their hands are no less creators than those who rely on their mind. As someone who has done both, I'm vaguely insulted.
Lastly, I find myself in agreement with Gary, in principle. Marvel Comics is in the business of publishing comics with their characters and only their characters. In the 1960s, I cannot imagine that Kirby's contract said anything other than 'These characters belong to use, forever and ever'.
Kirby should have gotten a better deal, but in the end he did sign on the dotted line. I'm not an expect on intellectual property (boring class, actually), but I'm pretty sure that everything he did for them counts as work product. He was employed by them to create characters for them. In return, he was given the time and money that enabled him to create.
It may not seem fair, but that's the way it breaks down. If Kirby wanted a better deal, he was free to quit and go elsewhere, like he eventually did.
So barring some copyright reset that wasn't covered in his contract, I really don't see how his family is entitled to anything. Legally and morally can be two different things.
And yes, I am a creator. And a damn good one at that.