Especially given Brubaker himself isn't too bothered. I can see the arguments with the older comics, where the writers were not totally clear they were doing work-for-hire, but there was no question that's what Epting and Brubaker were doing by the 2000s. They get credit and sell a bunch more Winter Soldier books, and hopefully get a bigger audience for Velvet and their other creator-owned works.
Fortunately I am not following the bits of Twitter that are discussing this, they are mostly discussing Natasha's hair and Winter Soldier's astonishing eyeliner.
You've pretty much nailed it. I'm not sure where I'd draw a line in the sand - 2000s? 1990s? - but anything after that line you can say was clearly work-for-hire and all involved knew it, and Brubaker's Cap is certainly well after. There is a big difference between that and, as you say, earlier days when contracts were drawn up after the fact (if at all) and thus created circumstances that led to disputes
( ... )
I can see how work-for-hire sucks, and I can see the argument that Brubaker and Epting should be getting something for the use of characters they created (I am counting Winter Soldier as their creation) - but that is separate to whether they are getting what they should be getting under the contract that they signed.
I remember the same issue coming up with Ellis and Granov when it was revealed that IM3 was based on Extremis, and Ellis's reponse was something like "Yeah, that's how it works, that's why I wrote Red".
There is no valid argument that Brubaker and Epting should be getting anything for the use of Winter Soldier. They created that character under their work for hire contract, they were under no illusion they'd retain any form of ownership over him. There's no problem at all.
In this day and age, if creators don't want Marvel or DC to own a character, then their options are simple - don't sign that work-for-hire contract, or if you do, don't give them any characters that you might want to save for your creator-owned work.
As you say Warren Ellis says, that's just how it works.
(I worry I may be coming across as aggressive pro-Big Comics and anti-creators here. I'm not, honest. If I'm anything here, I suppose I'm anti-treating-creators-like-naive-victims-and-patronising-them-when-actually-they're-not.)
Here is some quality eyeliner action.
Hah! That is indeed quality. Who is it? It's not Jared Leto, is it?
Comments 6
And yeah, these people are idiots.
Reply
Fortunately I am not following the bits of Twitter that are discussing this, they are mostly discussing Natasha's hair and Winter Soldier's astonishing eyeliner.
Reply
Reply
I remember the same issue coming up with Ellis and Granov when it was revealed that IM3 was based on Extremis, and Ellis's reponse was something like "Yeah, that's how it works, that's why I wrote Red".
Here is some quality eyeliner action.
Reply
In this day and age, if creators don't want Marvel or DC to own a character, then their options are simple - don't sign that work-for-hire contract, or if you do, don't give them any characters that you might want to save for your creator-owned work.
As you say Warren Ellis says, that's just how it works.
(I worry I may be coming across as aggressive pro-Big Comics and anti-creators here. I'm not, honest. If I'm anything here, I suppose I'm anti-treating-creators-like-naive-victims-and-patronising-them-when-actually-they're-not.)
Here is some quality eyeliner action.
Hah! That is indeed quality. Who is it? It's not Jared Leto, is it?
Reply
Leave a comment