The comic book industry is revolting!
While some artists and writers have held this opinion for years, the phrase is becoming less a joke and more of a rallying cry every day. Due to Copyright Law revisions that took effect January 1, 1978, the entire comic industry has become as volatile as one of its own superhero tales.
DON’T SIGN THIS CONTRACT: the comic creators fight for their rights
Neal Adams was among the first to recognize the impending problems (See MEDIASCENE 29). He cited the 78 copyright revisions which granted creators greater rights and guarantees under the law, and attacked DC’s policy of artwork release contingent upon waiving all legal rights of possession and copyrights.
Adams rebelled against this practice by refusing to work for DC, and warned his fellow creators of the dangers ahead with written and verbal statements. Some listened, but most could not afford the financial loss that a boycott would entail. He particularly warned against the continued compliance with the existing systems at both DC and Marvel, both of which amount to forcible contracts signed under financial duress.
It would appear that Neal’s warnings were well founded. According to various accounts, comic veteran Dick Ayers was dissatisfied with the waiver printed on the back of his paycheck, and informed Marvel that he would no longer consider it binding. Soon thereafter, Ayers stopped receiving residuals for reprints, and found himself unable to secure work at Marvel. Ayers took the case to court, and the judge decided against him on the basis that he had signed hundreds of similar checks over the years, and that it was too late to decide that he was unhappy with the clause. The reason for Ayers’ loss was his own legal ignorance. By losing the case, he established a legal precedent that will hereafter work against similar claims by anyone in the industry. At this time, Ayers is again receiving his reprint residuals.
Marvel Comics formally and publicly entered this complex arena of debate on Wednesday, May 3, by issuing an Agreement to staffers (reproduced here) which was found to be surprising, insulting and abrasive. Objections were against the demeaning language of the Agreement, which made it appear as if they were begging for work, and should be honored that the company allowed them to produce material which the company would own forever after. They were also disturbed by references to demands upon the use of their names and faces for promotional purposes, and the idea of surrendering all rights for all work done in the past, present and future. Still, a number of them signed the document.
Neal Adams was asked to comment on this policy, primarily because he has been keeping a closer watch on the copyright situation than most creators, and has made efforts to organize comic artists and writers into a self-protective organization.
“Actually, the Marvel Agreement is not significantly different from DC’s artwork waiver, and DC sees itself as some type of “good guy” right now. In reality, the real difference is that DC only presumes to take away creators’ rights one book at a time, while Marvel is trying to go after every piece of work, sketch, or layout ever created in their service, including material not even produced yet.
“Much of this has all been standard procedure for quite a while, but they at least had the good grace not to come out and be so vulgar about their greed in the past. Now everyone can see exactly how badly they are being exploited, and how poorly they are regarded by the companies they support.
“The problem was aggravated by pressures to ‘hurry up and sign,’ and several younger, more financially vulnerable artist were led to believe that their futures with Marvel would be gauged by their compliance with the Agreement. I actually had people coming to me, scared, wanting to know what to do about his silly piece of paper being pushed on them.
“The sad truth of the matter is that comic creators simply do not know what their rights are under the law, and we are all depending upon the companies to draw up our contracts. I’m not even positive that they know what they’re doing in the legal sense, other than taking the easiest route to acquiring any and all rights from us, whether they are entitled to them or not. Dick Ayers’ case seems to indicate that there is a vague area in the law where prevailing practices are binding if you cooperate for a period of time. We need professional help now, because the reality of things is that the companies, both Marvel and DC, are out to make money every way they can, while we are primarily concerned with having fun creating comics.
“We are not against the companies, and I don’t think, even for a minute, that Stan, Jenette or anyone is maliciously out to ‘get’ comic artists and writers. In fact, I consider them all honorable people with whom I have had agreeable relationships in the past, but they are not the ones drawing up these contracts and agreements and purchase orders. The major thing is that we both, company and creator, need each other for survival, and I can’t imagine us not getting together.”
After becoming aware of the Marvel Agreement, freelance editor-writer Archie Goodwin and contract editor-writer Marv Wolfman decided to take the matter up with Stan Lee and Cadence President James Galton. They found that Lee and Galton were unaware of the existence of the paper and its phrasing. According to Goodwin, “Stan agreed, once the problems had been discussed, that he could see how the document was very poorly presented from a working writer’s viewpoint. He admitted that he hadn’t even known of its presence, and promised a careful rewriting for future distribution.”
Wolfman’s view of the meeting was that “both Stan and Galton were very agreeable and reasonable about the whole thing. Galton, who comes from TimeLife publishing, was surprised that such turmoil could have risen so quickly among so many professionals. He is very much a businessman, and didn’t understand the feeling of paranoia in our industry, particularly since it is such a small-money publishing venture. In any case, he couldn’t understand why we hadn’t been seeing lawyers for all these years.”
Curiously enough, the entire problem may not have come to light if the Agreement form had never been drawn up and passed out. All of the points that were itemized are already covered by individual contract agreements in many cases, and the back-of-thecheck contract has been upheld in court.
So, why was the Agreement even written?
Nobody seems to know for sure. When asked, Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter couldn’t answer the question: “I’m speaking personally and not for the company on this matter, you understand, but I found the paper redundant on almost every major point. I’ve been in the business for a long time, and there was nothing particularly new or unusual in this paper. It was just something that came down from the house counselor, and neither I, nor most of the corporate people ever really considered it necessary. Apparently the house counselor wanted to clarify company/employee relations once and for all. If people consider this Agreement to be exploitative, it’s unfortunate, but that is how this industry has evolved over the past 40 years.”
This is the point of view that Adams sees as demeaning, and feels that this is an excellent time to correct the flaws of comics’ evolution: “Currently, about 70 per-cent of all publications try to insert the “work for hire” clause in their contracts, but there is a growing rebellion against it everywhere.
“The point is, creators are supposed to be protected by the latest copyright revisions, regardless of past injustices, and simply don’t have to put up with the kind of dictatorial treatment they’re getting. What’s going on in the comics business shouldn’t even exist in this country it’s what caused the unions to be formed in other industries. The publishing world is understandably going after all they can get from creators, but the comics are downright barbaric about it because they don’t even want to tell you specifically what rights they are taking they just don’t want us to know what’s going on, and we keep signing papers prepared by their lawyers.”
Due to the Marvel Agreement, there is every chance that comics and their creators are heading for a major confrontation, and that the strength of organizational backing will no longer be exclusively on the company’s side. The timing of this entire problem has coincided almost perfectly with Adams’ plan for an organization known as The Comic Book Creators Guild.
This is an idea that has been discussed for over three years, and is rapidly approaching realization. In fact, a lawyer had been asked to hear the grievances of an ad hoc Guild committee just a few days before the appearance of the Marvel Agreement, so that they could gain legal insight and knowledge into the problems ahead.
With the appearance of the Marvel document, the industry was immediately polarized, and creators turned to Adams as the most informed professional for fast answers to their immediate problems. After a meeting in Adams’ offices, a flurry of phone calls went out to writers and artists in the vicinity, warning them not to sign the Agreement without consulting a lawyer. A handbill was also distributed the next day to freelancers at the DC and Marvel offices.
On Sunday, May 7, a special open meeting was held by approximately 40 comic artists and writers with two goals in mind: to entertain the feasibility of formally establishing The Comic Book Creators Guild and to try to clarify the issues in question.
A tentative organizational breakdown was proposed for the Guild, dividing it into three sections. First, would be the rank and file membership, to be contacted by mail for their written endorsement, and be responsible for voting on the major matters that confront the organization, such as minimum standards, contracts, and creators obligations to the company. They, in turn, would vote for a five-member board that would be the up-front representatives of the Guild. Third in the set-up would be a non-voting three member advisory panel of a secretary, lawyer and labor organizer.
Until all this is put in practice, an ad hoc committee is functioning to deal with the current Marvel Agreement problems. Adams, Marshall Rogers, Howard Chaykin, Val Mayerik, Chris Claremont and Jim Sherman are heading this temporary committee, and have drawn up a rough draft version of their counter-offer to the companies’ present Agreements and artwork waivers.
According to several writers who attended the meeting on Sunday, there was wide-spread interest in getting the Guild established so that there would be an organized group to oppose occasional differences with the company. This would also prevent the company from dividing creators against themselves by offering “special deals,” a practice reported to have occured when the Marvel furor was at its height.
The specific demands of the Comic Book Creators Guild will not be presented until the formal organization and registration procedures have been complied with and approved by the government. Progress is not grinding to a halt in the comic industry, however, and every effort is being made to let the companies know that the Guild is a positive step forward in company/employee relations.
MEDIASCENE contacted many of the top writers and artists in the industry, who in turn, have spent a week discussing the matter with their working peers.
Archie Goodwin noted that “no-one seemed to be particularly interested in the problems that might exist at Gold Key, Archie or Charlton-they just zeroed in on DC and Marvel because most people present worked at these two companies.”
Wolfman feels that “the new Marvel proposal will probably just be a better written version of the old one. As a matter of fact, I was first contacted by someone who works for DC, and learned about this problem from him, because I hadn’t been into the office all week. Then, a flood of calls came to me because I am technically Marvel’s senior writer on the East Coast. Everyone was asking me for advice, and all I could tell them was to see a lawyer. I am just not up on copyright law enough to tell anyone else what to do.”
Both Len Wein and Jim Shooter brought up the point that comics are suffering badly from the past winter, with preliminary sales figures ominously low. Both acknowledged that advertising and merchandising are bringing in fortunes on both DC and Marvel’s characters, and that the industry is more publicly prominent that ever before, but cited corporate practices that alter the flow of such money into non-comics areas.
Wein, while agreeing in principle with the aims of a Guild, noted that “we, as professionals, are less interested in the law than our craft. I, personally, just want to write my books in peace, collect my checks, and deal with people I respect. This is such a marginal business that I don’t think Marvel or DC can afford to make major financial concessions.”
There is every chance that comics and their creators are heading for a major confrontation
At DC, Mike Gold commented on the situation in general:
“You see, almost no one understands the new copyright changes-I know I can’t make any decisions or judgements on them-and it looks as if Marvel’s counselor quickly threw together something to cover the company’s financial and character interests. Our Warner lawyers very carefully tackled this problem well over a year ago, yet it’s strange that Marvel took over four months after the new laws went into effect to come up with their version.
“The tragedy is, that what Marvel has done may wind up affecting us eventually, by way of the Guild. We may recruit a few new artists because of this Marvel Agreement, but the long-term animosity is not in either of our interests.”
And what would happen if this problem snowballs to its ultimate extreme, and a partial or total strike is staged by the professionals- reprints?
“We don’t even want to think about that,” replies Gold. “But we, and I am sure Stan would agree for Marvel, have major advertising, paper, printing and distribution committments that must go on despite personal problems. On these levels, the decisions are out of our hands.
Jim Shooter was the only professional writer contacted by MEDIASCENE who did not feel that the Marvel Agreement was particularly offensive, but rather a very honest appraisal of the company’s relationship with its employees. “I personally don’t find anything degrading in being ‘work for hire.'”
“The company risks some $30,000 on every book they put out for a few hundred dollars profit. Good or bad, they put up the money, and don’t penalize a creator if the project fails. In the final analysis, comics are non-essential investments made by much larger organizations, and will not be allowed to operate at a loss.
“I feel that I am selling my skills to the company-I am for hire-so I don’t really understand Adams’ position on these matters. If he, or anyone wants to license an idea to Marvel or DC, there are ample precedents for reaching an agreement, from The Human Fly to the Howard and Burroughs material.
“As a writer, I support the Guild if it’s after minimum standards, retirement benefits, sick pay, etc., but this feeling of ownership they are promoting is just alien to me. I might have been more impressed with the idea if some of the more important pros had shown up at the meeting, but for now I’m just going to wait and watch.”
Shortly after the initial Guild meeting, Marvel presented their revised version of the work agreement, which Adams viewed as “a better sounding proposal, but still bad. They are trying to get everyone to accept it, but the blanket ‘work for hire’ problem is still included, and the opposition is very strong.
“We are meeting on May 15 to try to agree on a temporary, stop-gap form of work contract that will demonstrate our good intentions during this period. Actually, there are two proposals: first is an agreement very similar to DC’s, which gives the company all rights to the work they are currently buying, but only one book at a time, leaving the door open for future negotiations. The second contract is for the independent and daring artists and writers, which includes no references to work for hire, and calls for the listing of all rights being sold or retained.
“The ad hoc committee is not empowered to specifically recommend these contracts, but we have been advised on their actual legal foundations and protections. Ultimately, however, each individual will have to make his own decisions on dealing with the companies, a policy which would exist even if the Guild was already operative.
“The companies themselves seem to be finally coming around to the idea that a Guild can and will be formed. DC seems has been generally responsive to the concept, but Marvel is still playing their hand and remaining silent.
“For the present, the primary function of the Guild’s ad hoc committee is to present an honest, reasonable, and responsible alternative to the way the industry has been run for decades. We have the support of the young and energetic artists and writers, as well as many older professionals who have been waiting for this opportunity to organize. All of us love the comic form, and feel that we can contribute numerous changes and ideas that will help the industry grow and prosper.”
In general, it appears as if the comics industry is growing up into the real world, where the rules are much rougher and complex than most artists and writers are used to. The stakes are high, and both the company and creator interests demand expert legal advice where a friendly handshake used to suffice. The Golden Age and The Marvel Age have both passed, yet their business practices still endure-and this is the area which Adams, the Guild and most creators would like to see mature from 40s childhood to 70s professionalism.