This is not Trek, although it may very easily become a Trek issues depending on the outcomes. Short form, Disney is arguing (apparently) that they purchased Lucasfilm's assets but not its liabilities, and is therefore under no requirement to pay royalties for previously published works: https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/
Yep, it's a very bad state of affairs that Disney is even trying this and, depending on how it plays out, could have major effects far beyond SW books.
Similarly, IDW (and Eaglemoss and Graphic Imaging Technology Inc) have been repackaging Trek comics from previous publishers (Gold Key, Marvel, LA Times Syndicate, DC, Wildstorm, etc). IIRC, the original writers and artists are not receiving royalties on reprinted material, even when by a new publisher. A quirk of the comics industry? I guess this was stated in their original contracts, but many would have been signed before the digital world was even imagined.
Someone can and should correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a slightly different situation. In ADF's case, the publisher hasn't changed but the rightsholder has. In the case of those comics reprints, the rightsholder has stayed the same but the publisher changed.
That seems to be what Disney wants to be the case, but it shouldn't be. If you buy out a contract, you acquire the obligations as well as the gains.
This is not necessarily true. Assets CAN be bought without liabilities. If that is the case with the Lucasfilm/Disney contract, then the liabilities should still reside with Lucasfilm. Either way (unless someone negotiated a lousy contract for ADF) one of the two is on the hook for royalties.
Okay, there's a misunderstanding here. Disney did not buy the contract from Lucasfilm. Disney bought Lucasfilm. Lucasfilm is now a subsidiary of Disney.
True. It might be that I should have said agreement rather than contract as in Lucasfilm's agreement with Disney to allow the purchase), but the point stands. Also, a wholly owned subsidiary can still act in some ways as a separate corporate entity.
Except it obviously isn't acting to honor its contract, because Alan is not being paid. Someone owes him, and splitting hairs over whether it's Disney or a subset of Disney seems to be beside the point.
Unless it's by pure dumb luck, you can't solve a problem without defining the problem, so determining the technicalities of a legal case has value. All that aside, during our previous exchanges I've determined that you like to argue and explain your superiority, so if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Right. And this touches on the thing that I keep wondering about. I can understand the royalty situation on the Alien novels. I believe those were originally published by Warner Books. Now they're being published by Titan. That's a situation like IDW reprinting DC's Star Trek comics and not paying out royalties to the original creators; Andrew Steven Harris said when questioned on it they didn't have to because they bought the reprint rights from CBS and DC's creator contracts were nothing to do with them. Titan may not have been aware of Foster's old contracts, and I do feel this may be a gray area -- if a work-for-hire book moves from one publisher to another, is that strictly a matter between new publisher and IP holder? Do those creator contracts not matter? But Foster's Star Wars books didn't move. They're with Ballantine Del Rey, just as they've been for the last forty-plus years. The accounting department there was cranking out royalty checks... until they stopped. Why did they stop? When did they stop? Did Foster or his agent ask Del Rey, "Where's my royalty check?" Did Del Rey's accounting department say, "Disney says you don't get them any more"? Is that why the complaint is directed at Disney instead of Del Rey? To be clear, I'm not defending Disney here. Foster should be paid the monies that he owed. I'm just wondering about the missing link in the story.
Good grief, it's not about me, except in the sense that I'm a writer whose livelihood might be affected by this precedent in the future. It's about Alan and whether he gets what he's due. I just don't think the humongous megacorporation is the side that needs to be stood up for in this case. They're hardly the underdog.
So when I say "You like to argue and prove yourself superior," you retort by arguing and trying to prove yourself superior And to make matters worse, you don't appear to even be able to understand my argument. I'm not standing up for Disney. I'm trying to define the issues. Maybe I shouldn't have said "Knock yourself out." "Sit this one out" might have been more appropriate.
And I'm trying to clarify them. There's no need to bring pointless ad hominem attacks into what should be an objective discussion.