IDW's Movie Omnibus
- Thread starter Stevil2001
- Start date
Ah, OK. For some reason, I didn't think I was right in saying "omnibi," but I just wasn't sure. Thanks - as a bit of a language pedant, I do like to get things like that correct.
You got it!
When Pocket Books investigated the rights to reprint the "LA Times" syndicated newspaper post-TMP comic strips, the original contracts could not be found, and because the work involved so many artists and writers, no deal could be made.
I don't recall people like Mike Barr getting upset about his DC Comics work being reprinted in the DC ST omnibuses, but he was certainly upset about the IDW versions of the same material. Could the contract between IDW and Paramount/CBS not have specified even a token amount to the creators?
I think Andrew Harris has the point on this issue.
CBS/Paramount owns all rights to Star Trek comics past, present and future. The writers and artists who created those comics were compensated for their work-for-hire at the time it was done. If the original contracts don't specify that the creators are entitled to additional payment when the material is reprinted, then the creators aren't entitled to additional payment. It's a legal "done and done," as far as I can see.
Would it be cool and groovy for somebody to throw these guys some extra money? Of course. I'm always in favor of creators being paid residuals for their work. But they're not legally or morally entitled to any additional payment if they signed contracts that didn't specify their entitlement to additional compensation.
Perhaps the contracts were unfair, perhaps not. But nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign way-back-when. If they didn't like the terms, they could have refused the job and done some other work.
Having no knowledge of how those contracts are actually worded, all of the above may be null and void if, in fact, the contracts specify additional payment for reprints of the work. If that's the case, then this will all end up in court, and CBS/Paramount are doody-heads.
However, I still don't think it would be IDW's responsibility to compensate the creators, but CBS/Paramount's.
CBS/Paramount owns all rights to Star Trek comics past, present and future. The writers and artists who created those comics were compensated for their work-for-hire at the time it was done. If the original contracts don't specify that the creators are entitled to additional payment when the material is reprinted, then the creators aren't entitled to additional payment. It's a legal "done and done," as far as I can see.
Would it be cool and groovy for somebody to throw these guys some extra money? Of course. I'm always in favor of creators being paid residuals for their work. But they're not legally or morally entitled to any additional payment if they signed contracts that didn't specify their entitlement to additional compensation.
Perhaps the contracts were unfair, perhaps not. But nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign way-back-when. If they didn't like the terms, they could have refused the job and done some other work.
Having no knowledge of how those contracts are actually worded, all of the above may be null and void if, in fact, the contracts specify additional payment for reprints of the work. If that's the case, then this will all end up in court, and CBS/Paramount are doody-heads.
However, I still don't think it would be IDW's responsibility to compensate the creators, but CBS/Paramount's.
Daddy Todd, I am actually in agreement with you. If, for instance, Mike Barr's contract with DC didn't specify that he would receive reprint payments, then, no, he shouldn't expect payments because IDW has reprinted the work.
But I have the distinct impression, from talking with some of the creators who did work for DC, that they should have been compensated with something. (Hell, Howard Weinstein said at Farpoint last year that he didn't even receive comp copies when one of his stories was reprinted. That's indefensible.) I don't know what their contracts were like. I suppose I could ask some of DC's creators at Farpoint in two weeks and see what their feeling is and whether or not they should see something.
I think Ian's example is on point. John Ordover wanted to do a reprinting of the Star Trek comic strip, but because the contracts with creators had been lost (due to a fire, I believe), Pocket couldn't be sure of which creators were owed what.
Different companies handle residuals in different ways. Len Wein has the interesting anecdote that he's received far more money from DC for Lucius Fox than he's received from Marvel for Wolverine. Some publishers are creator friendly. Some aren't. I don't know if IDW is creator friendly or not. But if they're not honoring creators contracts, then it's pretty clear that they're not.
But I have the distinct impression, from talking with some of the creators who did work for DC, that they should have been compensated with something. (Hell, Howard Weinstein said at Farpoint last year that he didn't even receive comp copies when one of his stories was reprinted. That's indefensible.) I don't know what their contracts were like. I suppose I could ask some of DC's creators at Farpoint in two weeks and see what their feeling is and whether or not they should see something.
I think Ian's example is on point. John Ordover wanted to do a reprinting of the Star Trek comic strip, but because the contracts with creators had been lost (due to a fire, I believe), Pocket couldn't be sure of which creators were owed what.
Different companies handle residuals in different ways. Len Wein has the interesting anecdote that he's received far more money from DC for Lucius Fox than he's received from Marvel for Wolverine. Some publishers are creator friendly. Some aren't. I don't know if IDW is creator friendly or not. But if they're not honoring creators contracts, then it's pretty clear that they're not.
As far as I've seen, nobody has presented any evidence that IDW isn't honoring creator contracts. I took that to be the meaning behind Andrew's post -- it represents IDW's claim that they're not contractually obligated to compensate the artists & writers; that would be CBS's responsibility, if anyone's.
I don't think that makes them creator-unfriendly; it makes them a business trying to turn a profit. And judging by the cancellation of most (if not all) of that reprint program, they were unsuccessful in making that profit.
Comp copies to the artists and writers would have been great, but that would've been out of the goodness of IDW's heart. And, as a business, it's NOT in the interest of IDW's shareholders to have a heart.
I've always assumed that the reason Pocket didn't reprint the comic strips was because they didn't want to compensate the artists & writers, and, without access to the contracts, they didn't know if they could proceed. So, they scuttled the entire project rather than risk a lawsuit. I assume IDW has been as diligent about determining their financial obligations, and elected to go ahead because they feel they AREN'T obligated to compensate anyone but CBS & Paramount.
I don't think that makes them creator-unfriendly; it makes them a business trying to turn a profit. And judging by the cancellation of most (if not all) of that reprint program, they were unsuccessful in making that profit.
Comp copies to the artists and writers would have been great, but that would've been out of the goodness of IDW's heart. And, as a business, it's NOT in the interest of IDW's shareholders to have a heart.
I've always assumed that the reason Pocket didn't reprint the comic strips was because they didn't want to compensate the artists & writers, and, without access to the contracts, they didn't know if they could proceed. So, they scuttled the entire project rather than risk a lawsuit. I assume IDW has been as diligent about determining their financial obligations, and elected to go ahead because they feel they AREN'T obligated to compensate anyone but CBS & Paramount.
Doesn't work that way. They would've had to compensate the creators, and since they couldn't find the contracts to figure out whom to pay or to get permission from, they couldn't do it. Even if it turned out they didn't owe any compensation to anyone, they still would've needed to find the contracts saying that, since corporate lawyers are not fans of gambling and would've insisted they make sure.
And I didn't know Len Wein created Lucius Fox. I would've figured it was Denny O'Neill.
No, I recall John Ordover saying they needed the contracts so they could see who was owed what. Each contributor had a unique deal, not a standard contract - and IIRC, some of the newspapers in the syndicate originally carrying the strip may have also been owed some compensation. (Although they are called the "LA Times" strips, apparently the Los Angeles Times newspaper itself never ran the strip.
^The strips were distributed by the LA Times Syndicate, the company that owned the LA Times. One of the many cases of corporations at different tiers sharing a name, like how a show produced by CBS Studios won't necessarily air on the CBS network.
OK, so without the contracts, Pocket didn't know who they had to compensate, or how much, so the project was scuttled.
My point is, assuming IDW's lawyers were as diligent as Pocket's, then the relevant contracts were reviewed. If IDW was legally bound to pay the creators, they would have done so, or else scuttled the project if they didn't think they could profitably publish them after compensating CBS/Paramount AND the artists and writers. They published them, they didn't pay creators, so their lawyers must have told them they didn't need to.
The lawyers might have been wrong, but at this point the only way to determine that would be a court case. I think IDW acted in good faith here. At least, there's been no evidence presented to indicate otherwise.
I love to get that Spock comic book.Is coming out in Febaruary?I also heard they are supose to movie adaption comic of last year movie.Is that also confermed yet?
It's going to be six issues long. I believe the first issue reaches comic shops next month.
I agree with this.
