As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.
By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.
But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.
By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.
But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.
Source:
And
ReplyDeleteWhat is this guy mad about??
ReplyDeleteNice read, kinda losing a lot of respect for DC at this point.
ReplyDeleteDoubt his concerns will matter much though, DC won't give him credit for creating Felicity as her character is derived from his original idea. It's kind of a sleezy move, they could have renamed her at least. But her character got blown out of propotion when she got a second life on TV.
Still the man should get some credit
not getting paid the royalities he deserves for creating various characters.
ReplyDeleteImagine your idea, something you invested blood, swat and tears into would not give you any revenue while others are swimming in money for what you created.
1....1....1.....1 again....hold until we start fighting again :P
ReplyDeleteDC is not the only one that is unfair with people mavel does unfair stuff with as well
ReplyDeleteBasically DC created a program to make sure that the creators of characters got their due when those characters are used(presumably to avoid legal action). However, DC uses technicalities to get out of this obligation. This person created a lot of characters who are being used in very successful properties but is not receiving a dime from their profits.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty scummy and, sadly, comic history is full of this kind of thing.
I'm sure they do, Marvel/DC share my dislike for their business practics, however I haven't read about something similar in Marvels wheelhouse (yet)
ReplyDeleteBut is it? I mean... Ray is Ray because was the name available to use. He has nothing to do with Atom. If he was Ted Kord, ok. But he isn't really Ray Palmer.
ReplyDeleteSame with Felicity, and Laurel, and even Oliver to some extent... They are new chaarcters with a "name used to atract people".
I don't know how it works, tbh. But i don't see it that far fetched.
Mavel tried to sue sony to take copy rights of siperman after the avenger movie sorry spelling is not the best
ReplyDeletethat's not really bad or in some way true. They didn't sue them, they tried to regain the rights to the franchise by negotiating a deal.
ReplyDeleteSpiderman as a franchise would stick with Sony until 2020. However Marvel tried hard to makea deal for both parties work.
No court action has been happening yet
My main concern is this is one lawsuit away from becoming an even bigger thing.
ReplyDeleteImagine if next season, all of a sudden they have to write out Felicity, Cisco, Caitlin and both parts of Firestorm due to legal issues.
He's Ray Palmer, a guy with a blue suit, modeled after the original Atom design and calls himself The Atom.
ReplyDeleteHe might not characteristically be Ray Palmer but the basics are there.
Felicity could've been called Boomshackalacka Bombshell and no one could sure them, however they HAD to go out and throw in a Firestorm reference with her, they didn't plan to make her as big as she is now so that kinda blew up in their face. However the character is still the character.
Laurel and Oliver are not far enough removed. Not by a long shot.
Felicity I could argue with but Oliver/Laurel/Ray are certainly falling into that area
They deserve the recognition of having created the characters, regardless of how said character are being used. It's well within their rights as artists & storytellers.
ReplyDeleteDoubtfull, I get his point and if DC is playing it smart they'll give credit where credit is due before this becomes a class action lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteFelicity is arguable, she's not in any way the character she originall was, so they could get out of that. Caitlin is what I'm bothered about, he has a point and DC is being scummy
dude before I forge it: any chance stv has posted the Netflix rating chart released on Variety yet?
ReplyDeletehttp://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-originals-viewer-data-1201480234/
Yeah I believe it went into the newsreel yesterday/this morning.
ReplyDeleteOnce stan lee is not around watch marvel/disney do their thing like WB/DC do
ReplyDeleteokay good, would be interesting to see netflix release their numbers on a monthly basis
ReplyDeleteOh I believe they already do behind the scenes. Lee is still having veto from what I heard but unlike DC/WB we know that Disney/Marvel are way more focused on not letting ANYTHING out to the public.
ReplyDeleteYou know how the casting processes for Disney work? You really don't but imagine something like "Dark side of Hollywood" to that
Yeah, same with Amazon Prime and Hulu.
ReplyDeleteOK, fair enough. Guess you're right. But i would put Laurel with Ray: she's Dinah Lance, a girl with a black leather suit that calls herself Black Canary. If you show me her arc without telling me her name i would totally think she's Kate Spencer.
ReplyDeleteThat said, i seriously don't have any idea how this legal things work, so i'll take your word on that.
This was an interesting read. Don't know if DC will give creators their due or will they let this blow up. I hope none of my favorite characters has to be pulled back because of this.
ReplyDeleteno one knows how this legal wibble wobble works, not even their lawyers. They just roll with it :P
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of disney do know there a town in missouri not very far I'm at that have alot stuff name after him
ReplyDeleteI'm imagining Chris Evans going through the dark side of Hollywood's casting process and...I'm liking what I'm seeing.
ReplyDelete...don't ruin this for me Mac ^^
Oh, ok! Thanks! When i wrote i ddin't know how it worked, i was being honest LOL
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see Emily Bett Rickards go through that (hubbahubba) but I doubt Evans or her ever did.
More taking child stars here
I didn't but it wouldn't surprise me, the classic Disney flicks inspired a lot of stuff.
ReplyDeleteI think we have a Disney rd. where I live too
Well, those numbers would just be sad :P
ReplyDeleteOh that sucks.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Spider-Man casting rumors just made a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteThey need someone to keep the directors/producers busy XD
Well hopefully they start paying him.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine if Season 4 of Arrow premieres and Oliver calls Felicity "Margarita Ponce de León"? Jajaja
ReplyDeleteI would pay to see that LMFAO
Have you heard of marceline thats the name of the town
ReplyDeleteprobably, ever heard the rumors? I really hope they're not true and just blown out of proportion
ReplyDeleteI have, Walt Disney was born there, guess that's why it has all the memorials ^^
ReplyDeleteI do too, not only because I feel like he needs to get his due but also because I really don't want a lawsuit following
ReplyDeleteYeah. That infamous couch
ReplyDeleteSupposedly a couple of Glee stars went through it.
Skye became Daisy Johnson on AoS when she got a dad. So now that Felicity is getting a dad we can change her name to Margarita. She sounds like a cool drink.
ReplyDeleteThats his boyhood hometown where he learn he wants to be an artist
ReplyDeleteAnd this is why I'm mainly a Marvel girl.
ReplyDeleteBasically, yes.
ReplyDeleteYeah that'll be really bad.
ReplyDeletedidn't hear about Glee stars but yeah, it's really sad how casting has devolved into "Bang me and you have the job", mostly for female actresses (since this industry is ruled by men for some weird reason) but also males (Bryan Singer...allegedly)
ReplyDeleteAll you should need is talent, apparently that's not enough for producers
because they could use a significantly different name, then no royalities would be due
ReplyDeleteAnd now I want nothing more but Daisy and her annoying group of Inhumans gone (at least Lincoln, dude is annoying as hell)
ReplyDeleteWouldn't work, she already IS Felicity Smoak, no name change can change that. They'd have to recast EBR as someone new but similar
How about Felicity leaving to the ladies room and a similar looking chick coming out, Oliver grabs her by the hand and flies home with her while Felicity is left standing
Yeah =/
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately money and sex speak louder then talent.
I remember reading an interview with Lauren Schuler Donner in wich she almost fainted at the idea of Channing Tatum as Gambit. And lo and behold he got the role...guess what happened there?
ReplyDeleteHe was confirmed to have attended the elusive 'parties' as well
ReplyDeletePart of that is why I love http://blindgossip.com/ though. Industry insiders who know things but legally can't say who, reveal things. Exposing the truth of many Hollywood antics.
Would make sense
ReplyDeleteWell, these sides are hit or miss in terms of truth but yeah, it's probably more on the side of truth than others.
I second that about Daisy. I was hoping that the spinoff would've been about them, so they can get off of AoS
ReplyDeleteDC are assholes.
ReplyDeleteThis just farther lowers my perception of DC as a company.
ReplyDeleteFirst they won't let the TV shows (Arrow/Flash) do characters that are closely related to their movies or if they already have them they'll make them pull those characters out of the show. That's nonesense. If you have separate universes, you can make different versions of the characters.
And now this. Wow DC, this is a new low. No recognition to the creators of characters that have spawned from pre-existing comics. That's just absurd
LMFAO 7 years of marriage and 2 kids later, "Uh, i think it could be possible i made a mistake..." Jajajajajaja
ReplyDeleteFelicity was still there, living out of coins people left her, waiting for Oliver Jajajaja She becomes a hobo xD
What i'm worried about is when the Flash movie releases what's gonna happen to the tv show?
ReplyDeleteWeeeeeell... Marvel's been shitty to a few of it's creators too... not recently that I know of, but they have. Royalties in the comic business is quite a bitch evidently...
ReplyDeleteOh i know. But definitely not recently. But doesn't change the fact that i'd still choose them over DC anyday. And DC just makes shit complicated left and right. It's tiresome. This will probably get worse, it's only a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel like reading this....which character(s) does this person bring up?
ReplyDeleteThe way DC has been handling it's properties is an undeniable mess...
ReplyDeleteThey can't cancel it, CW will do everything in its power to protect it
ReplyDeleteThey might just make him Wally in the movie.
ReplyDeleteMeh I prefer DC. I like it's source material more. A lot of it's adaptations, and quite honestly I just intuitively flock to it more.
ReplyDeleteAren't corporations great?
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty f*cked up.
ReplyDeleteWell statically that was bound to happen.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteBut back then u were paid to create the character and storys regardless of success, when it was done, it became the property of the company. It was just the way of doing things but back, but there also wasn't major money like todays TV and movie scenes. full credit to them for bring out a comp program but it should filter down to lesser tier characters, DC has author protection and creative input rights, to all their top and second tier character creators.
ReplyDeleteThey do belong to the company, but the creators deserve their dues for creating them, that's the point.
ReplyDeleteMorally Yes, Legally NO. the company has changed a lot of the way they do contracts. most characters were created over 30+ years ago some going back to the golden age, were the profit wasn't large, the main point being they were paid to create the character for them, they had no control over what was done with the character from then onwards, unlike today, why do u think most characters are not put into TV shows or a pulled from the shows at times.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason these cases when taken to court do have legs to stand on. Because in the end creators are not asking for control over what to do with the character. They are asking for recognition of their work and a creative fee which is what the company seems unwilling to give them.
ReplyDeleteLOL. I was just joking about Felicity's name change. DC won't let this go far.
ReplyDeleteFelicity and Firestorm (including Ronnie and Martin Stein) were created by him. Caitlin is derived from his original Killer Frost.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't mention Cisco, Multiplex or Vixen, but he created them too.
Douchebag Comics
ReplyDeleteDesperate Comics
Dull Comics
etc.
strikes again! I'm not bashing the characters nor the comics themselves (I'm a fan of many), but DC as a company. Again, this is why Marvel is at the top (they deserve it and I love that they have that position) and why so many people are getting angrier and angrier at DC's shennanigans of pulling characters from tv shows because of their lame ass movies. Their cinematic universe already sucks and when it crashes and burns it will be nobody's fault but theirs. Ugh. F*ck DC!
If Felicity has to go, then okay, haha.
ReplyDeleteI think the source material, mythos and comics are great!
ReplyDeleteI think their animation is spectacular! SPE!CTA!CU!LAR!!! Can't point that out enough.
I think their live action TV shows, have always been a lot of fun! Always!
But their movies are problematic... Even the good ones (ie Christopher Reeve Superman, the two Tim Burton Batmans and the Nolan Trilogy) do have some issues...
Disagree about the Nolan, Reeve stuff (well except Superman 3 and 4 those suck).
ReplyDeleteDisagree that they don't have issues?
ReplyDeleteThey have issues. I just think they're great.
ReplyDeleteOh they are, I referenced them as the good ones... I'm just saying even those have some issues.
ReplyDeleteOh okay, but they definitely do have some.
ReplyDelete