Roger Langridge no longer working for Marvel or DC
ChrisBeckett
Posts: 535
Sorry for the bad news Murd. But it looks like Roger Langridge is the next guy to move on from Marvel or DC work due to ethical reasons. Caught this on Bleeding Cool.
A quote from Langridge's interview on the Orbital Comics podcast:
A quote from Langridge's interview on the Orbital Comics podcast:
Marvel and DC are turning out quite problematic from an ethical view to continue working with…chris
I think it’s down to everyone’s individual conscience but I think those of us who have options, and I do have options, I’ve got a working relationship with a couple of other publishers, I’ve got illustration work I can fall back on, I’m not beholden to Marvel and DC for my bread and butter. If you do have the option, you maybe should think hard about what you’re doing and who you are doing it for.
I was writing the last issue of John Carter when the news came that Marvel had won a lawsuit against the heirs of Jack Kirby and Steve Bissette wrote an very impassioned post about the ethics of working for Marvel under those circumstances. Pretty much then, I figured I should finish the script I was writing and move on.
It’s not like Marvel need me. It’s no skin off their nose if I don’t accept anything from them in the future.
I think it’s beholden on the creative community to ask themselves what kind of industry they want and act accordingly
Comments
Now, it's arguable that any business could go back and say "you know, we really didn't expect to make that much profit" and hand said profits back to their employees in the form of a bonus but it's just that - a bonus.
Might be that I'm just jaded. As an architect, I get paid something for my design (rarely is it enough to reflect the time, effort and expetise
Kirby had a contract, yes. But he also relinquished any rights to characters he created - and art he created - when he signed the back of his damn check, where the legalese was printed. So, Kirby could not sign the check (retaining rights to his work) and NOT GET PAID, or he could sign the check to get paid (and lose his creative rights). Not much of a choice. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
chris
More from Brothers: The document Marvel asked Kirby to sign can be found HERE
And more background on the whole thing can be found HERE
chris
... Might be that I'm just jaded. As an architect, I get paid something for my design (rarely is it enough to reflect the time effort and expertise that go into developing it) but, in most cases, at the end of the project, have no continuing stake in the project. If the style, function or (I hope that one day) the name, is enough to allow that building to demand a higher price, that is a direct benefit to the building owner and my compensation will likely be the ability to demand higher fees for future projects by trading off of the same cachet. Granted, in most cases I get to retain the right to reproduce images of my past projects and in some cases retain the rights to any reproduction of the design. I go into every contract knowing exactly what I'm walkin away with and what I'm giving up.
The idea that my family would try to go back on those contracts which I sign in good faith is utterly and completely mortifying.
Ultimately, I don't see the distinction but I've got the same feeling about anyone that is creating something for a patron of any kind regardless of if it's Michaelangelo, Beethoven, Jack Kirby or David Ogilvy.
The legalese on his checks may have been standard practice but I'm betting that he could have negotiated that out of his contract. Regardless, that was a matter between Kirby and Marvel, not his heirs and Marvel. Beyond that, any affiliation with Toberoff pretty much eliminates any moral high ground.
Ultimately, today, Marvel and any business has only a couple of obligations. They need to meet the terms of their contracts, comply with applicable laws and meet the expectations of their shareholders. Certainly, it seems to be a really good idea to be a good corporate citizen and demonstrate a little altruism, but is it really altruism of you're doing it for knowing that it's for PR?
Was the original art referenced in the artists contracts as something that was to be returned as the physical property of the artist? That's certainly never been the case in my line of work. Reproductions, yes. Originals, no.
So, the artists basically demanded a return and consequently forced a sea change. This suggests that it wasn't something that was addresses in contracts prior to that point and as a consequence, the attempt was made by Marvel to get something in return for that "concession." I use quotes there because it really does seem to be the right thing to do. Regardless, from a business standpoint, I can't fault Marvel on their effort to maintain ownership as a business prospect.
Typical contract was 1 page, Kirby's was 4? Was that a result of Marvel attempting an extra special screw or was it Kirby enumerating specific demands?
Assuming that Kirby was contractually owed all of his art, that's incredibly terrible and it makes me glad that I don't buy any Marvel books. If not, then 88 was a win that he wasn't obligated to get at all. Again, Marvels demands are incredibly draconian suggesting that it's an issue that wasn't covered in his contract. It sucks, but if prior to that point he had no contractual right to the return, he could have walked away or continued to negotiate.
It definitely looks incredibly crappy, but thats crappy for Kirby. Not for his heirs.
Don't get me wrong. I hate the fact that lawyers have become an essential part of everything but there's not much I can do about it so I've adapted and deal with it as best I can.
BTW, from where I'm sitting, many architects are at least as unsophisticated as the artist to which you refer. I regularly lose jobs to competitors that are recklessly undercutting on fees. In the process of adding a bit of cash, they expose themselves to greater liability and reduce the perceived value of all of our services. End result, I get it. I totally understand the idea of negotiating fair contracts. However, I also get the concept of a standard of care and applying the current standard of care retroactively smacks a bit much of reparations and if I'm going there I'm probably going to focus on groups with more serious grievances.
I'm not arguing that it should be this way. What I'm saying is that it's the way it was, and to a certain extent, it's the way it is. However, I'm not sure that I agree that they are direct employees. Most employers don't like sharing their employees talents with direct competitors and the very fact that much news is made whenever a creator signs on as exclusive to any publisher implies the exact opposite. They're not employees, they're contracted consultants/specialists.
At the end of the day, everyone is now aware that there is the potential for huge sums of money to be made by someone from publication and collateral distrubution and licensing. It's unfortunate that things are the way they are, but it's also the reason why contracts are necessary - 25 years ago, who would have projected anticipated digital media distribution? Or projected it in a manner that would include it in contracts? How about physical distribution of film and TV 50 years ago?
Ultimately, leaving because the courts rejected an appeal in a lawsuit that wasn't even initiated by the contracted party (apparently because, at multiple court levels, the suite was found to have no merit) makes no sense to me. Langridge knew going in the Marvel-Kirby history when he contracted with them. To bail out declaring that they're unethical for successfully defending against a lawsuit that was likely, at least slightly intiated by the IP equivelant of an ambulance chaser doesn't make them unethical in and of itself.
We don't have to like how Kirby or any other creator was treated, but at the end of the day, they chose to sign those contracts for whatever reason. It may be that it was just to put food on the table, or to follow a passion. Really, unless a gun was put to his head, figuratively or literally, the reason for signing the contract doesn't matter and the publisher has no obligation to offer any additional compensation outside of anything negotiated into subsequent contracts.
It may not be nice, but it's business. It's no different than paying employees a specific wage as defined by contract and then distributing an extraordinary dividend to shareholders. In the long run, it's probably better to distribute a bonus and pay a slightly less extrardinary dividend in order to boost morale among employees but that's an internal decision for each individual business to make and is more of a business decision than it is an ethical decision.
Grandkids of Kirby, Siegel, and Schuster? Go create something of your own and make your own way instead of riding on the backs of others.
No more "exclusive" artists, in other words. And this goes for DC as well.
Quality of the books with either get better/diminish (my crystal ball is broken, I can't forecast which would happen :) ), and as a result I'll either buy/not buy their books again. Creators can either take/leave the project in question based on their own values.
So do we then have the nerve to act surprised when the companies start to pull up their tent stakes, circle their wagons, etc.? Again, not a question of being the right thing to do...it's a culture we are slowly creating for ourselves by the very nature of our fandom. When I'm more excited about donating money to a kickstarter campaign for a book (which may or may not get made) over seeing the latest DC solicits...well, that's a pretty telling thing, isn't it?
Nobody's going to argue that we shouldn't live in a perfect world where everyone...everyone...is paid a fair wage and has healthcare and all that good stuff. But we don't. And as far as creative professionals go, we're crafting a climate where that utopia isn't likely to show up anytime soon for them. At the same time, there's never been a more exciting time to be a creator, because you have avenues at your disposal your predecessors could only dream of.
That said, I'm not sure how that's different than any other profession - does the programmer at Microsoft see a royalty? Does the culinary specialist that comes up with the new hit snack for Frito Lays see a percentage of sales? In both cases, maybe, but it depends on the terms of their employment.
Benefits? Sure, I think that's really important too. However, it's only required to be offered to fulltime employees. Want to preserve your ability to work for multiple software companies or snack food conglomerates? Sounds like part-time or contract work - odds are no benefits for either. Again, I like the idea of a sea change here, but if we're looking for impact, what about all of the full time minimum wage earners that work for small businesses not obligated to provide benefits? Shouldn't we be worrying about a positive endgame for them as well? Certainly, there are more of them.
@Torchsong
"Nobody's going to argue that we shouldn't live in a perfect world where everyone...everyone...is paid a fair wage and has healthcare and all that good stuff. But we don't. And as far as creative professionals go, we're crafting a climate where that utopia isn't likely to show up anytime soon for them. At the same time, there's never been a more exciting time to be a creator, because you have avenues at your disposal your predecessors could only dream of."
I'm not sure that I buy into this. Look at the stuff that has come out of Icon, Image, Vertigo. Seems to me that there's more of a following of creators over creations than there's ever been before. That, in turn, should be putting more negotiating power into the hands of the creators (as I think that we've seen with the successes of creators like Kirkman, Bendis (I'm not a fan, but he's undoubtedly taken is success as an Indy creator and turned it into something pretty big at Marvel) and Aaron.
Now keep in mind that I'm not saying that I wish hardships upon creators. To take another example, I'm a huge fan of the band Nine Inch Nails. While I don't think Trent Reznor has ever made a bad album, I do have a soft spot for the stuff he made back when he was completely screwed up in the head. There was an extra something that was in The Downward Spiral that is not in The Slip. Does that mean I wish ill on him? Not at all, I'm glad that he's happy and sober and he's a talented enough musician that he is still making good music and in some aspects even better since he has grown as an artist over the years even if that angry spark is gone, but even if he wasn't, even if everything he released since he sobered up was complete crap, I'd still rather he be happy because people are more important than art. Of course, if his wife ever dumps him and it gets really messy, you know his next album will be amazing lol.
But in any case, my point is that I do want the creators to be taken care of because them and their families are more important than their art, but to ask if it will produce better art is a bit of a different question. Sure, some people produce genius no matter what because it comes from a different place than it does for some others, but for others, some of the best art is produced by tortured souls.
Taking your argument one step further, it completely breaks down for me. Because, in order for these corporations to "earn" the copyright to these creations without having to properly compensate the creator (another argument that isn't truly concluded), all they need to do is out-litigate and outlive these creators and then it becomes theirs by default. I don't know that that is a proper legal stance in this case. And, once the creators are dead, who's left to argue for them. Seems to me that would be the heirs.
chris
Which leads me to the question: How does one disagree with a fact? Please enlighten me. I mean, maybe if you're a Republican having a discussion about science, that's understandable, but seriously. How does one refute a fact?
That's just stupid.
chris
Their forfathers work properly recognized? I think that is accomplished if that is what they are out for, when every Marvel book says "Stan Lee Presents" or, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman created by "person". I think that's recognition, hell the Superman and Batman credits are in the film credits. Anything else is just greed in my mind.
And that's what's being discovered by so many creators - they don't need the system anymore. They don't need to sign on to Marvel to get screwed by them down the road. They don't need to play in the big sandbox. It's great that Kirkman, Bendis, and Aaron can command what they do - but they can't write everything and Marvel's not about to pay all their talent what they pay those guys, right or wrong.
And this carries over into the "real" world as well - time was a company was loyal to its employees and fostered their growth (if they were good at their job) and that employee in turn was loyal to the company and worked their until they retired with a pension and a gold watch. That shit is gone. There is very little if any company loyalty anymore, and believe me when I say Torchsong is in the business of Torchsong (and Mrs. Torchsong...she's pretty much the CEO). I love my job and do it well, but the days of trusting my company to have my back are dead and gone for the most part. If anything, comics are simply catching up to the way the rest of the world's been doing it for some time now.
Jack Kirby had left Marvel (the first time around) in 1970. The Copyright Act of 1977 established the concept of work-for-hire.
We're not talking about someone who "knew the deal." The rules are constantly changing, and changing in favor of the corporations—because corporations have politicians (of both parties) in their pockets.
It's a muddled situation.
I admire Langridge and Roberson for taking the particular stands that they have. I don't fault others for not doing so.
We all draw ethical lines. For instance, I'm a vegetarian, largely because of animal rights issues. With that in mind, there are a number of other ethical questions... Do you quit dairy? Do you eat dairy only from non-factory farms? Do you believe in shutting down zoos, since they "imprison" animals in an "inhumane" way? But don't zoos preserve species, and protect them from poachers? Is hunting bad? But without population control, will the natural balance of the ecosystem fall out of whack?
The above are all arguments that I carefully considered. I arrived at my conclusions and chose where I draw my ethical line. I'm not going to rail on others for making choices different than I did. It's like trying to convince someone that you're right by by making snarky political jibes. You don't sway their opinion and just end up looking like a douche.
It's the same thing here. Jack got a bad deal. Do his heirs deserve the fruits of his labors? If you're a parent, do you hope to leave behind some measure of financial security for your children? By capitulating, does Marvel open the floodgates for endless suits against them, possibly causing them to shut down and putting current creators out of work? ...and on and on and on...
There's nothing clear-cut here. There's the law, there's the moral code of right and wrong that we were taught in comics, and there are the varying shades of grey in between. We each choose our shade of grey as best we can.
I just don't see how one thing is honorable and the other becomes just greed.
(But, then, it is not really for me to decide, at the end of the day. That is what courts are for.)