tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post5122507290669629270..comments2024-03-28T21:17:45.398-05:00Comments on A MOMENT OF CEREBUS: Creators Bill Of Rights 25th Anniversary: Stephen R. BissetteA Moment Of Cerebushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02718525538144698138noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-30512463079532551432013-11-22T03:34:37.747-06:002013-11-22T03:34:37.747-06:00Reading Steve's other responses in the discuss...Reading Steve's other responses in the discussion (and Dave's responses to those responses) is interesting. The guy is veheminent about this subject, and this particular response is WAY nicer than the one Steve had for Erik Larsen (who has a pretty damn good track record vis a vis creator rights given his contribution to Image Comics). <br /><br />Of course, Steve's ire on the subject is understandable- Marvel's IP rakes in more money than the net worth of most countries, based on a mythology created by guys who pretty much schlepped by on what a professional artist in any other field would call a slave wage. Every point on that creator's bill of rights isn't there for shits n' giggles- each point is an area where some artist got boned. Either by trusting their publisher, or by signing the back of a paycheck to make sure their kids could eat, or simply by not knowing any better. <br /><br />All of us benefit from hindsight and the ease with which information is spread nowadays- while the mainstream news media could care less about the trials and tribulations of Gary Friedrich, comic book news and nerdbait websites sure cared, and that legal fight helped spread the word around in comic fandom- don't get caught with your pants down.<br /><br />Of course, the internet wasn't a gleam in Al Gore's eye back when the Creator's Bill of Rights was written, and before pop culture became all superheroes all the time, NBC, ABC, and CBS couldn't give less of a shit about comics unless it was a slow news day and DC comics sent out a press release with an obituary for some well-known character that died for the twentieth time. Back in those days, I learned about the Creators' Bill of Rights through the TMNT- I was a TMNT fan as a child, and discovered later on that they began life as a comic book. Digging through back-issue bins I found TMNT #8- this, along with borrowing Spawn #10 from a friend- lead me to buying Cerebus. Those books introduced me to said creators' bill of rights. Through that bill of rights, and the subsequent written commentaries in the backs of TMNT and Cerebus, I learned of Jack Kirby and Steve Gerber's struggles with Marvel, and Shuster/Siegel's struggles with DC. <br /><br />But again, that was pre-internet, and living in a post-internet world renders this kind of moot. For all I know, Bryan Lee O'Malley may not have ever heard of Cerebus or the Creator's Bill of Rights but seems to have done fairly well for himself with Scott Pilgrim's success. Same for those two fellows with the hard-to-remember names that produce Penny Arcade. Even at the time said CBOR was drafted, people who desperately wanted to be in comics knew that DC and Marvel weren't their only choices for employment any more, thanks to the advent of comic shops. In the discussions from which these postings are culled, Dave himself mentions that guys like Jeff Smith were annoyed that their small press indy work was being lumped in with a 'self publishing movement.' I can assume that means Jeff hadn't read that bill before creating his magnum opus. <br /><br />Still, Enough brilliant people have been hurt that I can't fault Steve Bissette, Dave Sim, Kevin Eastman, Pete Laird, et al. for making a statement like they did. The Hero Initiative unfortunately exists for a reason, even while Warners and Disney suck in record revenues from their intellectual property farms. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-85869079278307743892013-11-21T15:56:33.188-06:002013-11-21T15:56:33.188-06:00I understand Bissette's passion for these issu...I understand Bissette's passion for these issues, but I think he comes off as overly defensive here. It's counterproductive and I think undermines critical reflection.<br /><br />He's wrong for at least two reasons that the Bill provides a previously nonexistent checklist of rights. <br /><br />First, creators could have called a lawyer or looked up the Copyright Act (they would have had to go to a library at that time) to determine their rights. That would have been at least as easy (probably easier) as tracking down the Creators Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Second, the Bill is actually an incomplete list of rights. For instance, in Canada, creators have something called "moral rights". No mention of those important rights in the Bill. So, in fact, the Bill is incomplete at best and misleading at worst in terms of the existing rights of creators.<br /><br />It's also got nothing concrete that a "checklist" should have. For instance, creators should be aware of the importance of the negatives. Nothing on the list about that. I imagine that industry professionals could think of dozens of other important points to put on a checklist for aspiring comics professionals.<br /><br />So, I think it's fair to say that the Bill is not a checklist at all.<br /><br />However, at least Bissette acknowledges that the Bill in fact did not spur further debate, attention or discussion, meaning that it was not influential. He seems to believe that this is a failing of others in the industry, rather than of the Bill itself, which seems to be, I think, an ineffective response if you actually believe that more needed to be accomplished.<br /><br />-Reginald P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com