Slashdot Mirror


Copyright and Webcomics - A New Trend?

Selanit writes "There's an article at Publisher's Weekly reporting that Seven Seas Entertainment, an up-and-coming publisher of English-language manga, has adopted a new copyright policy. When contracting to publish webcomics like Earthsong or Inverloch, they offer the artists full control over the copyright. This is highly unusual in comics - most companies use joint-ownership arrangements. The founder of Seven Seas asked himself 'For properties that were already written and illustrated without any input from Seven Seas, how could I justify asking for partial ownership?' And apparently, the answer led him to abandon that practice. It'll be interesting to see if this helps his company attract new talent. (There's a previous Slashdot article that may be relevant.)"

89 comments

  1. Not new. Old. by strredwolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comic Genesis (formerly KeenSpace) has been doing that since 2000. It doesn't want to own the copyright to the comic (and it says so in the TOS). It just wants to host the comic, and give some services (like automated updates, promotion and forums).

    But then, I'm the admin behind CG, and my comic is proudly on their servers.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  2. Quick! by rincebrain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nobody tell Scott Kurtz! We'll never hear the end of it!

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
    1. Re:Quick! by ian_mackereth · · Score: 3, Funny
      The horror! The horror!

      Oops. Wrong Mr. Kurtz...

    2. Re:Quick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going as quickly as I can but I think I still might tell him somehow!!!

  3. "English-language manga" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also known as a "comic"

    1. Re:"English-language manga" by Kroc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shush - you'll scare the fangirls away.

    2. Re:"English-language manga" by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Also known as a "comic"

      Or graphic novel. It is just a name, but "manga" is indicitive of the style of the artwork and story. People have preconceived ideas about what the different terms mean:
        - comic: DC or Marvel style "fan boy" stories which are generally about good vs evil
        - comic-strip: short drawin story you read in the back of your newspaper
        - manga: Japanese style or influenced graphic-novels
        - BDs: French style hard-back cover graphic-novels
        - Graphic-Novel: the more accepted general term these days covering all the above

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:"English-language manga" by Random832 · · Score: 1

      - Graphic-Novel: the more accepted general term these days covering all the above

      Except, of couse, for the newspaper-style comic strips

      *runs away*

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    4. Re:"English-language manga" by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      In this context, "manga" refers to a style and publishing format. So it does make sense to distinguish these from just plain "comics".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:"English-language manga" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, manga are works published in Japan, BD are works published in France. Both France and Japan have more than one artistic style.

      Compare a manga like Lone Wolf and Cub with another manga like Sailor Moon and you'll be able to see the difference between the two. People who think manga refers to only one artistic style obviously hasn't encountered that much manga.

  4. Re:MOD THE TROLL DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, that's pretty harsh. Are you really so vehemently anti-Fark?

  5. Whats this? by SafteyMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, a story about someone that actually cares about artists and giving them a "fair deal"? One can only hope that this type of thing leaks into other companies and media.

    1. Re:Whats this? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      This has (or at least should have) nothing to do with any naive or good hearted attempt to give the artists a 'fair deal.' Rather, this is (should be) an economic gamble by the publisher, pure and simple. The publisher wants to attract the best talent to his small company, so he offers the talent a better agreement than the talent could get elsewhere.

      This is basic market economics at work here - supply and demand. Likewise, in the music industry, there is an overabundance of acts willing to sign on the dotted line with record companies to contracts which many underinformed idiots on slashdot somehow believe to be "unfair to the artist." What's especially funny-in-a-sad-way is how many idiots whine about the RIAA "monopoly" and how the RIAA are just "do-nothing middlemen" while using the internet, the greatest enabler of self publishing and theoretical alternative to middlemen the world has ever seen.

    2. Re:Whats this? by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Likewise, in the music industry, there is an overabundance of acts willing to sign on the dotted line with record companies to contracts which many underinformed idiots on slashdot somehow believe to be "unfair to the artist."

      It's simply statistics; in a society of a few billion people it's easy to find a few dozen photogenic people per year (0.000001%) who will sign up. And yes, it is unfair, see this and this). For both the artists who are signed and the vast majority (99.9%+) who are not. The arts industry makes huge money, almost none of which goes to the artists.

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

  6. Re:Not new. Old. by msbsod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if the idea is not new, it still requires courage to copy it. There is also a good chance that they came up with the idea themselves, There are so few companies in the entertainment industry with corporate ethics. Anybody who ever looked at a DVD and wonders why only the distributing company is listed as copyright owner may soon figure out that there is something badly wrong with the entertainment industry. To pursue a business model which does not suck every cent out of an artist can be a risky attempt. I like to compliment Comic Genesis and Seven Seas Entertainment!

  7. As much as publishers do for artists.... by Senes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is great to hear. They don't even go around suing preteens and single parents. I wish everyone was this nice.

    1. Re:As much as publishers do for artists.... by B3ryllium · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's Just Not Good Business If You're Not Suing Grannies (tm)

  8. Inverloch is cool. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Altho I didn't like the looks of Acheron at first (he looked too much like a "cub", it's hard to identify that as a menacing monster which he was supposed to be), the story is very interesting.

    I only wish the pages were done more often :)

  9. Is there really a difference? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the practical difference between selling the copyright and exclusively licensing?

    1. Re:Is there really a difference? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exclusive licensing does not necessarily give the licensee the right to sublicense the work. Transfer of copyright means the transfer of all rights to the one on the receiving end.

      Not to mention that exclusive licensing may also be limited to a particular country, thus allowing a copyright holder to sign exclusive licensing agreements with multiple partners in different countries and expanding royalty income while reducing his legal liability. The deals may (and often do) require that the licensee prosecute any unlicensed distribution within the covered country.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    2. Re:Is there really a difference? by julesh · · Score: 1

      What ReformedExCon said, plus:

      The exclusive license will probably have a termination clause, after which all rights return to the owner. This would probably happen, for instance, if the site closed down.

      The exclusive license probably doesn't cover other media (e.g. novels or movies of the same story) thus allowing the owner to sell such rights independently.

      Exclusive licensing is definitely the better option for anyone who has it.

    3. Re:Is there really a difference? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Giving up the copyright also means giving up control of the work, forever. Someone with an exclusive license to reproduce your work doesn't have the right to hire someone else to produce a sequel without your involvement.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  10. Welcome to the 80s? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Way to get press coverage for implementing an idea from the 70s. The big fight over creator owned comics happened years ago. While many mainstream comics remain owned by the publishers and not the creators, there are many comic properties owned by their creators now. There are publishers founded on the idea. David Sim's Cerebus is perhaps the most famous; he was one of the early people to make a big ruckus over the importance of creator owned comics.

    1. Re:Welcome to the 80s? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, these days Image Comics is perhaps the most famous. Founded by a group of artists who largely made their names on company-owned Marvel comics, including Todd McFarlane, Erik Larsen, Marc Silvestri, Jim Valentino, Jim Lee, and Rob Liefeld, Image published a number of top-selling creator-owned properties, including WildCATS, Spawn, the Savage Dragon, Youngblood, etc.

      These days Image publishes a number of less-mainstream titles, but the policy is still that the creators own the copyrights to their works. Three current favorites, off the top of my head, are Godland, Sea of Red and the Walking Dead.

      Like the parent says, however, Image was hardly the first. Not including the undergrounds, Marvel was one of the first companies to experiment with giving creators ownership of their titles, with the Epic line in the 80s.

      And, of course, while it's laudable for a publisher to give authors control over the works they create, tis is nothing new for the mainstream publishing industry. If you write a novel, you don't typically have to sign over the copyright to your publisher. The really amazing thing is not that this company wants to give comics artists control over their work, but that in 2005 the comics industry is still so backwards that this should even be news.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Welcome to the 80s? by cocotoni · · Score: 1

      Well the liberalization of copyright on comics started even before that, in 1896 when Outcault moved his comic "The Yellow Kid" from Pulitzer's New York World to Hearst's New York Journal. World tried to retain the rights on the comic and hired another artist to draw it.

      This lead to two versions of the comic in competing magazines. Lawsuits ensued, and the result was that Outcault retained the rights to the name of the comic (if not of the characters themselves), and the World's version was renamed to "Hogan's Alley". While it looks like a small move today, this was really big leap in that era. It established that artist owns certain rights on the product, even if the copyright is with the publisher.

      Offtopic: your sig really puzzled me since TSR is the name of the state owned television company in Geneva (Switzerland), and while they are ongoing some changes at the moment, they seem to be still far away from their last days.

  11. Popular Web Comics by Almighty+Pallbearer · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Popular Web Comics by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Here's a couple I enjoy.

      One of the newer ones I especially enjoy is Where Am I Now?

    2. Re:Popular Web Comics by theredmenace · · Score: 1

      toothpaste for dinner: http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/ white ninja comics: http://www.whiteninjacomics.com/ dinosaur comics: http://www.qwantz.com/ boy on a stick and slither: http://www.boasas.com/ questionable content: http://www.questionablecontent.net/

    3. Re:Popular Web Comics by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      does Broken Saints count as a comic?

      It's awsome.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Popular Web Comics by Dementis · · Score: 1

      Kitty Litter and Pawn two of my favorites that nobody seems to know. And of course VG Cats.

      --
      http://www.devils-gate.com
    5. Re:Popular Web Comics by apflwr · · Score: 1

      Kind of crossover, both webcomics and syndicated in alternative newsweeklies...

      Maakies
      http://www.maakies.com/

      Migraine Boy
      http://www.gregfiering.com/migraineboy/index.html

      Perry Bible Fellowship
      http://cheston.com/pbf/archive.html

    6. Re:Popular Web Comics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Popular Web Comics by Elm+Tree · · Score: 1

      [NSFW] ghastlycomic.com [/NSFW]

    8. Re:Popular Web Comics by po8 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is /., friend. http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/

    9. Re:Popular Web Comics by Piquan · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised nobody's mentioned User Friendly. Also on my list are Queen of Wands (which finished its several-year run, and is now doing a rapid-fire rerun with commentary), Something Positive, Applegeeks (which just finished an uncharacteristic Batman parody and is now resuming its normal staples of inappropriate behavior and Ramadan jokes), and Mac Hall (unrelated, at least in name, to Apple Macs). For the grad students among us, may I recommend Piled Higher and Deeper; more so for those who are considering grad school.

      Less traditionally, we also have Lore Brand Comics, which is pretty much standup in webcomic form. Alas, it hasn't been updated in months, but the archive is certainly worth looking through. Paradox Lost appears to be a comic book being written in webcomic form.

      Other people mentioned them, but I have to say some of my favorites are Real Life and MegaTokyo.

    10. Re:Popular Web Comics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er.... define popular ?

    11. Re:Popular Web Comics by InsaneLampshade · · Score: 1

      Another one for the list: Angel League

      :-)

    12. Re:Popular Web Comics by cyxxon · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Popular Web Comics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:Popular Web Comics by whitefael · · Score: 1

      One I like: Wapsi Square by Paul Taylor.

    15. Re:Popular Web Comics by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      One more for the list - http://www.redmeat.com...

    16. Re:Popular Web Comics by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Yes Schlock Mercernary

      http://www.schlockmercenary.com/

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    17. Re:Popular Web Comics by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Oh, Com'on! All us geeks on Slashdot and nobody else has geard of:
      http://freefall.purrsia.com/lastthree.htm

      (Quick synopsis: Genetically engineered wolf is accidently assigned to alien as ship's engineer on an earth colony heavily populated with Asimov type robots... hilarity ensues.)

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    18. Re:Popular Web Comics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Buckley is a horrible fucking hack. How people can like that garbage he calls a webcomic is beyond me.

    19. Re:Popular Web Comics by LtOcelot · · Score: 1

      One that ought to be much more popular than it is, especially among the Slashdot demographic:

      Girl Genius

      ...but then, Phil Foglio's a pro and putting this online instead of directly to print is a relatively recent experiment. Frankly, it shows; the quality of his art (especially layouts) smokes that of all but the best-drawn webcomics.

    20. Re:Popular Web Comics by po8 · · Score: 1

      Phil Foglio's a very talented and professional artist, and I absolutely hate his idiomatic art style, to the point where I try not to look at his illustrations in print work. So, while I'd like to like Girl Genius, it just isn't the comic for me.

    21. Re:Popular Web Comics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite webcomics

      http://mnflourco.comicgen.com/
      http://www.drowtales.com/

      And of course my own Webcomic
      http://www.jastiv.com/

  12. Re:Not new. Old. by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comic Genesis really isn't really comparable. Now Keenspot is a bit more comparable (as it does print collection books) but only mildly so. The difference is, (AFAIK) Seven Seas isn't a webcomic distributor (like Keenspot, Modern Tales and Comic Genesis). It's a comic distributor, that happens to distribute some webcomics. Comic Genesis has more in common with Geocities then it does with Seven Seas.

    Not that I'm knocking Comic Genesis. I have many webcomics I read hosted with them, and am active (for me anyway) on their message boards.

    Having said that, Str's right, this isn't anything new. Plan Nine Publishing does publish webcomics (and isn't a host or a print on demand system, although I believe it does utilize print on demand, it doesn't accept anyone) and doesn't claim ownership on the work.

  13. Re:Not new. Old. by \\ · · Score: 2, Informative

    This current thing came about when, recently, people signed to Tokyopop contracts starting comparing them. There's been a lot of discussion recently about this, about Dave Sim's attempt to negotiate with DC over art for a three page Fables story, and self publishing in general over at Warren Ellis's Engine forums.

    I could get links for all this, but I am far too lazy.

    The founder of Seven Seas apparently kept track of all the discussions and made a decision to do what he did, which would be great if it became a trend. Don't see it happening, but still.

  14. Re:Not new. Old. by strredwolf · · Score: 1

    No. Hosting is availible to anyone who has a webcomic. We have some manga artists, some mixed-genre artists, and of course the guys who never graduated from fridge art. As said above, Comic Genesis is a Geocities -- but with much less warez and Illegal MP3's being distributed (we mallet those using 'em as file lockers).

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  15. The Wealth of Nations quote by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed." Adam Smith 1776

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  16. most def. by motank · · Score: 0

    oh, this ad will definitely bring in new talent.. no doubt

  17. The Perry Bible Fellowship. by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps not widely popular, but one of my favorites. http://www.cheston.com/pbf/archive.html

  18. "That Darn Chauncey" by jpiggot · · Score: 1

    ...with over 200 strips in the archives (free for the reading !) and a "best-of" collection coming out this holiday season, it's still one of the funniest underground comics on the internet. Check it out at StupidChildren.com

  19. Discipline Global Mobile does this for musicians by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 3, Informative

    Discipline Global Mobile, the record label founded by Robert Fripp of King Crimson, has this same policy for the music it publishes - the copyright remains with the artist ("with whom it rightfully resides" IIRC).

    You can read more about the admirable aims of DGM here .

    Here's an excerpt:


    The business aims of Discipline Global Mobile are....

    * to help music come into the world which would otherwise be unlikely to do so, or under conditions prejudicial to the music and/or musicians.

    * to operate in the market place, while being free of the values of the market place.

    * to help the artists and staff of DGM achieve what they wish for themselves.

    * to find its audience.

    * to be a model of ethical business in an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fuelled by greed.


    There's also more of Fripp's sardonic sense of humor, and one of the better explanations of "standard practice" record label-artist contracts (not for the squeamish!).

    Perhaps the rate of adoption of this sort of ethical business model by the music industry will at least serve as a lower bound for those wondering about the rate of adoption in other media.

  20. Dammit! by Harker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There is one, possibly two more online comics to add to my morning (well, afternoon) reading.

    I haven't yet gotten tot he point where Firefox will not be able to display all the tabs, but it's getting real close.

    No more, ok?

    H.

    --
    When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
  21. Re:Not new. Old. by atrus · · Score: 1

    The distribution company owns the copyright since they paid money to produce it. In some senses, its a fore-hire work, with the actors and directors and crew as employees, where the company owns the product.

  22. Melonpool, Real Life, Mousewax by Lemm · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to have forgotten Steve Troop's Melonpool and Greg Dean's Real Life.

    Mousewax has its moments too.

    --
    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. BOOM!
    1. Re:Melonpool, Real Life, Mousewax by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I included both Melonpool and Real Life in my list. Guess you didn't read my post too closely.

  23. Dork Tower by MadMoses · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget game nerd comic Dork Tower.

    --

    Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
  24. Re:No, no, no,... by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Troll

    "English-language manga" have artwork. "Comics" are a collection of bad drawings that attempt to instill some originality into spandex wearing muscled guys and buxom babes.

  25. Er... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    "Comics" are bad drawings with punchlines. "Comic Books" are the ones with the spandex.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:Er... by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      "Superhero Comics" are the ones with spandex. "Comic Books" are a medium. Not a genre.

    2. Re:Er... by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Superhero Comics" are the ones with spandex. "Comic Books" are a medium. Not a genre.

      True, but when the correlation between "Superhero Comics" and "Comic Books" is so strong, it becomes hard to tell the genre from its medium.

  26. Re:Not new. Old. by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many distribution contracts says that they own the work, and this may have made sense in the old days when printing/etc was new, but now it's clearly the author/artist who makes the book what it is, the publisher is merely the middle-man.

    If your contract is worded this way, don't sign. You never need hosting or a printer badly enough to sign all your creative work away.

  27. Corporate ethics by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    Hey, the other companies dealing with this kind of content all have corporate ethics. It is just that it does not really match the rest of the world.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  28. Author equals owner? by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    So now some artists can own the works that they create.

    It's rather sad that this is a radical new fringe idea, and that work for hire is the norm in distributing creative arts.
    (I have no problems with my employer owning the code that I write during office hours. They hired me before I wrote any of it. And it's to their spec. )

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  29. Creator Owned Comics by Goo.cc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is nothing new about any of this, except Webcomics are involved.

    Creators have had an avenue to retain copyights of their material since Eclipse Comics And Pacific Comics came on the scene in the early 80s, and this continues today with the smaller publishers, such as Dark Horse, IDW, Avatar, and Image. And although it is a tiny part of their output, even Marvel And DC do some creator owned publishing.

    I still read and collect comics, but I personally perfer to buy creator owned works when possible.

  30. Re:Not new. Old. by MooUK · · Score: 1
    Even if the idea is not new, it still requires courage to copy it.

    No longer a problem: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/1 8/0644240&from=rss

  31. sinfest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.sinfest.net

  32. Advantages of joint ownership for authors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought one of the reasons for assigning joint copyright to the publisher was so that the publisher could take on the responsibility for copyright abuse. If the author is sole owner of the copyright, the onus is on them to fight against piracy; by giving the publisher joint rights, the publisher is in a much stronger position to take legal action against pirates.

    In theory, a publisher with an exclusive contract could sue the author of the work if it appears in a pirate publication; after all, that is a breach of their exclusive agreement. The author would then have to go after the pirates in return. Much easier if the publisher has an interest in the copyright for them to deal direct with the pirates.

    Posting anonymously 'cos I might be talking out of my arse.

  33. Re:MOD THE TROLL DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wouldn't one be?

  34. A good approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actually how copyrights concerning comics is done in Japan. It will be interesting to see how it works out here.

  35. Re:Not new. Old. by jfortman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess I've grown up in the indy comic culture. Other than the huge audience Marvel and DC comics already have, I don't see a reason to join those companies. There are so many possibilities for indy publishing out there. Granted, distribution is a problem for paper comics, but this is the Internet. We have the distribution thing covered.

    My comic is 2 years old and has an international "distribution." My readership is roughly 400 and I've sold maybe 30 comics for actual money, which isn't a bad percentage as far as webcomics go. With on demand printing services like Comix Press and Lulu.com and hosting services like Comic Genesis and Drunk Duck, international distribution isn't as big a problem. Getting huge IS a problem because there's so much competition out there.

    Although it's great to hear about webcomics making it big, they're just a very small percentage of online comics. Most people will never see any profits from their comics. There's no way to compete with big comic companies like Marvel in the print world. There's no way to compete with big comics in Internet either. Don't try. Webcomics have their niche. Find your group of readers and don't expect to be big. It's a good time, not a living.

  36. Re:Not new. Old. by tverbeek · · Score: 1
    There is also a good chance that they came up with the idea themselves,

    Several decades too late for that. The phrase "creator owned" has been bouncing around the comics industry for decades, and has been going on rather visibly since the 1980s; there isn't anyone involved in comics publishing who isn't familiar with the idea and seen it in practice. For much of the 1990s the top-selling comic in North American (Spawn) was creator owned, a fact that its owner and his partners at Image made a lot of noise about.

    In terms of volume, publisher-owned comics are still the vast majority, but even at the #1 and #2 publiushers, DC does a fair number (mostly under their Vertigo imprint) and Marvel did them a decade and a half ago (the Epic imprint) and are testing the waters again now (their new Icon imprint). Everything Image (#3 or #4) does is still creator-owned; Dark Horse (#4 or #3) has always (i.e. since the 80s) published creator-owned books (as well as licenced stuff like Star Wars). A lot of the mid-level publishers and pretty much all of the small publishers work under creator-owned terms (since the publisher usually is the creator). In fact, when word got out that TokyoPop was generally not letting creators keep their copyrights, that raised the minor firestorm that got Seven Seas' attention.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  37. Re:Not new. Old. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

    How about financial backing, promotion, and distribution?

    I'm not saying that the media empires aren't evil, just pointing out that the actual production isn't all that publishers bring to the table. This may be less true for web comics, but it is a similar situation to what is going on with the record labels, and TV/movie production companies.

  38. Re:Not new. Old. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Who pays for that, though? If the studio/distributor pays for the promotion it's one thing, but if they "arrange" for it, and back charge you against your earnings, then it's something very else. I'm not saying this happens in the webcomic industry, but it happens in the music industry...and any number of groups that didn't read and understand exactly what they were signing died because of it. You can't trust the general middle-man to give you an even approximately fair deal. Some may, but be skeptical and CHECK.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.