From: Mark Evanier <[m--v--r] at [delphi.com]>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Steve Gerber owns Howard the Duck? (Was: Malibu)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 03:24:19 -0500

-Rex, Robert S. <[r s r] at [haslam.cnet.att.com]> writes:
 
>Hey Mark;
>When I first started working at Bell Labs, I signed a document that stated
>anything I develop while under AT&T's employ is owned by them. Is there a
>similar document for comic pros. I was under the impression that there
>was. If so, then Gerber really didn't have a leg to stand on. Unfortuneately
>the same could be said for Kirby and many others. What's the story here?
>Bob Rex
 
ME: You were an employee, Bob.  They probably gave you vacation time,
a health plan, other employee benefits.  They bought your TIME so they
owned whatever was created during it, especially working in their offices
and with their equipment.
 
I'm a professional writer.  I am self-employed.  I work in my own office
(paid for by me) on equipment I bought.  I create work which I sell to
various publishers...this script to DC, that one to Marvel, etc..  I get
no vacations, no health plan...they don't even deduct taxes from my check.
When a company pays me, they are paying for a specific script with a
specific contract with rights that we specifically negotiate.  Obviously,
since I work for several companies at a time, no one company can claim
ownership of all my ideas.
 
Jack Kirby and Steve Gerber worked for Marvel on the same basis.  On top
of that, Jack was paid only for artwork...which raises some question as
to how Marvel could claim ownership of story ideas he contributed.
 
They also did not sign the kind of contract you signed with A.T.&T.  Some
years ago, when there was the famous dispute between Marvel and Kirby over
the return of his original art, Marvel was trying to require him to sign
that kind of a deal; in fact, they wanted him to sign a paper that said
everything he had created for Marvel in the last fifty years was their
property and everything he would ever create in the future would be theirs.
In other words, the "contract" was not presented to him, as yours was,
BEFORE he did the work.  (Jack ultimately signed a much scaled-down
version of the contract.)
 
I understand your question and it's a good one.  The answer is that there
is a difference between an employee and a free-lancer.  (PLAYBOY just lost
a huge lawsuit in which they were claiming ownership of a free-lancer's
work.)  Even though Kirby and Gerber may have been doing all their free-
lance work for Marvel at a given point, they were still free-lancers.
 
Does this clear it up for everyone?