Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: [lf 7 z] at [ellis.uchicago.edu] (Glenn City)
Subject: Re: Creator ownership (was RE : Frank Miller's speech)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 08:16:46 GMT

In article <2uhjeh$[5 fe] at [nic.umass.edu]> [E--NE--D] at [UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU] (CHARLES M SEATON) writes:
>
>As you know, since I'm sure you've read the earlier posts in this thread, I've
>already said that movies and TV are work-for-hire fields.  As you also know,
>since you've surely read the eariler posts in this thread, my reference to
>"entertainment and publishing industries" included books, plays, dance, music,
>and the "fine" arts, as well as movies and TV.  Taken as a whole creator-owned
>work _is_ quite common (although probably not the majority) in the
>entertainment industries. 

Well, movies and TV are not entirely work-for-hire, there are unions
and a guild involved.  The term's origin is also linked to freelance
contract options which were developing in the late '70s, for such
cases where there was a relevant union, the state was right-to-work,
the freelancer wasn't a union member, but still needed a contract.  It
doesn't mean the same thing today, but in Hollywood it's not as far
from it's origins.  Mark Evanier appears to be lurking again, he could
do the subject a lot more justice that any of us. :-)

This whole discussion is very disheartening, I would have hoped we'd
moved beyond huge chunks of this.  Here's a state law, recently posted
to the comix list.  I post it here because it bolsters those arguing
their sympathy with the retailers:

......................................................................
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 09:22:18 PDT
From: [l--be--s] at [bellahs.com] (Laurence Roberts RD)
To: [c--m--x] at [world.std.com]
Subject: Horror comics law

A guy I work with turned up this strange law.  I don't know when it
was passed -- probably during the 1950's, at the time of Wertham's
_Seduction of the Innocent_.  Incidentally, I have a copy of Wertham's
later book _The World of Fanzines_, which actually takes a postive
slant on the subject, though he praises fanzines for being free of
references to sex and drugs which were rife in the underground press.

Larry-bob
[l--be--s] at [bellahs.com]

---------------------------

Subject: CA BUS CODE SECTION 16603 -- Legal Codes List

    pax version 1.2
    CALIFORNIA CODES
    BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
    SECTION 16603

    16603.  Every person who, as a condition to a sale or consignment of
    any magazine, book, or other publication requires that the purchaser
    or consignee purchase or receive for sale any horror comic book, is
    guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county
    jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand
    dollars ($1,000), or by both.

       This section is not intended to prohibit an agreement requiring a
    person to purchase or accept on consignment a minimum number of copies
    of a single edition or issue of a magazine or of a particular book or
    other particular publication.

       As used in this section "person" includes a corporation,
    partnership, or other association.

       As used in this section "horror comic book" means any book or
    booklet in which an account of the commission or attempted commission
    of the crime of arson, assault with caustic chemicals, assault
    with a deadly weapon, burglary, kidnapping, mayhem, murder, rape,
    robbery, theft, or voluntary manslaughter is set forth by means of
    a series of five or more drawings or photographs in sequence, which
    are accompanied by either narrative writing or words represented as
    spoken by a pictured character, whether such narrative words appear in
    balloons, captions or on or immediately adjacent to the photograph or
    drawing.


......................................................................


I've asked a friend to ask Lexus on whether this law is still on the
books, in California, even if it's possibly vestigial.  I dunno.
However, I for one applaud Frank's efforts, and the many others,
beginning with the Creator's Summit to the present day, though it's
obviously falling on deaf ears.  Any retailer that can't figure out
what a book he's selling is about, and who it can get sold to, is
probably going to go out of business soon enough, IMO.  He's probably
not savvy enough to be a niche-market merchant, he won't make any
money.  Anyone pretending the business practices of the past no longer
exist today, and that those few freedoms won were freely granted by
benevolent corporations, is living in a dream world.  Most artists
don't have the clout of Neal Adams, it's sad that they'd need it.
Change is happening, at a painfully slow rate, and today it might
continue even if Frank never said a word about it.  But he's a
reformer, and a reformer's language is generally harsh.  Once reforms
are gained, the second generation can then speak more calmly, less
emotionally.  DC is going to do a single book with creator-owned
characters interacting with corporate-owned characters, and I think
what they're doing for Milestone is also wonderful.  But it took a lot
of years, pain and sweat to get here from there.  This is not the time
to give it up and to content oneself with the status quo.  I
personally don't mind whether comics get labelled or not, but it's not
my decision to make, it's Franks and DC's and Dave Sim's and Image's
decision.  They make the books, not me, it's their cover to design.
He is right, people that want these labels are infinitely hungry for
control.  They don't label books, they do label movies -- there's no
consistency, here.  Who's to say a comic is more like a film than a
book?  Do we have trouble distinguishing the Disney videos from the
Playmate videos?  They're in different sections, no one legislated
this, and they've labeled them, and no one legislated that.
Bookstores, on the other hand, can do whatever they want, and there's
no outcry to label them, but again the children's books are in a
different section.  The perceptive among you know there's no legal age
of maturity, and hence no legal concept of mature.  When can you
drink, drive, vote, die in a war.  Well, it depends.  :-( So back to
labels, I don't see the point, I don't see the need.  If it's given,
it's from courtesy, not from necessity.  But, hey, Frank wrote and
drew the book, I figure he puts whatever he wants on the cover and
sends the label-fiends to go read the Bill of Rights.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
[g carnagey] at [uchicago.edu], if you must know