AW: AW: Royalties:

[Cord Wiljes]

Steven Rowe wrote:

> for the last twenty years, Marvel and DC have been 
> paying reprint fees. and yes, they do argue that they 
> dont legally have to (except in the cases of those legaly 
> contracted). but yes,  Marvel does pay the family of Everett 
> and of Kirby for those reprints. DC actively looks for folks 
> to pay reprint fees to.   
 
These publishers know something which many companies are learning these
days: People are more motivated to do excellent work if they are treated
fairly. And participate in the profits of their successful work. So
essentisally Marvel and DC are not paying royalties for reprints out of
charity, but because they want to encourage creators to deliver the best
work they can.

Would Carl Barks' work have been better if the qualitiy of his stories
would have resulted in better payment? Probably not at the beginning.
But I consider it possible that in his later works instead of an obvious
downwards slope in quality he would have said: "If I get really good
money for years and years to come if I give it the best I have, let me
concentrate on creating the absolutely best stories I can." At least he
would have had more freedom to pursuit artistic goals with better
income. 

I believe it is overdue that Disney and their publishers find a way to
pay their creators royalties for reprints.

And is it not ironic that a publisher who sells comics about mutants
beating up each other treats his creators fairly, while sweet innocent
Disney does not?

Cord