FW: DCML Digest Issue 5

[Lars Olav Karlsen]

Thanks for the reply, boy was I wrong. As I wrote I am not expert on
this but I really thought I was correct on those assumptions.

When it comes to the signatures I thought the rule was still as it was
before because I never see a signature in the art itself. Here in Norway
it always state below the first cell who wrote draw and inked it but
that is not in the art itself. I also know that they print your
signature on the covers when there is one of your stories because that
increases the sales. They also use the Barks signature but never anybody
else.
Could you write your signature in the art itself if you wanted to?
But I do agree with you and I do like the idea of the artist getting the
credit, I only hate that you never get to know who made the front page.

But I was amazed to see that Egmont never retained the rights to what
you and other made for them. I always knew that Disney had amazing
contracts with other companies but that one was really amazing.

I should really have stopped after my first post because that one was
all correct :)

Another question to you Don Rosa, and it is really of topic. I see that
some members here write to you with just Don, and some use Don Rosa. Is
it ok to shorten it down to Don? Would it be correct to just use "Don"
because I thought that you never could use that part of the name without
the last. 

Lars Olav Karlsen
Oslo, Norway

-----Original Message-----
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se]
On Behalf Of Don Rosa
Sent: 4. august 2004 16:56
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: RE: DCML Digest Issue 5

> From: "Lars Olav Karlsen" <donald at lokarlsen.com>
> When it comes to signatures the Disney Company demands that nobody
> else's signature shall be on the work then Walt Disney's. The artist's
signature
> will never be there.

You are in Europe so you must surely know this is incorrect. Artists'
signatures appear on published Disney comics, often even on the cover
(usually even bigger than the fake "Walt Disney" signature), often on
full-page pin-ups, and including magazines published *by* a Disney-owned
company such as in the France and Italia. And also in America on many
other
types of Disney artwork done for various purposes, notably the limited
edition and "collectibles" market, and including art involving the
"classic
characters", the artists' signatures do appear. Again... why not? The
appeal
of the certain, specific artists responsible is how the work is often
being
promoted and sold, so everyone involved *wants* the artists' names to
appear
prominently on the work. It increases sales, it increases profits.
As we have discussed before, the (now rare) decision to not list creator
credits or not use artists' signatures is a decision by the individual
publishers, not one dictated by Disney.

> This is the reason to why Don Rosa must hide the D.U.C.K dedications
> that he has because it looks too much like a signature.

This is the reason that I started to hide the dedication 18 years ago,
but I
could now post the dedication in "broad daylight" and it would appear in
most all editions (except probably the Dutch). The reason I continue to
*hide* it in the art is because readers enjoy the game, and so do I.

> from what I know it is the publisher that remains the
> rights to the stories, but Disney owns the characters. That means that
> Disney can not just take the stories to another publisher

Oooh, how wrong you are!!! And this is the single most AMAZING aspect of
the
deal that a company like Egmont has! Egmont creates thousands of pages
of
the *world's best Disney comics* ever year, decade after decade. They
publish very successful comics using those stories. Then they turn over
*complete ownership rights* to those stories to the Disney Company...
and
(get ready) PAYS Disney to accept it all! Then Disney sells the right
(as
part of the license fee) to the reprinting of those Egmont stories to
other
licensed Disney publishers around the world and several other places
(including Gemstone). Egmont is obligated to supply photostats or scans
of
those stories, at some reasonable fee for the copies, to any publisher
that
requests them by code number or whatever. And the same goes for other
publishers who supply Egmont with copies of their works, like the
Italians.
Someone asked if Egmont or any other Disney publisher makes a profit,
other
than to cover expenses, for submitting the use of their stories to other
Disney publishers? I am told they do not.

> As long as
> Egmont has a contract with Disney they would be stupid to pay what
they
> have to and not make new stories.

Egmont makes new stories only because no other publisher is doing so (or
probably could do it as well as Egmont or supply enough material to suit
Egmont). But Egmont does reprint stories from the Italian and Dutch
publisher, as well as many old classic American comics from the
40's-60's.
If there was an adequate selection of great new stories to suit Egmont,
then
the opposite of what you say would be true -- Egmont would be stupid to
pay
what they have to and *also* pay to make new stories". And this is one
aspect that we hope will help the American comics -- surely Gemstone
pays a
hefty license fee... but why should they pay so much and *also* hire
writers
and artists to make new stories when they already have the history of
the
world's past and present production of great Disney comics to pick from?
Better they use any profits to secure their position on the American
market,
maybe "buy" rack space in check-out lines, maybe place ads, whatever.
Gemstone money should be going to its production and marketing
divisions,
not writers or artists.

_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml