Cord asked:
>f I understand you correctly the legal creator of any Disney comics is
>the Disney company and all writers and artists just do work-for-hire?
>Wouldn't this mean that anyone who creates Disney comics (in the U.S.,
>in Italy, in Denmark or anywhere else) should be directly paid by
>Disney? (...etc.)

I think you are asking a question akin to apples and oranges.  The creators
(as you refer to them, such as Rosa, Barks, van Horn, etc.) were paid for
their work in contract with the original licensing publisher, such as Egmont,
and, in turn, Egmont paid Disney for the rights to publish comics featuring
characters wholey owned by Disney to the Disney Company.  Gemstone is
not Disney, nor are they Egmont.  Gemstone, as I think I read previously, 
already paid for the comics they publish, by paying both Egmont or Disney
itself (as the source of the comic to be published) and to the Disney Company
for the right to publish the comics in the USA.  Gemstone had no contract
with the original creator, such as van Horn, for him to create the comic to be
published, therefore there is no obligation, legally, for Gemstone to pay
royalties to the original creator.  However, if the original creator wishes to
be compensated in some form (again) for the republishing of said comics
then they must, I believe, seek payment from Disney itself, not Gemstone.

HOWEVER, like Gladstone before them, and UNLIKE most other publishers,
Gemstone has gone far and above their predecessors by printing in each
issue recognition of each creator, whether they be artist, writer, colorist, etc.
This was not something earlier creators of Disney comics ever received before.
This is a wonderful tribute to the original creators.

Then again, there are seperate deals, such as Rosa's L&TOS that may involve
more intricate legal and monetary deals... I don't know, but in the case of so-called
"reprints", even Marvel and DC doesn't pay their creators, except in very special
cases.  For instance, Marvel republishes original Sub-Mariner comics from the
1940s and doesn' t pay the family of Bill Everett to republish them.  Also, Marvel
republishes AVENGERS #1 as a back-up story in an Annual and doesn't pay
Jack Kirby to do so.  There are some exceptions, such as paying off the families
of Joe Simon/Jack Kirby to retain the rights to Captain America, but Marvel still
owns the character, though Marvel will recognize these creators as having been
the fathers of Captain America, or recognizing Bill Everett as the creator of the
Sub-Mariner, or even Rob Leifeld as the creator of Cable, but they are not indebted
to forever pay and pay again Leifeld, etc. in order to reprint a story that was paid for
in full.  Same goes to DC for the right to reprint Superman comics from their own
archives.  They may pay for the right to retain ownership of the character to the
family of Supe's creator, but not to reprint the comics.

I think the issue of feeling Gemstone is somehow obligated to pay for material
after having paid both Disney and the publishing house that originally held
these comics, AGAIN to the original creators is not something the courts recognize.
Gemstone was not a part of that original contract between Disney/Egmont and
the creator, or whereever the comic originated.  Gemstone's primary agreement
is with Disney.

At least this is how I understand how it works.

maybe I'm wrong?

Thanks,

Rich 
xephyr@cwnet.com




---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/


