No Bullshit - Ever ([info]wbm) wrote,
@ 2008-06-25 18:07:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:roostertree

Perks to Contributing to the RoosterTree Anthology
Perks for everyone:

Every contributor gets a free ad 5.59cm high by 6.86cm wide (2.2"x2.7") to pimp anything s/he wishes. Doubling your adspace to either 5.59x13.97cm (2.2"x5.5") or 11.51x6.86cm (4.5"x2.7") or including a 2nd ad to promote other goods or services is available for a fee. No adspace is available to anyone not contributing work to the book.

Contributors will be cross-promoted in other LJs because every contributor is required to post ONE dedicated PUBLIC promotional LJ post with an accompanying Publisher-collaborated/-created animated .gif or still .jpg featuring the OP's work plus a random assortment of other contributors' work. All included images & text will have the LJ-names OR real names (contributor's choice) accompanying them.

Freedom to publicly display your work reverts to the Creator(s) when the Anthology is declared out-of-print. Out-of-print means fewer than 50 copies of the combined total of print & electronic versions sell in a year. After that, each Creator/Creative Team can do whatever s/he/they want & keep any applicable remuneration.


Perks for writers:

Comics tradition holds that the writer(s) of a story receive half the original artwork for reasons of collectibility, sale, nostalgia, etc. Either all odd-numbered or even-numbered pages are given. You won't be left with merely a piece of paper with your scribbles or a .doc file on your HD with no collectable value.


These details are all included in the contract.


(Post a new comment)


[info]thekamisama
2008-08-04 06:19 am UTC (link)
where did you get the comic tradition of writers recieving half the art?

Maybe in the 60's it was the case, when the companies usually never even gave the art back. But that practice is no longer held by any company that I know of. Inkers sometimes get a set percentage of the art by agreement between the artists. Even the work for hire places don't force artists to give away art these days.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]thekamisama
2008-08-04 06:31 am UTC (link)
Just a history lesson related to this and how sore the subject art ownership is in the comics biz: http://www.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wbm
2008-08-05 06:22 am UTC (link)
Wow. I had no idea. I always wondered why Kirby & other artists left Marvel & those great characters behind. Now I know.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wbm
2008-08-05 05:58 am UTC (link)
Really? That seems like a damn shame. If there was no story, there'd be nothing to draw - it only seems fair for the artist to divvy up the pages. Cuz if profit is split evenly, what does a writer get a share in? Or is profit not split evenly?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thekamisama
2008-08-05 06:36 am UTC (link)
the writer has the talent to write, so most usually can write multiple stories at the same time. One artist will probably not be able to do multiple books on the same schedule. Plus a writer of an original story still owns that story if it is not done work for hire, so they can adapt it, alter it, republish it in another form later down the road, etc. Much like Neil Gaiman has done with Stardust (Started out as a comic, rewrote as a novel, adapted into a radio drama and then a movie). Not to mention if the writer has some chops, they are probably writing prose as well.

But revenue splitting as a team, on an original creation, would be something a writer and artist would hash out themselves usually, before it saw print. Each instance is different, and there is no real "profit sharing" with work for hire at Marvel or DC unless you are a big enough talent to get residuals worked into your contract. With a case like that, a writer that is less known could be making far less then the artist or vice versa for a well known writer and a young unproven artist.

It is a fucking hot mess. But since we are all dealing with original creations. It would seem that the sharing of the creative materials should be worked out between creators, not forced on them.

Plus, at least with us Americans, you are dealing with potential copyright violations by not returning original artwork to the artist. The 1976 Copyright law revised rights of artists so that work they create for other may be used and licensed by a company, but the physical artwork itself is still property and copywritten work of the artist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wbm
2008-08-05 06:51 am UTC (link)
Good points. Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…