More clarification on the Rosa issue...

[Dan Shane]

IN RESPONSE TO JOHN GARVIN, RUNE WROTE:

> > The wonder is not that Don Rosa is on strike now, the wonder is that
> > he ever agreed to these terms in the first place [..]
>
> He did, he has survived until now on them (I think?).  I can understand
> him, however.  He's _THE_ most sought after disneycomics-creator, with
> an incredible fan-base all over Europe. He knows that people _are_
> willing to cough up more money because his art is incredible.
>
>
> I'll have to add a thing about copyrights here.  I tend to dislike the
> way copyright is implemented today.  I really do think that people
> should be allowed to copy/give on what they've bought, and give to
> friends and so forth.  If the artist want to be paid more, then they
> can go on strike.  Which Don Rosa has done - and which for I greatly
> respect him.  If the public really want the artists story, they'll get
> a better contract.
>
> Well, it COULD've been that way anyways.  The problem in this case is
> that Disney probably has some obscure "rights" to prevent others from
> releasing Donald/Mickey/and-so-forth stories without their agreement
> (I'm not sure though).  Thus, Don/others can't go freelance and
> release things to the general public on their own, I think?  If they
> could, Don could surely finance himself by releasing his own books :)

AND I REPLY:

I think you misunderstand the issue, Rune, and you may be further confusing
others in the process.  Don has never claimed that he has any right to the
characters he draws, nor has he decided to curtail his work simply as a
demand for more money.  If he just wanted to increase his bank account he
could stop putting so much detail, thought, and effort into the stories.  He
could easily crank them out at 2 or 3 times the rate he does by reducing
their quality.  More stories per year, greater annual income.

But we all know Don is in such high demand because of the quality of his
work -- because he refuses to compromise and produce inferior product.  And
it is that demand that has encouraged some publishers to compile his efforts
into volumes that use his very name to sell the books.  I've already written
that Don has NEVER publicly objected to his stories being reprinted in the
standard comics for sale on newsstands everywhere.  It is the merchandising
of DON ROSA as if he or his name is a product owned by anyone else that is
at issue here (and which I personally find absolutely reprehensible).

Using your analogy of the bridge, is it to be expected that the bridge's
architect should allow his name to be attached to other structures by the
building company just so those structures can be sold at a higher price?  If
publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name attached to the books
(as sued to be the case in Disney comics, why don't they do that?  The
answer is simple -- the publisher feels he can sell more books by trading on
the artist's name.  The artist has agreed to the reproduction of his
stories, NOT his good name or reputation.  And when he has no input about
the quality of those reproductions (whether it pertains to accurate
translations or outright changes in the art itself), yet the publisher STILL
stamps the artist's name on the work as if the creator is responsible for
any mistakes that the editor or publisher makes, you think that is
permissible -- even appropriate?

Bear in mind, the above words and thoughts are mine.  They are based on my
perspective as Don's friend, but also on my experience as a designer and
artist in my own rite.  I did not run any of these statements by Don to see
if I was speaking out of turn, and if he disagrees with anything I've said
or determines that I am not viewing this situation rightly he is certainly
able to speak for himself and correct me.  But I find it difficult to think
anyone truly believes that a creator of any kind should assume that his very
name is for sale when no such DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER contract has been
signed.  I can only assume that such reasoning comes from someone who enjoys
the widespread unpaid distribution of software, movies, or any other
copyrighted material.