Thread "Do we really own the rights to our comics?" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 12:09AM, Sep. 29, 2006

Okay, am I reading this right. 90/10 split and WE get 90%? And someone is complaining?

Have any of you self published? That's 60/40, and YOU get the 40, after paying for the printing, you MAY break even.

It sounds lovely to me…

Barry

Posted at 1:09AM, Sep. 29, 2006

Okay, am I reading this right. 90/10 split and WE get 90%? And someone is complaining?

Have any of you self published? That's 60/40, and YOU get the 40, after paying for the printing, you MAY break even.

It sounds lovely to me…

Barry

Sorry, you aren't reading that right :) It WOULD have been 90/10, 10 for the creators. However, that was a misquote on the NYTimes part. Platinum hasn't figured out what merchandising deals they will have and percentages may work out differently. The 90/10 thing was probably an offhand comment or unrelated information that the NYT reported incorrectly (or probably just shouldn't have included). This will hopefully be cleared up more fully by someone from Platinum, soon.

Posted at 5:09AM, Sep. 29, 2006

The things you have to remember with newspaper articles is that:

a. They get stuff wrong all the time.

b. They write to appeal to the most people.

c. If the writer doesn't understand the subject (webcomics, in this case), it will show in his article. Which this one did in spades.

Posted at 10:09AM, Sep. 29, 2006

All this stuff about "stealing a comic" is nonsense. You have a copyright notice and it's yours unless you sign an agreement ststing otherwise. Only you can draw it, write it, whatever. The rest is so much stuff. I see garfield reusing Peanuts gags all the time. I see other strips ripping off Watterson. You know what? They can TRY, but at best they make a little shadow puppet.
Don't worry. Don't be happy, either. Just the best work you can all the time and you'll be fine.

jc

Posted at 12:10PM, Oct. 14, 2006

Now, GoA did. It affects us. It was a whole 23 page "option agreement". If you haven't signed anything to this affect (and no, the "registration agreement does not count), then there is nothing you should be concerned about. Oh, and, by the way, The comic GoA is still property of Chuck, not PS. It's a stipulation in the contract that PS put in.

i know it's a bump, but is it possible to see a blank copy of the merchandising agreement for research purposes? a friend of mine is concerned that the TOS is too vague to protect our rights, and she wants to see the language Platinum is using to confirm our rights as creators.

i understand what everyone here has said so far, that we do still own our rights, but forums that are editable do not equal legal agreements.

if a copy is not releasable, why not?

Corvin

Posted at 1:10PM, Oct. 14, 2006

It sounds like you are asking for two different things. Any merchandising agreement isn't going to happen until PS enters into business negotiations with a creator. Those may not be releaseable if they're highly independent of each other. Some people may sell the rights to their idea (which I think TheDeeMan did) and other people get to keep them (like Ronson). There may not be a template form where they fill in the blanks.

However, it sounds like you're more interested in what a creator's rights are on DD, which is easy to answer. Anyone who posts anything on DD maintains their rights. DD and PS have absolutely no control or say in them whatsoever unless they violate a ToS (like pornography), in which case we just deny to host it. Drunk Duck never, ever owned the rights to people's work on DD, so it isn't even something they could give away or sell in a business deal.

It would absolutely be against Platinum's best interests to steal someone's idea or trick them into a bad business deal. They wanted DD because it's an established community (and probably also because it's a built in audience). Anything that would generate hostility or negative publicity for them they would avoid. They are taking a very hands-off policy toward DD because the place was running fine before they got here, so why mess with a good thing? They don't want to be the big brother that steps in and tries to run the show or bully people.

I do think the ToS badly needs to be reworded. It's a big mess of words where they are trying to mixing the ideas and ownership together into one sentence, but it just creates confusion. I think the troublespots are the ones where they are referring to the Platinum content like Cowboys and Aliens, but that isn't clear from their wording, and it looks like they are trying to claim ownership and/or rights over everything on DD. It looks like a ToS that was created by Platinum for Platinum and hasn't been changed to suit DD and its content.

Posted at 5:10PM, Oct. 14, 2006

unless they violate a ToS (like pornography), in which case we just deny to host it.

I don't know, there's more than a few webcomics on here that violate the porno thing so badly. Of course, it's mainly sick assrape yaoi stuff.

Drunk Duck never, ever owned the rights to people's work on DD, so it isn't even something they could give away or sell in a business deal.

The TOS are pretty clear on that. Of course, they are badly worded considering most people have absolutely ZERO experience in legal agreements. Most of the people on here are kids, so the TOS should probably be reworded in laymen's terms as "Platinum does not own any work submitted. Unless there is a distinct legal agreement between the creator and Platinum, the creator retains all rights to their creation".

It would absolutely be against Platinum's best interests to steal someone's idea or trick them into a bad business deal.

Oh yes, they would never be stupid enough to steal anyone's work. I'm sure they don't want to be labelled the Ebaum's World of webcomics.

Ya see, places that steal people's work get their asses kicked left and right. Again, look at the infamous YTMND vs Ebaum's wars to see a great example. Ebaum's got attacked, hacked, spammed, and slammed into oblivion until they removed the stolen content in question.

They don't want the trouble stealing stuff would cause.

Posted at 5:10PM, Oct. 15, 2006

if a copy is not releasable, why not?

Corvin

2 reasons.
1. Every Option agreement is different
2. Ours is none of your business.

Option agreements are just made when PS decides to start pitching your story to someone that will buy. If you are approached with one, then you need to decide what you want to do.

As I stated before, if you have not SIGNED A CONTRACT, then PS owns no rights to anything you produce. The ToS is what it is though it probably could use a clarification re-write. But it clearly states that PS does NOT own any rights to your comic.

You are no more or less protected than you have EVER been putting your stuff online.

Posted at 5:10AM, Oct. 16, 2006

Just to underscore what SpANG said, the administrators of DD are not involved in the contractual dealings with Platinum Studios. We don't represent them, we don't work for them. We run DD - the forums and the policing of accounts. It's a thankless job sometimes, but we all believe in a free webcomics community and are willing to spend our spare moments trying to keep it running smoothly.

But the inner workings of Platinum are not any of our business. This is a good thing because it lets us make decisions separate from Platinum that favor the DD community over everything else.

If you want to see what an option agreement looks like, you can probably find something somewhat similar if you google it. Barring that, you can go to the Platinum Studios website and request one - though I doubt they'll open themselves up to public critisisms on what are private business deals for them. No one who signed an option agreement with them did it with their eyes closed, including myself.

As for the TOS, I don't think they're vague at all. First of all when it states that the rights are owned by Platinum "and/or" the independent creators, that means that either Platinum, Platinum and the creator, or the independent creator own the rights.

Unless you made a deal with Platinum, it's assumed that the independent creator owns the rights. I know legal jargon is confusing, but it really does make sense. If Platinum tried to use those TOS as a way of stealing webcomics, they'd just drop the "or".

Add to that that in the Gigcast with Dylan Squires AND in the Digital Stripping interview with Dylan and Scott Rosenburg, they say in no uncertain terms that they are not attempting to steal ownership of anyone's comics. Do you think they would say that publicly if they were going to attempt something shady?

Posted at 6:10AM, Oct. 16, 2006

Which comics on here have been owned by PS so far? (Ie: who has signed the contract)

Posted at 6:10AM, Oct. 16, 2006

Which comics on here have been owned by PS so far? (Ie: who has signed the contract)

As far as I know, only "Cowboys and Aliens" is owned by Platinum. The writer of "Devoid of Life" has another comic that Platinum is printing, but not that one.

As for option agreements - which are a separate issue from ownership - I only know of my own comic. There are others, I'm sure, but I personally don't know who they are.

Posted at 9:10AM, Oct. 16, 2006

Having read all of that. I believe I have a understanding of the situation. I'm glad with the conclusion I've come too. As long as drunk duck is advancing.