The finished book is the outcome of the collaboration, the art just a part of it, and as such, the artist should be allowed to keep it, just like the writer is entitled to do whatever he wants with his notebooks and anything else he used for his part of the collaboration.

If the artist’s original art is selling for high amounts, then most likely the book sold a lot as well, and the writer can supplement his income with the royalties he received.
Or, as others have pointed out, he could write more books, or even take on non-comic writing work in advertising, text book writing etc.

I get it now. Thanks!

And continuing in that vein, I’d say that no, the writer has no right to demand such pieces, but that a classy artist probably could and should let the writer have at least some of the art as a gesture of respect to their collaboration. However, they are by no means required to do so, nor should they be.

If YOU (as an individual) commission a “generic” piece of custom art and pay to OWN the artwork, then you could probably do what you wish with it (but you should, of course, give proper CREDIT to the artist).
HOWEVER, if you were a PUBLISHER, you’re traditionally only paying for 1st U.S. Print rights.

ANY further print usage (2nd printings, trade paperbacks, T-shirts, posters, etc…) would have to pay an ADDITIONAL fee for that new usage. Usually this is all laid out in advance (with fee percentages) when you sign your work contract.

Under NO uncertain terms (as dictated by many applicable laws – usually enforced by such artist “agencies” as the Graphic Artists Guild – since they do not accept many such instances of implied “work for hire”) does the publisher obtain the rights to the PHYSICAL artwork.
Comics (and in early years, some disreputable magazine publishers) are the only market which seems to have confusion in that regard.

Original artwork ALWAYS goes back to the artist.
Comics, as I mentioned, are one of the only venues where they seem to think that they can keep it, or that it should be split between all participants.

Any disbursement to a writer should come as either:
a) via a contract, pre-agreed upon by ALL parties
or
b) by the good graces of the artist.

A writer can sell their scripts, many times over, so in theory, if enough fans REALIZED this (and wanted the original script) would have the POTENTIAL to be able to surpass the extra income that an artist may make by selling artwork from an issue.

Of course, that’s a long-shot, as many art pages are highly sought after and command nice amounts of cash.
But, by comparison, there ARE many pages that go unsold or for VERY LOW prices (depending on what the issue was, who the artist was, how GOOD (relatively speaking) the art was, and such variables as “is it a fan-favorite or *important* issue”?).

A hot writer COULD conceivably sell scripts for one price, SIGNED scripts for a higher price, SIGNED scripts WITH a sketch/doodle for an even higher price, and (if they provided thumbnails for that issue for the artist to use as reference) copies of the THUMBNAILS as well for an even HIGHER price.

That COULD be a nice suppliment to the income.
ADDED to the already acknowledged fact that a writer can juggle multiple books (and rake in a nice salary) while nearly all artists can only draw one (or two) issues a month and only sell their artwork ONCE.

Of course, in THIS day and age of “digital artwork” (where the artist is photoshopping over photos and other reference materials with NO drawn originals whatsoever) their IS NO artwork to be returned OR sold. It’s all pixels on a harddrive.

As I wrote in my first comment; I’ve been published as a writer AND an artist (sometimes as both for one publication). For the times where I was “ONLY” the writer, I had no “rights” to any of the artwork (nor would I expect it). If I desired a piece of art, I would politely ask the artist OR pay for it.

As an artists, I received ALL of my artwork and would expect the writer to comport themselves the same way that I would as a writer in regards to ownership of artwork.

And for the few times that my artwork was kept by a publisher, I contacted a lawyer that specialized in art law (most of them can be obtained free of charge, since many artists in tat situation are “poor” enough to qualify), and had them get the work back via litigation.

That said, IF an artist is “green” enough to NOT know any better, and they accept payment that has some implied stipulation of ownership of the final artwork in the contract (sometimes on the back of the check itself), then that young artist has just learned one of the most important lessons of their career.

~P~
P-TOR

If I pay an artist for a piece of work, I can do whatever I like with the work. If I want to post the pics on my website or publish the image in my book, that’s my right as owner. I’m not touching credits here, just rights of usage. By the same respect, the publishing house would have the right to print the art in a comic, on a poster, on a t-shirt, or whatever.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for giving the artist(s) their work back. I just don’t understand why the contracting party would be legally bound to do so in one instance but not another.

So I would agree that once all the elements are brought together, the finished page is a collaboration and not just solely artwork.

AND as an added bonus, since a script can be reproduced ad infinitum, they can make some serious scratch by selling them. An artist only has ONE copy of original art.

What would a John Ostrander _Suicide Squad_ script go for, $10? What would a page of Jan Duresma art go for, $500?

Economies of scale…

The prices aren’t all that high, but with an autograph, can be sold for even more.

AND as an added bonus, since a script can be reproduced ad infinitum, they can make some serious scratch by selling them.
An artist only has ONE copy of original art.

~P~
P-TOR

That is not the case.

If you read my comments closely, I always state that there is NO such “right” for the writer, but if he and the artist are working closely together and a good working relationship (and/or friendship) is understood, then a deal could be made for the writer to receive some art.

But, it would be completely based upon the good will and graces of the artist to agree to this.

I just wanted to clear that up, in case there was any misconception.
My original comment stands as my personal view. No “rights” to art, unless the artist is OK with it (especially if the writer is participating actively in the conceptual process of the art).

Thanks.

~P~
P-TOR

I can understand why Roy has the position he has. If one’s view is that the comic story which consists of the art and script together is a collaboration, then both parties in the collaboration could reasonably expect to get to divide the finished work.

Yeah, that’s it, exactly, Scott. Thomas feels that since the original art is most likely additional income for the artists, that the writer should get some nominal cut of this additional income, because the art produced was due to the joint efforts of the writer and artist.

I read about it in a fairly recent issue of Alter Ego, I’m afraid I can’t find an online link where he says it, though.

It is also reasonable to say that the artist created and sold the images only, and the physical artwork should remain his property.

I don’t see anything wrong with either position, as long as it’s made clear upfront that it’s a condition of the collaboration. What’s wrong is when someone unilaterally decides to change the terms.

I believe (and I could be wrong here) that at least for the big two, the company nominally owns the rights to the original art since it was produce as work-for-hire, but they return the the art to the artists as a favor to them.

No. Not so. This was the linchpin of the argument about Marvel holding on to Jack Kirby’s originals when they had no business doing so. And all the brouhaha surrounding that pretty well blew this position out of the water.

See, here’s the thing — the companies own the negatives that are used to create the printing plates. And one assumes they own the intellectual properties depicted on the negatives and plates, unless the contract stipulates otherwise. But the artwork the negatives are shot from has always belonged to the artist, unless — big unless here — the artist created the work as part of his duties as a salaried staff person.

Most artists don’t work on staff. They work freelance. Freelancers keep the ownership of their originals.

The reason there is so much confusion around this is because illustration, particularly comics, is the only area of commercial printing where anyone GIVES a damn about those originals. Most printers are after the NEGATIVES. That’s what they file away for years. Original art was often discarded after the negs were shot… often enough that you could say it was routine. Even book and magazine illustrations were regarded as relatively disposable, though the artists usually got their originals back.

So it’s not surprising that it took a long time for the artists THEMSELVES to start taking an interest in the artwork. I think it was Neal Adams that started the ball rolling on this by demanding his originals back, long before there was anything like the current market for page originals in comics. I can believe that Roy Thomas might make the argument; back when he started, he was probably one of the few people working in the business that gave a damn about what happened to page art after it was shot. Though I am wondering if he made it back in the late 70′s or early 80′s, before we all got our consciousness raised on the matter.

Wouldn’t you pay a little bit of cash for an autographed script from Moore, Morrison, Miller, Moench or Milligan? Certainly not the $200 you pay for a cover, but I could see spending $5 to look behind the scenes of some of my favorite comics….

Bottom line: The owner can do what they please with it. They can give it away, disperse it to the creative team, sell it on eBay, or send it to the recycling bin. That’s their right as owner. I WOULD think, however, that penciler and inker deserve equal ammounts of the art.

This just feels like flat-out bullshit to me. How did he go about making this case?

The one exception if Liefeld art—it should all be burnt.