Roy Thomas Pens An Open Letter to DC About Creator Rights

[Doctor Kent Nelson]

Disgusting! How much did Warner Bros. make from Wonder Woman and Aquaman? And they can't support one of their own Legends... someone needs to go at DC for this!

[Jim Kelly]

What were the conditions of the contract he signed when he decided to freelance for DC? Was "creator rights" in the contract? I don't know, but somehow, I kinda' don't think so, because that wasn't as much of a thing back then. Legally, I doubt DC owes him anything for those characters. It was his decision to give them to DC. Or rather, actually, DC likely paid for them when they paid him.

I believe the contract that Roy Thomas signed with DC when he came over from Marvel gave him a lot of creative rights and control over the characters. He wasn't just a freelance writer, he was an actual editor. And DC at that time was being more gracious in giving creators royalties and ownershiip--which is why many people from Marvel came over to DC at the time. And it has been one of the stumbling blocks in recent years when they wanted to reprint stories, as they would have been on the hook to pay a higher rate on royalties.

Roy would know what terms he signed with DC and he would have reasonable expectation that he would get money whenever his co-creations were used. Some people over at DC seem to be getting around that by pretending the characters they have aren't the ones he co-created, so they can pinch pennies.

[Vampire Savior]

I believe the contract that Roy Thomas signed with DC when he came over from Marvel gave him a lot of creative rights and control over the characters. He wasn't just a freelance writer, he was an actual editor. And DC at that time was being more gracious in giving creators royalties and ownershiip--which is why many people from Marvel came over to DC at the time. And it has been one of the stumbling blocks in recent years when they wanted to reprint stories, as they would have been on the hook to pay a higher rate on royalties.

Roy would know what terms he signed with DC and he would have reasonable expectation that he would get money whenever his co-creations were used. Some people over at DC seem to be getting around that by pretending the characters they have aren't the ones he co-created, so they can pinch pennies.

I see. Well, if he's really entitled to that money then that certainly isn't good. I don't know whether or not it's worth it for him to do so, but he could pursue litigation if DC is in breach of contract.

[Jim Kelly]

The thing is if the lawyers have found a way to get around paying royalties to people who are financially secure like Roy Thomas, then they have also found a way to get around paying royalties to people who aren't financially secure. That's the real crime. For some of these folks it is a matter of life or death.

[Bob Probert]

The thing is if the lawyers have found a way to get around paying royalties to people who are financially secure like Roy Thomas, then they have also found a way to get around paying royalties to people who aren't financially secure. That's the real crime. For some of these folks it is a matter of life or death.

Secure or not, the REAL crime is not to pay the creators who make the company millions.

[kjn]

A few years ago, I applied for a job at DC Entertainment to work in their archive department to track characters with a specific focus on first appearances and creative teams and what not. I'm kind of glad I didn't get it, as I feel like part of my job would be to find these technicalities. As much as I would have enjoyed working around these characters, I can't say that being part of a system to exploit creators would have been my idea of a good time.

On the other hand, such a job as that can also be used to keep track of and honour moral (important under EU copyright law), legal, or financial obligations. How DC then chooses to use that information is up to them. Though I admit it's hard to influence unless you're rather high up on the totem pole.

But never underestimate the power of archivists and database administrators. Though I admit that sabotage is probably not justified in this case.

[Toreador]

Is it really DC or Warner calling the shots here? And while editors run the comics I'm sure it's others (lawyers, money handlers, corporate bigwigs) who decide who gets what and how much.

Wasn't it until J. Shwartz who found out Shuster or Seigel was in financial trouble that he got DC to pay him a pension? Editors might not have that type of control.

[BatmanJones]

What were the conditions of the contract he signed when he decided to freelance for DC? Was "creator rights" in the contract? I don't know, but somehow, I kinda' don't think so, because that wasn't as much of a thing back then. Legally, I doubt DC owes him anything for those characters. It was his decision to give them to DC. Or rather, actually, DC likely paid for them when they paid him.

The characters are probably work product, but who cares. DC isn't compelled to shut him out and the appearance of ripping off a legendary creator based on contract law is a bad look for them. As others have pointed out, that's how you lose great creators. There's often a difference between what's legal and what's right.