Ed Brubabker Criticizes Disney/Marvel For Lack Of Winter Soldier Royalties

[Coin Biter]

I’m fine (got a small case of lockdown boredom...but guess that’s afflicting large majority of UK...and overall lucky it’s not had any impact on job.)

You’re certainly right about UK name/ title usage changing in last 20-25 years.

I think..on reflection..that you are right on most usual way to refer to most celebrities in UK is by surname only. (e.g. “Greenwood scores”, “Hamilton recovers” to quote two BBC headlines today.) So..oh dear..I got things wrong, as happens a time or three.

In conversation talking about some one not present, I think I would also follow same convention (surname only)for celebrities, but for non celebrities would be full name or just first name for friends.

In directly addressing some one..I suppose there’s only one “rule” find out what they want to be called and use that. (Think most people now suggest first name. As I’ve said earlier...in practically all my recent jobs..any conversation that has started “Mr Daw” has tended to be an indicator of impending storm, and pretty sure “Daw” would indicate typhoon class trouble.)

Good to hear. I have to confess I‘ve found lockdown a bit easier than most, but it‘s difficult to feel isolated with the kids at home

I don’t want to suggest these things are typically hugely important. It‘s not like we‘re all consulting Debrett‘s Handbook before writing a post (I tell no lie, a copy of that used to be circulated around the office in a job I had 20 years ago - I guess in case one of us needed to know how to address a letter to a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem or something ).

[inisideguy]

The name thing is a great diversionary tactic. I am quite impressed. Almost as good a tactic as the selective responding. ThatÂ’s always been a favorite. Will it happen again? Stay tuned, True Believers!

On the actual subject. Why is Brubaker owed anything at this point in time?

I am a little confused about the whole thing myself. I mean those saying Brubaker should get money for the movies and the show how much should he get? Like what would be fair in their eyes? I mean Winter Soldier was in endgame. Should Brubaker get like 3 percent of the gross or what? Should Sebastian Stan donate some money to Brubaker because he is profiting off of playing someone that Brubaker came up with?

[Brian B]

Wow just WOW! This is a take

The person was joking, weren’t they? I hope.

[Brian B]

No one is denying that Brubaker was doing work for hire when he was on Cap.

We’re just saying he deserves a little cut of the action is all, for coming up with Winter Soldier.

No one is claiming this is a situation like Kirby faced, or Siegel and Shuster, or even Jim Starlin. I’m not saying Brubaker has any kind of legal claim at all.

No, all I and we are saying is given the hundreds of millions if not billions Disney has earned off the Winter Soldier, isn’t the ethical thing to cut Brubaker in on a bit more of that action?

[DT Winslow]

No one is denying that Brubaker was doing work for hire when he was on Cap.

We’re just saying he deserves a little cut of the action is all, for coming up with Winter Soldier.

No one is claiming this is a situation like Kirby faced, or Siegel and Shuster, or even Jim Starlin. I’m not saying Brubaker has any kind of legal claim at all.

No, all I and we are saying is given the hundreds of millions if not billions Disney has earned off the Winter Soldier, isn’t the ethical thing to cut Brubaker in on a bit more of that action?

Why? Why does he deserve a cut of the action?

[SuperiorIronman]

Winter Soldier would be a derivative of the Bucky Barnes character. Unless Brubaker made a Winter Soldier prior to Bucky being Winter Soldier he wouldn't get anything unless he had a preexisting agreement with Marvel.

Sometimes writers do that but most don't since you have no idea what sticks around. It'd be nice for Brubaker to get something but nobody should expect he would given nobody has an obligation to him outside crediting him creating the Winter Soldier identity.

[Brian B]

Why? Why does he deserve a cut of the action?

You are supposed to be rewarded for your work. That’s how capitalism is supposed to work.

Screwing people out of money they earned for a corporation is not supposed to be how capitalism works.

[Holt]

DC has/had some sort of program where creators would receive incentive checks for characters they created being used in other mediums. I'm not sure if it's still a thing since I know Alex Ross recently complained that his checks had stopped coming after AT&T took over. I think Marvel having a similar policy for its creators would be good, especially when you see how heavily comics from the last 20 years have influenced various adaptations (not just the MCU).

Though in that case Brubaker might still not have anything, since apparently the payments didn't cover "derivative" characters.

[Brian B]

Winter Soldier would be a derivative of the Bucky Barnes character. Unless Brubaker made a Winter Soldier prior to Bucky being Winter Soldier he wouldn't get anything unless he had a preexisting agreement with Marvel.

Sometimes writers do that but most don't since you have no idea what sticks around. It'd be nice for Brubaker to get something but nobody should expect he would given nobody has an obligation to him outside crediting him creating the Winter Soldier identity.

You’re confusing legal obligations with ethical ones. No one is claiming Brubaker didn’t get exactly what he agreed to get. I and we are saying he earned Disney a LOT of money. Disney should share some of that wealth he earned for them is all I and we are saying.

[SuperiorIronman]

You are supposed to be rewarded for your work. That’s how capitalism is supposed to work.

Screwing people out of money they earned for a corporation is not supposed to be how capitalism works.

Was he screwed? He's working for hire on an existing character, the identity he made for them is a derivative of Bucky Barnes, he didn't make Bucky or the Captain America franchise either. Had Winter Soldier been a separate character he'd be entitled to something or if his contract with Marvel stipulated he got royalties. The comic industry is messy with that last one though and inconsistent among the companies that outright claim to do it.

[DT Winslow]

You’re confusing legal obligations with ethical ones. No one is claiming Brubaker didn’t get exactly what he agreed to get. I and we are saying he earned Disney a LOT of money. Disney should share some of that wealth he earned for them is all I and we are saying.

I’m not going to double quote. But to your response above, he was ‘rewarded’ for his work, as capitalism assigns. He received his page rate. What you want is not capitalism. Capitalism has been accomplished. You want redistribution of wealth.

To this portion, when you say ‘should’, that’s not capitalism or a moral or ethical concern. ‘Disney should share…’ Why should they? He wasn’t screwed and did not receive less than agreed to. He assumed no risk in the situation. As per your capitalism, he would need to assume some of the risk in order to get a bigger portion of the reward.

[inisideguy]

You’re confusing legal obligations with ethical ones. No one is claiming Brubaker didn’t get exactly what he agreed to get. I and we are saying he earned Disney a LOT of money. Disney should share some of that wealth he earned for them is all I and we are saying.

To me this is all nuts. Thor has made marvel/disney Billions. Thor is a public domain character. Now are people arguing well what about the people who have wrote Thor comics over the years don't they deserve part of the royalties from these Thor and Avengers movies? The Thor character isn't anything like the guy the Norse people invented 2000 years ago. So these comic writers and just pick one have done their own various versions of Thor. Do these guys get royalties? What if Jane Foster becomes Thor in the next movie? Does that guy who made Jane Foster deserve royalties? And say you say well yes the guy who wrote Jane Foster Thor deserves royalties. Wait he wasn't the first to do Jane Foster Thor. It was actually done in a what if comic back in the 70s. So this gets crazy convoluted.

[gurkle]

To me this is all nuts. Thor has made marvel/disney Billions. Thor is a public domain character. Now are people arguing well what about the people who have wrote Thor comics over the years don't they deserve part of the royalties from these Thor and Avengers movies? The Thor character isn't anything like the guy the Norse people invented 2000 years ago. So these comic writers and just pick on have done their own various versions of Thor. Do these guys get royalties? What if Jane Foster becomes Thor in the next movie? Does that guy who made Jane Foster deserve royalties? And say you say well yes the guy who wrote Jane Foster Thor deserves royalties. Wait he wasn't the first to do Jane Foster Thor. It was actually done in a what if comic back in the 70s. So this gets crazy convoluted.

But we all know where thety got the idea of Jane Foster as Thor. The MCU doesn't try to hide which comics they look to for inspiration. "Bucky is alive" is an idea they could have gotten on their own; "Bucky is alive and a brainwashed assasin known as the Winter Soldier" is not.

Now, if there were a rule that story creators had to be compensated, they would develop rules about how much they can borrow without compensating the creators. Like maybe they would say that Sam Wilson becoming Captain America is an idea that is so generalized that they don't have to pay the people who made the comic where he became Captain America. "Jane Foster becomes Thor" is not something that would require them to pay the creators of that What-If story, but whatever they're taking from Jason Aaron's run would probably require them to pay the creators of that comic.

If they had a rule like that then the MCU would probably take less from the comics or stick to very generalized ideas rather than specific story elements. But when they did take more, they'd have to pay a bit more.

[Brian B]

I’m not going to double quote. But to your response above, he was ‘rewarded’ for his work, as capitalism assigns. He received his page rate. What you want is not capitalism. Capitalism has been accomplished. You want redistribution of wealth.

To this portion, when you say ‘should’, that’s not capitalism or a moral or ethical concern. ‘Disney should share…’ Why should they? He wasn’t screwed and did not receive less than agreed to. He assumed no risk in the situation. As per your capitalism, he would need to assume some of the risk in order to get a bigger portion of the reward.

Your version of capitalism is unfortunately what many corporations practice. See Brubaker’s non-existent royalties on Winter Soldier for details.

What I am suggesting is not “redistribution of wealth.” Taxes, social policy and socialism never entered this conversation.

What I’m talking about would in capitalist terms be the very non-radical concept called a “bonus,” “award” or “reward.”

Remind me to never work for you.

[inisideguy]

But we all know where thety got the idea of Jane Foster as Thor. The MCU doesn't try to hide which comics they look to for inspiration. "Bucky is alive" is an idea they could have gotten on their own; "Bucky is alive and a brainwashed assasin known as the Winter Soldier" is not.

Now, if there were a rule that story creators had to be compensated, they would develop rules about how much they can borrow without compensating the creators. Like maybe they would say that Sam Wilson becoming Captain America is an idea that is so generalized that they don't have to pay the people who made the comic where he became Captain America. "Jane Foster becomes Thor" is not something that would require them to pay the creators of that What-If story, but whatever they're taking from Jason Aaron's run would probably require them to pay the creators of that comic.

If they had a rule like that then the MCU would probably take less from the comics or stick to very generalized ideas rather than specific story elements. But when they did take more, they'd have to pay a bit more.

I don't know you are getting into weeds when you start saying well writer A took character B in a totally different direction therefore he deserves more royalties than the writer who put a hammer in Jane Fosters Hand. Then you start to say well but if they make a movie somewhat based around that story then the writer deserves royalties. To me this is a giant headache.


Lets take this as an example. The kingpin dies in the comic. 3 years later another writer brings back The kingpin yet now he is a superhero fighting on the side of justice called the Kingman. Somewhere down the line at some point Marvel makes the kingpin a good guy in a movie. You are saying that writer who made the kingpin a good guy deserves royalties for that.