The shift towards more vivid and deeper coloring in the past 20 years or so is actually contributed a lot to me getting into comics in the first place. Glad to see colorists FINALLY getting their due.
The shift towards more vivid and deeper coloring in the past 20 years or so is actually contributed a lot to me getting into comics in the first place. Glad to see colorists FINALLY getting their due.
Well done DC!
Wow, that may be the first positive thing I've said about them for a while now...
"In any time, there will always be a need for heroes." - the Time Trapper, Legion of Superheroes #61(1994)
"What can I say? I guess I outgrew maturity.." - Bob Chipman
Right on Dc! Give those colorists their well deserved credit
Good move by DC, in a time where most companies are getting greedier, this is good.
Good news all around.
Nice. Great for the creators, possibly better for fans too if this could result in a better working environment resulting in less walk outs and better output.
Yeah, good all around for everyone. I don't generally get upset with DC for what they do or don't do with the fictional characters that they own -- because it's the real people, past and present, that work at DC that really matter.
So, good on DC for updating the creator payment plan and giving some love to the colorists.
Great news. Glad they came around.
This is great news. Good job, DC! Keep up the excellent work, colorists.
they were following a 30 year old model??? Holy crap. Talk about no advancement in an industry towards its employees.
I literally laughed out loud when I read they are finally offering direct deposit.
It could depend on the percentages (if the royalty shares are made much higher than what I'm guessing they used to be -- never seen a DC wfh contract), but royalties being based on net instead of on cover price is actually worse for the creators -- they are most likely going to make less now. Colorist credit is good, of course; grouping royalty escalator thresholds could possibly be good, possibly be bad, depending on the actual royalty rates and how fast certain formats were escalating vs the other formats. But the major news here to me is the switch from cover price to net, and that's not great...
I can understand that at first--because no one knew how they were going to sell.
So as a result of this, could we see a result of less top flight creators being willing to work on B and C Level books?It could depend on the percentages (if the royalty shares are made much higher than what I'm guessing they used to be -- never seen a DC wfh contract), but royalties being based on net instead of on cover price is actually worse for the creators -- they are most likely going to make less now. Colorist credit is good, of course; grouping royalty escalator thresholds could possibly be good, possibly be bad, depending on the actual royalty rates and how fast certain formats were escalating vs the other formats. But the major news here to me is the switch from cover price to net, and that's not great...
That's an interesting idea; another possibility is that, because they are most likely going to make less money from royalties across the board, top flight creators may want to take on more books, even lower tier? I don't know -- it's possible that whatever we're meaning by "top flight creators" are doing well enough to be beyond that type of consideration.
I should clarify, I don't know what DC's old or new contracts look like, or have any inside information -- I work in book publishing. It's entirely possible that DC accountants could whip up proof in a few minutes that this will benefit creators. But from that letter, it sounds to me like less money going to creators, and with it seems like everyone praising DC (mostly rightly -- there are good developments here, too, and the tone of the letter is "this is good for everyone!"), I just wanted to point that out...