Holy seeth

When do people realize that nobody give a shit comic. I'm not anticomicfags but that sad reality is

Okay, but fuck Jason Aaron tho

The big bucks paid to the artist imply they're forgoing certain rights from their work. Rights to reproduce is one of them

Attached: 1650304073804.jpg (1276x1177, 419.26K)

This. Do people think character designers of Toy Story get paid everytime merch is made of Woody and Buzz or some shit?

cant imagine sucking the mouses dick this hard

if i'm an artist working for a big company, i'm expecting everything i draw is their property to use and profit from however they wish.

No, but the payday of the designer of a movie's main characters is bigger than an artist who both designs, draws, and composes incidental one off characters for tons of comic frames. In my opinion Esad's contract should only allow Marvel to reproduce that specific image in the context of that comic and nothing else, reuse of the design should cost extra. Signing away the rights to both the design and full copyright to use the image and design in any and all contexts should cost silly money, this is creative productive work, it's not like it's rote mechanical stuff like blue collar work or other tool-like work and it shouldn't be treated as such.

If all character designers agreed to demand that, they would be.

I can imagine how much a retard you're by not knowing this

Nike got their logo for $35 from a graphic design student when it was just an idea for an athletic shoe company by Phil Knight, once the company got huge and profited greatly from the logo, far beyond the original planned scope, Nike paid her in $1M worth of stock, for a swoosh. The worth of art is measured in value added and not hours or labor, Esad's original deal for the artwork was for a comic expected to sell ~100K copies, not for a movie expected to make ~$1B.

retard you're by?

Why is this even an argument. The artist does NOT own the rights to the drawing. He was hired to draw and everything he drew under that contract becomes Marvel property.

If they demanded that, they wouldn't have been hired.

Doesn't matter, they signed a contract to create work for a company which the company then owns once they're done. They have no rights to the work they created for Marvel. Whether you think it's right or wrong is irrelevant because that's what the situation is.

The argument is about that being a ridiculous exploitative way to treat artists

No, you don't get it, if ALL of them demanded that the companies would either have to accept their terms or not make animated movies at all. The problem is that artists have no self-respect.

Now that's what I call tracing.
No one owns the rights to anything they produce in the comic book industry.

Attached: 1622439195838.png (1274x536, 830.75K)

so did the comic book artist paid the wildlife photographer royalties after he referenced their wildlife photo to draw that?

Marvel paid him to draw FOR them. He willingly gave up anyrights to this art when he signed the contract and accepted their payment.
If you don't want a corporation using your art to make money further down the line, don't take the jobs they give you.

No, a contract for a comic panel should be different than a contract for a movie frame. If I get hired to draw chalk art on the wall of a restaurant, I'm not immediately signing away the rights for the restaurant to use it as their logo, in their branding, to sell images or merch of it etc.

Imagine choking on corporate cock for the sake of legal fiction l m a o

this

i swear twitter people jsut WANT to be heard whining and starting trouble for the most inane shit imaginable

yes thats a good little goy do what your master tells you to do

By this logic every time a Thor movie comes out every artist who ever drew Thor for Marvel needs to get a commission.

Does that make sense?

Relying on thousands of artists who are all in different financial situations to agree to something is the wrong way to approach change. You need an organization to make the change for them, IE: unions or in some countries cases, government regulations.

>I'm not immediately signing away the rights for the restaurant to use it as their logo, in their branding, to sell images or merch of it etc.
"Right to reproduce" covers all of that. It exists as an umbrella term for the very purpose of being done with artists once they've made work for a company.

I don't know why people are arguing about this as if it's not black-and-white, "The artist was hired by a big company who made him sign a contract stating everything he made became the property of said big company". He can't sue, he won't get royalties, it's not expected that he would, at most it's a shame he's not getting some $10k check because a movie used his framing but I don't know why people are acting as if this is some legal case that he should be acting on.

Did you sign a contract with the restaurant? What did it say? How is your relationship with the restaurant owner? The example you're using for a comparison here is absolutely nonsensical. The artists working for Marvel are not creating a piece of work fr whole cloth, they are using characters and settings from and established setting at the discretion of the IP holders while under contract. It's not even close to doing a chalk doddle for se.local restaurant.

>"Right to reproduce" covers all of that
It literally doesn't, it only covers reproducing that specific image, i.e. the file or drawing delivered, which is not what they're doing here

>You need an organization to make the change for them, IE: unions or in some countries cases, government regulations
>more red tape
>more corruption
>more glad handing and nepotism
>more undeserving people getting high paid jobs because they're friends with the right people
>but at least the inker gets $1 extra per page

No. Why would he? He already drew the monster and sold the work to Marvel.

the comic looks traced anyway

The point is that the payday for just drawing the chalk art as a licensed design for that specific use only, and for signing away all use, reuse, modification, reproduction, and IP rights for the chalk art
and its idea/design should be vastly different

Suck shit your commie bugs. If Marvel burned down tomorrow, and every last of the corporate execs were raped to death by horses, I'd be dancing on their corpses right beside everyone else. That doesn't change the fact that if you want to make art FOR someone else, using THEIR intellectual property, you don't get to say "I deserve more money because you used a piece of art I made for you as inspiration for another piece of art you're working on". If you value your creations so much,don't sell them to corporations you scum sucking pinko shit stains.

>intellectual property
Imagine choking on corporate cock for a legal fiction L M A O

Being part of a union is still significantly better than, "If we all just AGREE we'll do this in a verbal contract off of work premises and nobody breaks the promise, we'll be fine!" or the even worse alternative of trusting that the company man, "Has your best interests in mind" and that, "They're here to help, voice your concerns and we will do our best to address them".

>i don't know what i'm talking about, but let me pretend i do

And that anons, is why manga is superior.
Oda is drowning in cash because whenever anyone makes a One Piece movie, show, game, or piece of licensed merchandise, he gets a cut of the revenue.

>If you value your creations so much,don't sell them to corporations
But that'a the thing. They want the glory of working for Marvel/Disney because they're consoomers, to see their art reproduced on the big screen because they're vain, and to be paid for anything that resembles their art over and over again because they're greedy and to still retain the rights to anything they signed off because they see any loss as an insult against their pride.
They're not commies, they're the would-be intelligentsia that wants to rule those stupid enough to swallow the communist ideas.

Original contract says Marvel owns that creature, not him. He needs a better manager and that's more his fault than marvels

Imagine being so fucking brainwashed you seriously present an argument that all private businesspeople should be trusted to regulate their own conduct and voluntarily improve the lives of their works when their money is on the line.

Can't imagine getting upset over someone else not making money

>i don't know what i'm talking about, but let me pretend i do
I accept your surrender.

Attached: yyv9h46ij9m21.jpg (851x719, 64.49K)

>glory
You're an idiot.

>implying you need a union to form legal contracts
>implying you can't take someone to court over a breach of contract
The union is the middle man. Whatever use you get out of them in the beginning will be lost once it becomes the very system you fought against.

>Esad's original deal for the artwork was for a comic expected to sell ~100K copies
Citation of his contract stating such?

>imagine being so brainwashed to think a union can be or ever remain in the interest of those it represents and not in the interest of the membership fees/percentage cuts they gain from those members

The artist should work for someone else then. Problem solved for artist. He's not required to draw for Marvel, it's a choice

I just wanted to note I agree with you, but I won't bother defending the position. People simply like to have the cake and eat it too, and no reasonable argument will change it

You need a union to set a standard. And the union needs to reach out and educate young aspiring people of that field of what their rights and worth are. Relying on pure negotiation means that the large company has all the control because they can just deny you, offer the same deal to someone else of equal skill and they're willing to take it because they either:
1. Don't care and just want a job
2. Don't know their worth
3. Don't know someone else was negotiating for a better deal

And in the event that you can a lot of people negotiating for better deals, then the company just resorts to going to art graduates and giving THEM shit deals instead because they DEFINITELY will be eager to have a Marvel job right out the gate of graduating and will absolutely have zero knowledge of worth and rights.

You can NOT put all of the responsibility of change on a gigantic scale of people with nothing more than "verbal agreements of if we all say we want this" bullshit. That's about as absurd as saying the video game industry will change if consumers "boycott" video games by not buying them. Not only will people NOT do it, all that would result in is industries laying off more people.

To millennials it does. They're a generation of entitlements

I'm afraid I must disagree with you. They do indeed view themselves as the intelligenntsia that rules over the masses, however, they also view themselves as communists. Their world view is inherently contradictory, as they view communist ideology as moral, while engaging in the exact sort of behavior they shriek of capitalists engaging in. One need only view the leaders of BLM as an example.

>literal corporate talking points
Concession accepted.

Of course we know it's not glorious, the point is that THEY think that it is. They want that sweet MCU cash, so they make a stink about 'paying artists' so they can work their way in.

Yes, Oda does, but not his assistants. Do you think all his assistants that have been inking and drawing backgrounds ever get a single penny from all the anime scenes that are based on their drawings?

>literal ad hominem
>argument not addressed
>claims victory
Go shit on a different chess board, pigeon.

Not him, but the alternative is that multinationals are going around paying artists a second time just for kicks and not because they have a legal obligation to do so.

Yeah I know, banging my head against a wall

>argument is literally the talking points of organizations with a financial interest in lying about their employees
>pretending your garbage warrants refutation when it is nonsense on its face
Unless you have some real evidence and not propaganda, you automatically forfeit the argument because you made the claim.

Assistants aren't hired by the publisher, they're hired by Oda himself out-of-pocket, which is the case with 99% of manga assistants.
They're not employed by the publisher so they're not entitled to any royalties anyways.

Reminder: corporations are not people and should not be given the benefit of the doubt or favored in any situation whatsoever.

>faggets bitch because marvel didn't make a movie a 1:1 of the comic
>faggets bitch because marvel made a movie a 1:1 of the comic

>bias opinion
You've already lost, senpai. Hand in your fagget card

Don't artists have the right to sell reproductions of splash pages and such?

>Reminder: corporations are not people
user...educate yourself

>Reminder: corporations are not people and should not be given the benefit of the doubt or favored in any situation whatsoever.

Attached: 1623682251092.jpg (1333x2000, 806.66K)

you're only entitled to royalties if you fucking sign a contract that sells the royalties to you.
If the artist of that marvel page didn't do it, then he is in the same position as Odas assistants.

how is arguing in circles going to pay the artist or make the company pay?

>having a samefag melty this obvious because your precious corporation was threatened

By that logic, you're just regurgitating the talking points of organizations with a vested interest in maintaining themselves in a corporate structure for profit. Because the union heads DO make a hefty profit, especially when they're not suppose to.
You're just defining things the way you want to, so that no one can argue against you without you calling them shills, all the while, ironically, spouting talking points that you were fed by someone else.
Fuck off pigeon.

Legal fiction has no bearing on moral is's and ought's. Corporate legislators can say that their gestalt employers are legally people, but they are wrong.