Last night’s announcement of DC Comics’ new online imprint, Zuda Comics, so far has been met with skepticism, primarily over questions of ownership of the intellectual properties.
Described by The New York Times as a “virtual slush pile,” Zuda will accept eight-panel webcomics submissions from aspiring creators. Each month, beginning in October, DC editors will select 10 entries from public viewing and voting. The winners will be awarded one-year contracts to produce their comics online.
In an interview posted last night at Newsarama, DC’s Richard Bruning and Ron Perazza addressed questions about payment and ownership, but avoided specifics. It does seem, though, as if DC’s ultimate goal is to acquire intellectual properties.
“… [T]here will be a flat fee for the submissions that are selected for the ten finalists, with no claim on ownership,” Perazza, DC’s director of creative service, told Newsarama. “We’re not buying their IP [Intellectual Property] at that point — that’s just a recognition for the work they’ve done and the time they’ve spent. Once one of the creators is selected, it’s a much more complicated relationship with contracts and so on, where there are participations and all of that. There will be the equivalent of a page rate – people will be paid for the work they’re doing. This will all really be made clear when the contracts go up online — they’re all being hammered out to be in plain English, so they’re easy to understand.”
At Journalista, Dirk Deppey combs through ICv2.com’s interview with Perazza, and asserts that DC’s “shared” ownership of the IPs — “a deal that’s consistent with the other types of deals we offer for new talent for new properties,” Perazza says — “on a practical level really means that DC will own it lock, stock and barrel.”
One of the Web’s strengths is its ability to offer endless real estate to cartoonists looking to develop audiences that may later support their works — and an increasing number of cartoonists have been able to make the model work by selling books and merchandise, as well as by soliciting donations (as was recently the case for Danielle Corsetto). Part and parcel to this plan is creator ownership. It works because there’s no third party sitting atop the creator and eating a portion of the earnings, which means that the threshold for success is attainable on a relaticely small scale. DC’s new initiative will invite aspiring cartoonists to receive a paycheck for one year’s time, at the end of which the company could well drop it from the site — yet still maintain effective control over it. Don’t even think about taking it elsewhere, or relaunching it on your own site.
Webcomics creator and commentator T Campbell takes issue with some of the quotes in the Comic Book Resources and New York Times articles, and describes Perazza as “a bit slippery” when it comes to questions of ownership.
Campbell also quibbles with the Times’ use of the term “slush pile,” arguing that “it might be more on target to call this an ‘online comics reality show’”: “American Idol puts twelve singers through a competition, and one of them gets a recording contract, a similar incentive to the one-year contract Zuda is offering. But obviously Idol gets thousands of applicants, and has to filter them before broadcast.”
Blogger Alan David Doane weighs in, too, contributing a heaping helping of snark: “DC and Marvel never do get tired of coming up with new schemes to let idealistic and untested creators do the heavy lifting for free (or close enough so as to not make a difference). (Maybe that guy in Ohio that did that awful book for Epic Comics before it crashed and burned can revive it online for DC! Yay, comics!).”
Related news and commentary:
Newsarama’s Q&A with Bruning and Perazza
Comic Book Resources’ Q&A with Perazza
Brigid Alverson comments at Digital Strips
July 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am
it might be snark, but it’s historically informed snark.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I must admit, it’s not often I find myself agreeing with Alan, but my first reaction to this was “Oh, so it’s Epic.com, then?”
July 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I said it would break the internet in half!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think it’s a shame that when a big time publisher tries to open the door a little bit to new talent, fans immediately try to close it. Yes, if you submit to Time Warner they will own your IP. If you don’t like it, don’t submit. It’s not like they are taking candy from babies, they’re entering into contracts with adults.
If they do buy your property and publish it you are now working for DC, a dream of many an aspiring creator. More importantly, that will open doors for all your future projects. If you only have one good idea, don’t sell it.
It’s okay to have to sacrifice to achieve your dreams, artists have been doing it for years and it separates the willing from the dreamers.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“I think it’s a shame that when a big time publisher tries to open the door a little bit to new talent, fans immediately try to close it.”
What fans are trying to do that?
July 9th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
It’s okay to have to sacrifice to achieve your dreams, artists have been doing it for years and it separates the willing from the dreamers.
As long as their are attitudes like that, the comics industry will continue to thrive on work-for-hire practices that reward on one extreme a lack of original creativity in the field, and on the other extreme, loss of creator rights.
If you want to write or draw Spider-Man or Superman, go ahead and sign that check. If you want to control and hold the rights to your own creation, investigate other venues.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“As long as there are attitudes like that…” Sorry, didn’t proofread myself.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
ADD - Apologies for the overstatement. I was excited by the Epic Imprint (as a reader) and sad to see it disappear, so I’m wary of such early criticism of this similar venture. Let’s give it a chance, I say.
Bully - I certainly agree with your last statement, although I would say that there might be some who wish to create more than they want to control and this is a good option for them.
Also, could you elaborate on how opinions such as mine lead to the divide you describe, I’m afraid I’m not following the logic. Are you saying that a creator must either write Superman or sell their creation to be a success? That there are no other options available in the market?
(P.S. No one should apologize for messing up homophones. We all do it.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Benjamin,
I appreciate the apology. I would ask any who might think I am over-reacting (which, I really was trying to be more sardonic than hysterical, but, YMMV), please read what I wrote a bit more carefully — both Marvel and DC have a long, long history of this sort of thing. It rarely develops much worthwhile new talent, and usually crashes and burns. Nothing in any of the interviews I’ve read indicate any other outcome is likely this time, and in fact the organizers of the imprint/website seem quite unprepared to deal with the realities of what they have gotten themselves in to.
I’m all — ALL — for talented creators getting their work to a wide audience and being properly rewarded for it. My fear here is that it’ll be all of the former and little to none of the latter, as again, history has demonstrated with the two major corporate superhero publishers.
ADD
July 9th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
ADD- I guess I’m just an optimist on this front. I think with options like Image, and Webcomics Hosts, there are choices for those who would like to control their creations and there is nothing wrong with another option. I love it when the big companies try new things because they are much more likely to create real change in the industry. Even if that rarely actually happens.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“I love it when the big companies try new things because they are much more likely to create real change in the industry.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree there, Benjamin. The comic book industry has been utterly transformed in the past seven years, and Marvel and DC have been the last to catch up with every change, every step of the way. To launch a webcomics site at this late date is nothing more than the latest proof of that.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
The Newsarama interview — why didn’t you ask about how hard it is to move the content off the Bob-Zmuda site? how hard is it to walk away? how do how t-shirt sales work on the Bob-Zmuda site? why wasn’t the word “copyright” in any of the questions? etc, etc, etc.
“I think with options like Image, and Webcomics Hosts, there are choices for those who would like to control their creations and there is nothing wrong with another option.”
There are 9300 webcomics listed on the Webcomic List website. 9300 and more every day. A site comes along that’s going to offer people this, that, and the other thing– a lot of people will want to stand out from that 9300.
The relevant question isn’t “should they have another option?” Of course they should. The relevant question is “Why does that other option always have to involve the cartoonist inserting a spiked metal dildo into their anal cavity? Why is disenfranchising cartoonists the default position whenever these idiots have a new business idea? And why can’t DC employees take off the baseball cap for the NY Times photo? Take off the baseball cap and pretend you’re a grown man!”
July 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Met with skepticism? Sometimes I forget how far removed the blogosphere is from general opinion, but this post serves as a timely reminder.
This sounds cool, dudes. It really does. And yeah, it’ll probably involve DC owning some or all of the intellectual property that’s involved. But if someone wants to do web comics and make sure the rights are 100% theirs, they can already make their own webcomics. This isn’t like traditional comics where you need access to a printing press and a distributor to compete with the biggies. It’s just an opportunity for people who can’t or won’t set up their own website, and hopefully it’ll become a place where creators can get some initial exposure to an audience. Where you go after that and what you do is up to you.
I like it so far, and I’m interested to see what it will develop into.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Thanks, Benjamin. I probably overstated or oversimplified my case as well. I must admit I get riled up over the potential for publishers to take advantage of creators in the same way that they did Ditko, Kirby, and countless others…forty years ago. And it’s still going on now.
That said, we still don’t know the full ins and outs of Zuda and the ownership/legal rights of creators who are accepted by it. I’d caution anyone to have a lawyer read over their contract carefully before signing it. I know it’s a long shot, but If you create the equivalent of, say, a new Men in Black or Hellboy, will you want to be able to control and profit from it, or will you just be happy that your character is in print? Will your family see a dime from that creation if it catches that million-to-one shot and becomes a big movie? That happening is unlikely, yes, but those are the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself. No, the alternatives are not only doing Superman or not being published…I overstated the extremes…but work-for-hire, if indeed Zuda is it, oughta be examined VERY carefully. That said, DC does seem to have a decent track record with some of its recent dealings with creators (especially in the Vertigo line). Just don’t ask Alan Moore.
If an idea is good enough for a company to buy the rights of it from you, it’s good enough to shop around to a company that will let you keep ownership of it. And yes, there are a handful of those around, too.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
ADD - I guess I just don’t feel like my block of fandom, which is admittedly a very small block, hasn’t been changed very much in the last seven years. Yes, there are lots of great webcomics host, but they all seem to be so interested in democracy and diversity (two very good things, no doubt) that it is daunting to find anything to be interested in. I’m glad for a little help and I think a few others will be as well.
Abhay - Right this minute there are creators (lots of them) creating intellectual properties for companies. Some people want the option. None of us know what the terms of the contract will be, but as long as they are reasonable and clear then there is no reason someone should feel bad about accepting those terms.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Bully - Thanks for the reply. I think we are mostly on the same page. No one wants to get screwed but some people may want to take this opportunity. I agree that they should be careful, but at this point it doesn’t seem like DC is out to screw anyone. If the contract ends up giving up all media rights with no guarantee of credit or payment, then the number of people who will sign up will fall. I still think it’s their right to sign up for a bad contract if they think the non-monetary benefits are worth it.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
You know: I agree with you, and I’ve wasted your time. I haven’t seen the contracts so who knows– maybe they’ll be, like, awesome. I just read all this for the first time in a bad moment, and had a gut level “Oh, Not this Again” reaction, just a personal reaction of boredom and revulsion at hearing people wrap up their lame, harebrained ideas in “We’re going to help the kids” nonsense… just a personal reaction; you’re right; sorry to trouble. except i stick by the baseball cap thing.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
My goodness, this is the most civil Newsarama discussion ever.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
That’s cause you’re in it, Bully!