If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   'Uncle Scrooge' artist Don Rosa quits comics. And he has some choice things to say about the way Disney treats comic artists on his way out   (uproxx.com) divider line 51
    More: Interesting, Uncle Scrooge, Don Rosa, Disney, comics artist, comics, Barks, Disney treats  
•       •       •

6322 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-14 12:26:24 PM
This is news?  It's common knowledge that the Mouse has always been a bit Draconian towards their property (employees).
 
2013-02-14 12:29:30 PM
Haven't read a Scrooge comic in decades, but I loved his work. They were entertaining stories.

Sucks about the no royalties, though.
 
2013-02-14 12:30:46 PM

ristst: This is news?  It's common knowledge that the Mouse has always been a bit Draconian towards their property (employees).


Former employees have gone on to call Disney 'Mouseschwitz', or 'Duckhau'.



Disney was anti-semetic
 
2013-02-14 12:38:26 PM
Tex Henson used to teach animation and cartooning at Brookhaven in Dallas (Tex created Chip & Dale for Dinsey), and he had many many stories about working for/with Walt Disney... none of them flattering.

the phrase "That Son of a biatch" came up a lot.
 
2013-02-14 12:39:16 PM
Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.
 
2013-02-14 12:42:10 PM
W/O RTFA I can tell you the Mouse sucks donkey balls when it comes to the people who create their farking golden parachutes.
 
2013-02-14 12:44:15 PM

schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.


Maybe in the olden days, but most modern creators do get royalties.

Rosa's major beef was that Disney was trying to sell books with Don Rosa's name in the actual title and he was getting no money for that, which is ridiculous.
 
2013-02-14 12:49:03 PM
If you RTFA, he doesn't work for Disney.  He works for an independent studio which licenses the rights to make comics using Disney characters.  So his beef isn't with Disney (no matter how many times he says it does), its with the deal he signed with his publisher, which only pays him per page and gives him no royalties.  The only reason he's name dropping Disney is because nobody knows who the fark Egmont Comics is, but they know who Disney is.
 
2013-02-14 12:49:06 PM

schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.


Image changed all of that.
 
2013-02-14 12:53:37 PM
What sucks the most now that Disney is slobbering all over its marvel properties they dont even care that they have two comic legends who are on par with Eisner and Kirby as far as being the best comic book artists and storytellers that ever worked in the biz in Barks and Rosa. Both basically built Duckburg from the ground up. It took a very long time for Disney to give Barks his due and its infuriating that Disney treated Rosa so shabbily. When they should be kissing his ass

Read " the Life and times of Scrooge McDuck " By Don Rosa. You wont be sorry
 
2013-02-14 12:59:19 PM

ShawnDoc: If you RTFA, he doesn't work for Disney.  He works for an independent studio which licenses the rights to make comics using Disney characters.  So his beef isn't with Disney (no matter how many times he says it does), its with the deal he signed with his publisher, which only pays him per page and gives him no royalties.  The only reason he's name dropping Disney is because nobody knows who the fark Egmont Comics is, but they know who Disney is.


Meh. You'd have a point if there weren't other giant names in comics that do pay royalties (there are) or if Disney would work with any publishers who insist on royalties for their artists (they won't).
 
2013-02-14 01:08:06 PM
Did he come up with the characters and stories, or did he draw what he was told to draw?  If he agreed to be paid a salary or even an hourly rate, he should STFU on the way out the door.  If Disney boned him out of his intellectual property, he should sue.
 
2013-02-14 01:11:31 PM

SineSwiper: schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.

Image changed all of that.


Image forced Marvel and DC's hand... but Creator Owned titles and compensation in some form for creatives in Comics had been going on with "independents for over decade before Image launched.
The first I can recall being Pacific Comics in the late 1970s, then Eclipse, Dark Horse, Caliber, etc etc.
(though Marvel did do some creator owned projects... like when Sergio Aregones started publishing Groo with Pacific, eventually Marvel licensed Groo from Sergios...initially under the EPIC imprint... and D.C. did so on a limited basis with Pirahana Press...no reason Image should get all the credit for decades of blood sweat and tears of industry pros long before  McFarlane/Lee/Liefield got their panities in a wad)
 
2013-02-14 01:12:32 PM

The Muthaship: Did he come up with the characters and stories, or did he draw what he was told to draw?  If he agreed to be paid a salary or even an hourly rate, he should STFU on the way out the door.  If Disney boned him out of his intellectual property, he should sue.


Know how I know you didn't RTFA?
 
2013-02-14 01:20:17 PM

Stratohead: The Muthaship: Did he come up with the characters and stories, or did he draw what he was told to draw?  If he agreed to be paid a salary or even an hourly rate, he should STFU on the way out the door.  If Disney boned him out of his intellectual property, he should sue.

Know how I know you didn't RTFA?


I didn't read the end that included them selling collections of his work using his name.  That wasn't that cool, but I doubt it was illegal, and he fixed that.  The rest is bullsh*t.  He agreed to a compensation structure, let him live with it.
 
2013-02-14 01:23:25 PM
Wasn't the entire Disney empire built on the success of a stolen charecter? I thought Mickey Mouse was the creation on Ub Iworks and good old Walt took it and gave Ub the old fark you.
 
2013-02-14 01:26:46 PM
warmingglow.uproxx.com
 
2013-02-14 01:27:09 PM

titwrench: Wasn't the entire Disney empire built on the success of a stolen charecter? I thought Mickey Mouse was the creation on Ub Iworks and good old Walt took it and gave Ub the old fark you.


Not exactly how that went down, but Ub created Mickey Mouse by modifying Oswald the Lucky Rabbit...whom he also designed. Ub... like 100's of animators to come, left his partnership with Disney over "creative differences"
 
2013-02-14 01:29:36 PM

The Muthaship: Did he come up with the characters and stories, or did he draw what he was told to draw?  If he agreed to be paid a salary or even an hourly rate, he should STFU on the way out the door.  If Disney boned him out of his intellectual property, he should sue.


Well, sort of true. And the part about him agreeing to compensation should be easily verifiable. But one dude against a massive multinational's law department? Surely we all know by now how that usually turns out. See: Philo Farnsworth vs RCA.
 
2013-02-14 01:44:06 PM

Stratohead: titwrench: Wasn't the entire Disney empire built on the success of a stolen charecter? I thought Mickey Mouse was the creation on Ub Iworks and good old Walt took it and gave Ub the old fark you.

Not exactly how that went down, but Ub created Mickey Mouse by modifying Oswald the Lucky Rabbit...whom he also designed. Ub... like 100's of animators to come, left his partnership with Disney over "creative differences"


Plus a significant portion of their success is based off public domain stories and characters. Which Disney of course will never allow to happen to Mickey, Donald, etc.
 
2013-02-14 01:51:14 PM

Stratohead: SineSwiper: schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.

Image changed all of that.

Image forced Marvel and DC's hand... but Creator Owned titles and compensation in some form for creatives in Comics had been going on with "independents for over decade before Image launched.
The first I can recall being Pacific Comics in the late 1970s, then Eclipse, Dark Horse, Caliber, etc etc.
(though Marvel did do some creator owned projects... like when Sergio Aregones started publishing Groo with Pacific, eventually Marvel licensed Groo from Sergios...initially under the EPIC imprint... and D.C. did so on a limited basis with Pirahana Press...no reason Image should get all the credit for decades of blood sweat and tears of industry pros long before  McFarlane/Lee/Liefield got their panities in a wad)


However, the royalty thresholds in the 80s were pretty stupidly high.

At DC, only a select few titles would sell well enough to get creators royalties. IIRC, Wolfman and Perez on New Teen Titans were two of the few creators at DC actually profiting from the royalty plan DC had at the time.

Marvel was a bit better, IIRC, but not by much. So, the creator owned trend started the ball rolling, but Image did kick the door in.
 
2013-02-14 01:51:33 PM
I feel a little bit bad for the guy however given that he was basically a freelance artist, he could, ya know, just stop making Disney characters and create something that is completely his own and market that.  If he's as good as people say he is and his name carries some weight, publishers will seek him out and offer better terms.

Capitalism.  How does it work?
 
2013-02-14 01:53:52 PM

jayhawk88: Stratohead: titwrench: Wasn't the entire Disney empire built on the success of a stolen charecter? I thought Mickey Mouse was the creation on Ub Iworks and good old Walt took it and gave Ub the old fark you.

Not exactly how that went down, but Ub created Mickey Mouse by modifying Oswald the Lucky Rabbit...whom he also designed. Ub... like 100's of animators to come, left his partnership with Disney over "creative differences"

Plus a significant portion of their success is based off public domain stories and characters. Which Disney of course will never allow to happen to Mickey, Donald, etc.


Exactly. That's the trade-off of copyright. You get exclusive use of a character for a time, and then they become part of the cultural milieu and fall out of copyright. No one invents something in a vacuum, no creation is entirely "yours".
 
2013-02-14 02:08:58 PM

Stratohead: SineSwiper: schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.

Image changed all of that.

Image forced Marvel and DC's hand... but Creator Owned titles and compensation in some form for creatives in Comics had been going on with "independents for over decade before Image launched.
The first I can recall being Pacific Comics in the late 1970s, then Eclipse, Dark Horse, Caliber, etc etc.
(though Marvel did do some creator owned projects... like when Sergio Aregones started publishing Groo with Pacific, eventually Marvel licensed Groo from Sergios...initially under the EPIC imprint... and D.C. did so on a limited basis with Pirahana Press...no reason Image should get all the credit for decades of blood sweat and tears of industry pros long before  McFarlane/Lee/Liefield got their panities in a wad)


Yep, I remember Neal Adams had a big hand in that. And while he may be a little on the crazy side, the guy still goes to bat for creators who are down on their luck.
 
2013-02-14 02:14:20 PM

Pyynk: Stratohead: SineSwiper: schpanky: Don't DC and Marvel work in the same way?  I thought this was common practice for the big comic companies.

Image changed all of that.

Image forced Marvel and DC's hand... but Creator Owned titles and compensation in some form for creatives in Comics had been going on with "independents for over decade before Image launched.
The first I can recall being Pacific Comics in the late 1970s, then Eclipse, Dark Horse, Caliber, etc etc.
(though Marvel did do some creator owned projects... like when Sergio Aregones started publishing Groo with Pacific, eventually Marvel licensed Groo from Sergios...initially under the EPIC imprint... and D.C. did so on a limited basis with Pirahana Press...no reason Image should get all the credit for decades of blood sweat and tears of industry pros long before  McFarlane/Lee/Liefield got their panities in a wad)

Yep, I remember Neal Adams had a big hand in that. And while he may be a little on the crazy side, the guy still goes to bat for creators who are down on their luck.


Was Adams involved in Royalties, too?

I remember he was involved in the fight to get Jack Kirby's original art returned, and the Seigel and Shuster pension thing.
 
2013-02-14 02:34:52 PM

JohnBigBootay: ShawnDoc: If you RTFA, he doesn't work for Disney.  He works for an independent studio which licenses the rights to make comics using Disney characters.  So his beef isn't with Disney (no matter how many times he says it does), its with the deal he signed with his publisher, which only pays him per page and gives him no royalties.  The only reason he's name dropping Disney is because nobody knows who the fark Egmont Comics is, but they know who Disney is.

Meh. You'd have a point if there weren't other giant names in comics that do pay royalties (there are) or if Disney would work with any publishers who insist on royalties for their artists (they won't).


How is Disney in any way, shape, or form responsible for how his employer compensates him?
 
2013-02-14 02:38:25 PM

Persnickety: I feel a little bit bad for the guy however given that he was basically a freelance artist, he could, ya know, just stop making Disney characters and create something that is completely his own and market that.  If he's as good as people say he is and his name carries some weight, publishers will seek him out and offer better terms.

Capitalism.  How does it work?


Disney has nasty non compete clauses in their subcontracts.  And they have a long history of using them, too.
 
2013-02-14 02:41:31 PM

Carousel Beast: JohnBigBootay: ShawnDoc: If you RTFA, he doesn't work for Disney.  He works for an independent studio which licenses the rights to make comics using Disney characters.  So his beef isn't with Disney (no matter how many times he says it does), its with the deal he signed with his publisher, which only pays him per page and gives him no royalties.  The only reason he's name dropping Disney is because nobody knows who the fark Egmont Comics is, but they know who Disney is.

Meh. You'd have a point if there weren't other giant names in comics that do pay royalties (there are) or if Disney would work with any publishers who insist on royalties for their artists (they won't).

How is Disney in any way, shape, or form responsible for how his employer compensates him?


Disney holds the master contract and the copyright on the character.  The master contract blatantly states that in any freelancers produce work for hire only.  The master probably also dictates the compensation terms as far as page rates (with the freelance getting 50-60% of the amount)
 
2013-02-14 02:49:11 PM

Carousel Beast: How is Disney in any way, shape, or form responsible for how his employer compensates him?


Technically they aren't if you want to be a hair-splitting pedant. But don't you pretend they aren't one of the most litigious entities on earth with a long and well-documented history of farking anyone they could when it comes to IP. I could present you with a list of grievances filed by people who were directly employed by Disney but the internet is not quite big enough to display that information.
 
2013-02-14 02:51:05 PM

Carousel Beast: How is Disney in any way, shape, or form responsible for how his employer compensates him?


The licensing contract for the Disney comics is written by Disney, handed to the studio for them to put their name on the top, and handed back to Disney to say "Well this looks very reasonable to us indeed!" and sign it. You would not be granted a license with a provision to provide royalties. The terms are dictated by Disney.

The U.S. is a bit of an anomaly compared to the rest of the world in how we consumed non-film Disney. We associate it with the animated shorts - everyone else associates it with the comics. Across Europe and South America, the ducks are serious goddamn business, as are the more serious epic Mickey tales - high fantasy, gritty noire, it's a totally different media world. These comics are literally the lifeblood of the company outside of North America.

Don Rosa, in particular, is not a guy who wants to make comics and was accepting a job at Disney to get his name out. Don Rosa inherited the mantle of his personal comics hero and was allowed to pick up Carl Barks' legacy, effectively on the condition that he not be proportionately rewarded for it.
 
2013-02-14 03:10:10 PM

Dog Welder: Rosa's major beef


Thanks! I was looking for a name for my new band.
 
2013-02-14 03:10:12 PM
Having worked in entertainment and having many friends who have passed through a Disney position at some point in their career, I can tell you that i have NEVER heard a positive story about the experience. Disney is like Scientology in that if you are one of their big stars, the world is your oyster, but if you are unknown or behind the scenes or a writer/artist/artisan/bit player, you don't even get the common courtesies extended to unknowns at any other company.
 
2013-02-14 03:20:44 PM

gshepnyc: Having worked in entertainment and having many friends who have passed through a Disney position at some point in their career, I can tell you that i have NEVER heard a positive story about the experience. Disney is like Scientology in that if you are one of their big stars, the world is your oyster, but if you are unknown or behind the scenes or a writer/artist/artisan/bit player, you don't even get the common courtesies extended to unknowns at any other company.


What do you do in entertainment?
 
2013-02-14 03:32:01 PM

Stratohead: Tex Henson used to teach animation and cartooning at Brookhaven in Dallas (Tex created Chip & Dale for Dinsey), and he had many many stories about working for/with Walt Disney... none of them flattering.

the phrase "That Son of a biatch" came up a lot.


Believe it of not it's worse now that the place is run by a bunch of MBAs.  At least in the old days there was a culture of artist development and retention.  Now they have layoffs just so managers can goose their quarterly profit reports.
 
2013-02-14 03:57:17 PM
Back in the 80s one of my friends would always refer to Michael Eisner as "The Anti-Christ".

And he never worked for Disney, nor did he know anyone who did.
 
2013-02-14 04:33:30 PM
Seems kind of pointless to work the same career for a few decades, then suddenly decide you should have better compensation after the fact. It's one thing if you work at McDonald's and hate your job, but this guy could easily have taken a job elsewhere for more money, and decided not to.
 
2013-02-14 05:02:30 PM

MrEricSir: but this guy could easily have taken a job elsewhere for more money


Doubt it.
 
2013-02-14 05:05:48 PM
Interesting. Phillip Glass has just composed an opera about Walt Disney which suggests that Disney has been doing this kind of thing from the start.

You can stream it for free (legitimately) from medici.tv http://www.medici.tv/#!/the-perfect-american-philip-glass-teatro-real- world-premiere.

It's not one of his best, but it's quite entertaining.
 
2013-02-14 05:27:46 PM

MrEricSir: Seems kind of pointless to work the same career for a few decades, then suddenly decide you should have better compensation after the fact. It's one thing if you work at McDonald's and hate your job, but this guy could easily have taken a job elsewhere for more money, and decided not to.


Not really... more like when you are the guy who is largely responsible for keeping the torch alive for a franchise that long, and generally being treated kind of dickishly, and like a subhuman illustrating robot...then after sucking it up , they decided to try and cash in on the artists popularity to try and resell his own contracted work...I don't blame him for being pissed.
No one would care farkall for Scrooge McDuck had it not been for Carl Barks...  No one in the past 20 years would still be carrying that torch beyond Carl Barks had it not been for Don Rosa.
 
2013-02-14 05:48:15 PM
www.boingboing.net
 
2013-02-14 05:56:53 PM
Yeah. Roy Disney himself said essentially the same thing when he and his crew in the Ink & Paint animation branch were all cut out of the Kingdom.

The company is powerful, jealous about their intellectual property, and has a fleet of lawyers who know it's best to treat anything Disney produces as a "work for hire". This is pretty common in the business. Ask Alan Moore about the whole thing and be prepared for some swearing and whining.

If you want to maintain the rights to your artwork, release it yourself. If you want a big paycheck, work for a big company like Marvel, Disney, Warner Bros/DC Comics, etc. and accept that everything you do for them is considered work for hire-- You are a tool of the company, and even if you invent the greatest character ever, you will never get more than the salary they paid you when you created it UNLESS you try to work out some sort of merchandising/royalty deal prior to release, and even then the lawyers will caution your higher-ups against allowing you to have any control over the artwork.

It's really simple: Work for a huge corporation and you own nothing you create on their dime.
 
2013-02-14 05:58:25 PM
And yes, Image and others have made some changes in the industry, but for the most part it's still a work-for-hire business. Royalties are tricky to come by when you're working for the Man.
 
2013-02-14 06:18:05 PM

ZeroCorpse: Ask Alan Moore about the whole anything and be prepared for some swearing and whining.

 
2013-02-14 06:21:42 PM
ZeroCorpse:
It's really simple: Work for a huge corporation and you own nothing you create on their dime.

A truth present in most fields.
 
2013-02-14 06:58:07 PM

xaldin: ZeroCorpse:
It's really simple: Work for a huge corporation and you own nothing you create on their dime.

A truth present in most fields.


When I worked at Dell, I was told that any patent I filed while still an employee would automatically become theirs, no matter the use.
 
2013-02-14 08:13:41 PM

DaintySavage: When I worked at Dell, I was told that any patent I filed while still an employee would automatically become theirs, no matter the use.


You also have to be careful and submit a prior works agreement before taking a job. Your employer can just up and take something you'd already created as theirs.
Do we need any more proof IP laws need some serious work?
 
2013-02-14 10:49:56 PM

DaintySavage: xaldin: ZeroCorpse:
It's really simple: Work for a huge corporation and you own nothing you create on their dime.

A truth present in most fields.

When I worked at Dell, I was told that any patent I filed while still an employee would automatically become theirs, no matter the use.


Good way to stifle creativity...
 
2013-02-14 11:22:10 PM
When I was a kid, I'm pretty sure I was a bigger fan of this guy's work than 99% of the comic book kingdom.

I was interested in Batman and Superman as a kid.. but my true fandom was Uncle Scrooge comics. Once I realized Ducktales had this comic book ancestry called Uncle $crooge, I had to have them all (and thanks to all previous comics being available via reprint, I did!)

Some of the best stories Disney had to offer came from Duckberg, imo.
Banks obviously gets all the credit but Rosa carried the torch well. Which is, from what I can tell, all he really wanted to do in this life.

/thanks for the many years of awesome, Rosa. Enjoy your retirement.
 
2013-02-15 01:38:24 AM

Tsar_Bomba1: DaintySavage: xaldin: ZeroCorpse:
It's really simple: Work for a huge corporation and you own nothing you create on their dime.

A truth present in most fields.

When I worked at Dell, I was told that any patent I filed while still an employee would automatically become theirs, no matter the use.

Good way to stifle creativity...


Comic book writer Roy Thomas would only rework existing characters when he was writing for Marvel, because he didn't want to see a character he created from whole cloth and was forced to sign away up on the movie screen making money for Marvel and not him.

...and this was in the 1960s he was thinking like this.

/and that's why we have The Vision.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:37 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com

This needs to happen.  YOU WERE NEVER FUNNY MICKEY!
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report