As one of television’s most famous anti-heroes, Don Draper, told his protege Peggy Moss, in one of the most classic lines ever spoken, “That’s what the money is for!” She had been asking for credit for work she had done on a commercial that she regarded as a great example of what she was capable of. Don’s response was straight and to the point.
But it’s one a great majority of creators typically don’t get or fight for.
In an article recently posted on BleedingCool.com dated 4/12/2024 titled Tom King Accused Of “Lazy” Scripting For Mitch Gerads, a number of creators expressed their opinion that the artist venting his opinion of Tom’s script and working using the “Marvel method” was way off-base and didn’t understand what he was talking about, stating how many artists prefer working with a bare-bones script so they had the “freedom” to interpret the script how they pleased.
You know what none of them said or admitted, not even writer Fabian NIcieza when I broached the subject with him? That by working with a barebones plot line, artists were contributing significantly to the story in a manner that warranted their credit as a co-writer deserving of being paid as a co-writer. Not one. Fabian admitted in his response to me that using the Marvel method in the 60s was to writer’s benefit at the expense of the artists then, but failed or ignored how it was applicable to creating comics today.
Speaking from the perspective of one who has submitted vouchers to Marvel, DC & Archie as a writer, artist & writer/artist, I speak from experience when I state that unless a writer submits a full script for the artist to work from, and by that only providing an artist a plot to work from, then the artist is due not only a co-writer credit, but also a share of the money allocated for scripting of a particular story.
I don’t want to hear the line “artists prefer to have the freedom of interpreting the script” while ignoring the subject of fair compensation. Artists need to quit being doormats and insist on the full script. If they’re great storytellers, there’s room for interpretations in pacing and visually expressing what they want on the page. I should know. I’ve done it myself numerous times, even working in establishing shots when one isn’t even described on a page of script even though one is obviously required.
When I started submitting my work to Archie Comics, I was told my scripts needed to be formatted in a page/panel breakdown, showing the placement of every panel, every word balloon, sound effect and character placement on the page.
When I asked for payment for my layouts, something I received from DC and other companies, I was told this was the requirement for writers working at Archie. It didn’t sit well with me, but I worked to change the system. Eventually, I was able to submit full scripts in text only. And if I contributed just a plot, I was paid for that while the writer who wrote the dialogue and captions was paid for their contributions.
Years later, when I submitted my applications for the copyrights to the stories I worked on, it was fortunate I still had examples of those script page layouts. According to the US Copyright Office, I was able to claim co-author credit to the finished art as it was clear by the examples I submitted that the finished work the artists turned in was most certainly based on the pages I submitted.
For the record which is somewhat related, anyone arguing an editor deserves co-creator status as Roy Thomas is over the character Wolverine is ignoring the fact that telling someone what the character should be or named would not qualify for co-creator status according to the standards of the US Copyright Office. They don’t recognize ideas. They only accept and register finished works. Thus, Roy is not entitled to compensation just for stating a character should be named Wolverine.
Given the uproar that occurred not too long ago over the working conditions of today’s comics creators, you’d think that someone would be standing up for their rights to fair compensation, but that’s not happening for a variety of reasons.
To put it bluntly, no one gives anything away without a fight. You’re certainly aren’t going to see most writers stating artists deserve a share of co-creator status or a share of the script money. For their part, most artists aren’t willing to state how much of a story’s success is dependent on their work, concerned they’re upsetting the apple cart and possibly losing work in the process.
Ever since the Marvel artists broke away to form Image Comics, mainstream publishers have been reluctant to promote creators, particularly artists, at the risk of seeing a repeat of creators capitalize on their exposure illustrating a company’s most popular titles.
So when I see a group consisting mainly of writers taking an artist to task about how that artist doesn’t understand how the Marvel method works while stating a writer turning in a bare bones script is due to artist preference, I have to wonder who’s playing who here, because the bottom line when all is said and done is who’s getting paid for what.
This is why I only work on comics I write and draw myself. I don’t have to have arguments over who deserves what % of the credits and money. I’ve been much happier ever since.
I can definitely see how your statements could ruffle feathers, but I can’t see any fault in what you’re saying.
As a fan it irks me how credit is often so vaguely or inconsistently given in creative works (video games in particular can be very stingy with credit, depending on the studios involved) but as someone who cares for working creatives it absolutely HURTS how even something as simple as credit for work performed is so often not given.
The pay, of course, is just as important of an issue. But before I ramble on too long, I just want to thank you for sharing your perspective. It’s always illuminating, and I hadn’t gotten around to digging into the details of what many comics folks were talking about recently. It’s certainly welcome to get a reasoned and nuance perspective first rather than braving the fires of wanton internet “discourse”.
After reading about all the comics creators having an extremely hard time earning a living doing what they love, it really irritated me to hear writers talk about a function of creation totally oblivious to the shafting of artists going on at the same time. Worse, reading artists comments that amounted to accepting the status quo instead of valuing their contributions more. It takes far more effort to illustrate a page than to write what’s happening on the page.
This is such a good article. I’m especially intrigued by the note about you working to change the system while you were at Archie. Thanks for caring so much about fairness for creators! It’s one of the things I appreciate most about you. 🙂
I admit a lot of this stuff goes over my head. I think it’s because I haven’t been in this position. I’ve done art commissions before.
But it’s interesting just the same.
It’s interesting the process of being a comic artist.
I take issue with writers claiming full or even half-ownership of a creation if they require an artist to provide input that adds to the story because it wasn’t there in the first place. As I have worked as a writer on certain stories, an artist on others, and a writer-artist on still more stories, I know what it takes to get the job done. As comics are a visual medium, the vast majority of the storytelling falls on the artist’s shoulders if the writer hasn’t spelled out all the specifics to the narrative. While the artist generally gets paid more than the writer, even the pay doesn’t fully acknowledge the artist’s contributions to the story if all the writer does is submit a bare bones plot.
Thanks for explaining. It helps having someone clarify something.