Thursday, December 6, 2007
Comic book artist Jamal Igle is against copyright infringment?
There has been a spirited debate among funny book nerds over on the Newsarama forums concerning the Z-Cult FM comic book BitTorrent controversy. Comic book artist Jamal Igle has been weighing in on the matter from his prospective. Even though the comic book industry has enjoyed a steady rise in sales during the time Z-Cult FM has been in existence, Jamal believes people that BitTorrent comic books cost professionals such as him money.
In fact, he believes that people that do it should be prosecuted:
Bit torrents of copyright material for mass downloading and file sharing are illegal and should be prosecuted.
Prosecuted? Jamal seemingly thinks it’s wrong to reproduce copyrighted material except when he’s the one that is doing it. Like many comic book artists, Jamal frequently attends comic book conventions and does commissioned artwork of licensed comic book characters that he does not own or have the rights to.
Using BitTorrent to share digital scans of comic books and producing unauthorized comic book art for sale are both illegal. One of the two is done to make some extra money and the other isn’t.
It’s true that comic book publishers know that many of their artists do commission work on the side using their licensed properties and they choose to turn a blind eye to it. They used to do the same thing to the people the used BitTorrent for comics. Marvel and DC Comics never seemed to care about Z-Cult FM. Now they do.
Obviously things change.
If comic book publishers don’t think commissioned sketches adversely effect their bottom line, they are wrong. Comic book fans only have so much money to spend at a comic book convention. Every single dollar they spend on high priced, unauthorized comic book art is one less dollar they have to spend on licensed, authorized products. If I was a vendor at a comic book convention and I paid money to set up a booth on the sales floor so I could sell licensed, authorized comic books and collectibles, I wouldn’t like the fact that a substantial amount of money was being spent on unlicensed artwork in Artist Alley.
If comic publishers want to crack down on copyright infringement, then they need to be consistent about it. They shouldn’t just single out people who upload scans of comic books while turning a blind eye to comic book artists that crank out $500 Wolverine sketches at comic book conventions.
They can’t have it both ways.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Although I am a supporter of Zcult and downloading comics, allow me to play devil’s advocate to a couple of points.
First, as for prosecuting the culprits, Marvel and DC are in the right to do so. I certainly don’t agree with them and hope they do not prosecute, but the bottom line is that these are in fact their copyrighted materials and they have every right to go after the people. Whether or not they are benefitting from what the so-called pirates are doing is irrelevant. It’s very similar to Youtube; when the lawyers were gunning for them a few months ago, they cited the fact that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report actually benefitted from being on Youtube. The fact is that, whether they benefitted or not, those shows did not ask to be put up on that site.
As for commissioned artwork, I would say that the argument about the sketches taking money out of the company’s pockets isn’t too worrisome either. The majority of items sold at comic cons is old issues and such, most of which companies don’t see a dime from. If it’s the choice between a sketch of Batman or a copy of Detective #154, DC isn’t going to get a dime from either sale.
Just my two cents on a wonderful Friday morning. Deep down I am totally for torrented comics and artists sketching at cons, even though I don’t actively support either practice very much.
I think you are forgetting about all of the high-end collectibles that can be had at comic book conventions. The busts, the mini-busts, the limited edition figurines, not to mention the high end collected editions that both Marvel and DC are now putting out. They now realize that there is a market for high-end, high-priced comic book tie-ins. The New York Times recently ran an article discussing this very topic. It mentioned the success both companies have had with the Absolute Editions and the Omnibus editions of comics.
One of the things I find interesting is that companies like Gentile Giant, Bowen Designs, and other collectible companies pay a fortune to produce art in the likeness of comic book characters protected by copyright. Comic book artists do not pay anything for the privilege of producing art based on these characters.
I honestly never realized just how much people pay for these commission sketches. The amount of money that changes hands in Artist’s Alley is staggering. And it’s not just at comic book conventions. Many artists also take on commissions away from the comic book convention circuit. Many have websites where fans can commission them for sketches based on comic book characters they do not have the rights to.
I sometimes wonder how many times a book is late because the artist is also doing commission work on the side along with their normal comic book penciling duties. There are only so many hours in the day.
That is true; I never thought about the commissioned statues and shit like that. Imagine if a sculptor just decided to sell their statues without any permission from the companies. I guess the sketch artists are pretty much doing this.
As for the collected editions and whatnot, while they do appear at conventions, it seems to me that the majority of items sold are older editions and back issues. These aren’t taking away from the companies per se, since the companies never see a dime from old issue sales (not that they should).
Comic conventions used to be great; it seems like corporate greed is going to destroy them, too. First they took away all the bootleg DVDs, now this. What next, charging the fat slubs to dress up like Spider-Man?
It’s not only the statues. I was surprised at this past Pittsburgh Comicon how many artists were selling prints of artwork featuring licensed comic book and movie characters. These were not sketches done on a one-on-one basis. Some of the artists there had binders containing their art and you could pick one out and they would pull a print out of a large stack of prints. I forgot all about this, but I bought a Doctor Strange print. It’s pretty cool looking, but it’s not licensed by Marvel Comics.
I really don’t care what these artists are doing. More power to them. The way I figure it, Marvel and DC turn a blind eye to stuff like this because otherwise these artists would be asking for more money from them for their actual comic book work. It just feels hypocritical when I see an artist calling for the prosecution of fans that download comics. Either you respect copyrights or you don’t.
I think you’re really going on about nothing, the fact of the matter is (and you’re only presenting one side of the argument) That the comic book companies don’t have a problem with artist doing commissions and as a matter of fact the difference is that legally they (the artist) can do commissions of licenses characters. If The companies turn a blind eye to it.. So fucking what? Does it affect your life? All of you guys are bitching because people don’t let you bootleg comics and DVD’s? buy them legally.
Paul, your reading comprehension skills are a little low. When I said “Deep down I am totally for torrented comics and artists sketching at cons, even though I don’t actively support either practice very much,” you should have realized that I am not an active user of comic book torrents, and therefore your complaint towards us is totally invalid.
In fact, your reasoning is flawed throughout. How can you claim we’re ridiculous for complaining about something that doesn’t ‘affect our lives,’ and not realize the inherent irony of the statement? You’re taking the time to complain about the comment section of this blog.
The truth is, of course downloading comics and sketching out characters are two totally different actions. Why not present the differences in a logical and gracious matter? You may disagree with what we’re saying, but at least we didn’t come charging out of the blue like the Rhino all hopped up on fruities. Do you have anything, perhaps a little more sensible, to add to the conversation?
And While I’m on the subject don’t you think that the choice to purchase an original sketch from an artist versus spending money at some dealers booth is up to the individual? Is it hurting you? Most dealers i know aren’t retailers they but this stuff at cost and sell at a considerable mark up. I’d rather get a Jamal Igle sketch or a sketch from gary Frank or whoever than pay some guy extra cash that I could be saving. All the people who cry about Marvel and DC cracking down on torrents talk about how they’re striking a blow and corporate greed which is bullshit. They’re trying to get something for nothing.
Well Sloofus unless you’ve spent this entire time posting to yourself, I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the person who originated this blog post. And I feel my entire point has been made for me.
It doesn’t affect your life, frankly. You don’t have to read or buy comic books, You don’t have to buy con sketches or original commissions. These are luxuries, not necessities.
The only reason to download anything from a torrent file is to get free stuff, period. you can wrap it up in a bow an try to justify, It’s still getting free stuff. I went and read the Newsarama thread and you keep trying to harp on this, ‘Artist should be allowed to draw copyritten character, despite the fact that Igle and Colleen Doran both saying that the companies encourage it. Doran even went as far to point out that technically it’s not illegal for them to do it either.Since Igle has an exclusive with DC I don’t think they’d have a problem unless he was drawing Marvel characters, do you? So you really need to climb out of the bell tower on this one.
And if you are indeed posting as DJ Sloofus to try and bump this blog up, shame on you. You busted yourself
Hey man, I guess I made a mistake when I thought you were speaking to me. Sorry about that, but I had made the previous entry in this particular ‘thread.’
Regardless, I still can’t understand what you’re talking about. I guess I’m the one with reading comprehension skills, after all. Can you try to ‘dumb it down’ for me?
And I don’t understand what you mean by “I busted myself.” Sorry for all the questions, but you seem like a fascinating individual.
Paul, I think you’re missing the intricacies of the post.
While it might be legal for the artists to draw the sketches, I think the parallel that is being drawn is that it is SIMILAR in nature to copyright infringement. And if the comic companies are willing to make that legal, then other issues dealing with copyright need to be examined, too.
And if you are okay with artists fleecing their fans by selling lame-ass sketches for exorbitant prices, why would you be against the secondary market (the re-sellers like collectible shops)?
And finally- you act like it’s not natural for people to want free shit. Are you fucking retarded? Everybody wants shit for free. If you don’t, it’s proof that there is something wrong with you. It’s scientific fact.
Sloofus: it’s actually simple.
You don’t have to buy a comic book or a sketch from am artist. no one’s forcing you to.it’s not a neccesaty like food or shelter. So Why does anyone give a damn how someone spends their money.
Ron:
No it’s not similar.What we are talking about is actually three fold. Copyright infringement, bootlegging copywritten material, and larceny all class C felonies Vs. A practice that the companies condone ie:Commissioned art and con sketches. The difference is it is up to the companies to make up their minds what they want to go after, what cost them more money. They’ve decided that torrents of comics are their target. It’s their product and their call. I’m just pointing out the fact that trying to make a stink about something they’re cracking down on isn’t counter culture, you’re not striking a blow against the man.
For the record I never said I was against dealers, I buy shit fom Dealers at cons all the time.
Again, you’re still not getting the gist of this.
When you explain that one is a felony and one isn’t, you’re making the point that the post is making.
They are similar in SPIRIT, not legality. In both cases, someone is taking something that is owned by the comic company- the artist is doing it in one, the consumer in the other.
The very fact that the publishers condone one is the whole point of this post.
And yes, if one downloaded the comics for free, it would be “striking a blow against the man.”
You’d be voting with your wallet- the publisher is not getting any money for the product they are putting out.
The prices they charge are fucking ridiculous. I hope they all get put out of business.
Maybe comics wouldn’t suck so bad if these terrible companies no longer had a strangle hold on the market. Whatever would rise to take it’s place would almost HAVE to be better than the current companies and business models.
Both companies do not encourage artists to do commissioned sketches. They just don’t crack down on it. You shouldn’t take that to mean they encourage it. The same could be said about Z-Cult FM. For years they chose not to crack down on it. That doesn’t mean they were encouraging it.
And just because Igle has an exclusive contract with DC Comics doesn’t mean he has license to go out and recreate artwork featuring DC characters. In fact, it could be argued to mean that opposite. He is under contract to ONLY do work for DC. That would seemingly mean that he couldn’t do work for other parties. That is what he’s doing when he takes on commissions.
The point is I don’t really care what he or any other comic book professional does in this matter. I just thought it was lame with he was calling for the prosecution of people that download comic scans. It reminded me about a story about people in glass houses and how they shouldn’t throw rocks. Something like that.
Normally I would feel honored to think someone thought that DJ Sloofus and me were the same person. Obviously he is much smarter and more articulate than me. I then realized from reading your comments Paul that you are pretty much an idiot.
Fake DJ Sloofus here, bitches!
Maybe comics wouldn’t suck so bad if these terrible companies no longer had a strangle hold on the market. Whatever would rise to take it’s place would almost HAVE to be better than the current companies and business models.
Stranglehold?
What Stranglehold? There are currently over two hundred comic book publishers in this industry both foreign and domestic. SO there’s no stranglehold there. Most of them produce some sort of material containing superheroes, maybe that’s what you’re talking about. I doubt it. DC and Marvels prices are actually lower than the majority of independent publishers, so you can’t blame them for price gouging. So you really need to figure out who the evil empire is in this scenario.
Rick:
God you’re a typical blow hard aren’t you. Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is an idiot, right?
You don’t have a leg to stand on here. First, I again reiterate, if you don’t care, why bring it up again? who cares? So he thinks people who download comics are breaking the law but he isn’t, it’s hardly a glass house case. I talked to a buddy of mine who handles copyrights and he basically backed up what Igle said. No, you get pissy when challenged. Sloofus made a mistake and so did I thinking he was you. Typical internet masturbation as usual. I figured from reading your newsarama thread you were a blowhard, I just didn’t figure you for a self righteous intolerant asshole as well.
Paul Striber wrote:
No, just the ones named Paul Striber. Then again, I’m fairly certain you were an idiot long before you honored us all with your presence here on this blog. If you don’t believe me, ask that buddy of your’s that such an expert on the law. Plus, when I called you an idiot, I used an emoticon. Didn’t you see the sad face?
P.S. - I think I speak for everyone when I say we don’t want to hear about your Internet masturbation. Yuck!
First and foremost, arguing about whether this is worth arguing about is just silly. Paul, of course I don’t really care what someone else does with their money. We’re really debating a philosophical issue here; it doesn’t have to be as cut and dried as “it doesn’t affect me so I can’t talk about it.”
As for the legalities, both of these actions (distributing copyrighted material and infringing on copyrighted characters) are both technically illegal. You may point out the differences in the legalities, but the bottom line is that they are both ‘criminal acts.’
Just because DC and Marvel turn a blind eye to the artists, doesn’t mean everyone does. If I started up a small comic publishing house, I would have just as much right to prosecute an artists for sketching one of my characters as the Big Two have. Just because they choose to ignore it doesn’t make it any more legal than downloading comics.
Again, these are all theoretical points. As I have stated many times, I really don’t give a shit who draws what, or what they charge for it. Except when Brian Bolland drew that expensive-ass Batgirl head. He was a douche.
Paul, a few more comments to you before I stop reading your self-important posts entirely:
If you don’t think comic book prices are astoundingly high, perhaps you are incredibly wealthy in addition to being a total dilettante.
(Go grab your dictionary or ask your copyright friend- we’ll wait.)
Why is Rick a blowhard when he posts his opinion (on his own blog, for Christsake!) and defends his position?
I don’t even totally agree with him, but I see his point.
You don’t see me attacking him personally because his view differs.
I need to figure out who the evil empire is in this scenario? Perhaps you can tell me who the greedy corporate assholes are who ruined comics for kids.
By the way, you were rude here first. You come off like a total asshole- I hope your first impressions in real life are much better.
Ron-
I didn’t attack him until he attacked me first and while that’s a totally school yard scenario awnser it still remains true.
As far as corporations ruining comics for kids, If you know your comic book history,if it weren’t for those corporations comic books would never have existed in the first place.
As much as some people may not like it, Marvel, DC, image and Dark Horse make it possible for small press creators to get their product out there and be seen. Most retailers won’t touch an indy book because they can’t afford it, the ones who do have to have “corporate” comics in their stores to get people through the door to support the indy titles that are available.
Sloofus_ And you’d be in the right to prosecute an artist for copyright infringement: one of the things Rick has left out of his various replies to this post is something I gle himself said on Newsarama:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Corner
Should comic book artists that reproduce copyrighted material for sale at comic book conventions also be prosecuted? Very few of them actually own the rights to the material they are reproducing. Many of them charge customers hundreds of dollars to reproduce artwork that features characters owned by Marvel, DC, etc. Not only do they do commission work of protected material, some even go as far as to sell mass produced prints of the same artwork. The last comic book convention I attended featured many artists selling prints like this.
Unlike the people that break copyright laws by participating in comic book file sharing, many comic book artists are profiting monetarily with their copyright infringement. I have no idea how much money changes hands at comic book conventions for reproduced copyrighted material done by comic book artists, but I would have to assume that the figure is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s money the owners of the copyrighted material never see. That’s money that could be used to purchase licensed material in the dealer’s room.
No, because unlike scanning a comic book, it’s original material, it’s good PR for the companies and the convention organizers because it gets a lot of fans to come to conventions in the first place. The Key difference is that as Colleen has said , is that comic book companies don’t have a problem with convention sketches. Now you may say that hypocritical but it’s not. It’s up to the discretion of the companies. Now, If I were sent a cease and desist from DC that said no more con sketches of their characters, I would respect that. I have more than enough of my own ideas to draw from without doing commissions of their characters. Damn, guaranteed though the moment that happened another company would step up and say”SKetch our characters, we don’t care what you do”
__________________
The last paragraph was actually Igle’s reply:
No, because unlike scanning a comic book, it’s original material, it’s good PR for the companies and the convention organizers because it gets a lot of fans to come to conventions in the first place. The Key difference is that as Colleen has said , is that comic book companies don’t have a problem with convention sketches. Now you may say that hypocritical but it’s not. It’s up to the discretion of the companies. Now, If I were sent a cease and desist from DC that said no more con sketches of their characters, I would respect that. I have more than enough of my own ideas to draw from without doing commissions of their characters. Damn, guaranteed though the moment that happened another company would step up and say”SKetch our characters, we don’t care what you do”
__________________
So you see Rick ,in his zeal to find someone to hang his anger on picked a guy who out flat says “If they ask me to stop I’ll stop” Doesn’t sound like a hypocrite to me.
So lets see, if we can keep up here shall we:
A) Marvel is sending cease and desist letters to various trackers and Torrent sites because they feel copyright infringement is illegal.
B) Popular artists agrees with them
C)Rick makes a stink about commisions
D)Same artist, more than one, let him know that it’s not only legal for them to do it but encouraged by the same companies
D)Oh and I loved where you were proven wrong also about Bible sales and royalties, too. I’m guessing you don’t work in publishing.
Paul Striber wrote:
Left out? My intention was not to recreate the entire thread over on Newsarama. I was only commenting on something said by Jamal Igle. I thought the comment by Jamal that people who BitTorrent comics should be prosecuted was an incredible thing to say considering the fact that he himself breaks copyright laws.
And the part where Jamal says that he will stop infringing on DC Comic’s intellectual property if they ask him is a little ridiculous. DC Comics has the following posted on their website:
COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICES
Except as noted, all books, titles, characters, character names, slogans, logos, and related indicia are trademarks of and copyright DC Comics and/or WildStorm Productions, an imprint of DC Comics.
Following the above statement is a list of all of the exceptions going to individuals or companies that own at least some of the rights pertaining to various characters. I took a look at the list and I didn’t see Jamal’s name anywhere. He appears to not own any rights to the intellectual property he uses when he does commissions. Not that I ever thought he did.
Jamal Igle saying he will stop doing commissions based on DC properties if they ask him is as ridiculous as Z-Cult FM saying they won’t host trackers of copyrighted comics if the publishers send them a letter. Since the publishers have already announced that they and they alone own the rights to the characters, they don’t need to tell anyone NOT to use them.
I don’t have any zeal and I’m not angry. Frankly I don’t really care what it sounds like to you because you are an idiot.
Proven wrong? Did you even bother to read it? Royalties are never paid for intellectual property that is in the public domain. This includes The Bible. Royalties also never go to the publisher as Jamal stated. Royalties are payments that the publisher pays to the owner of the intellectual property for the right to publish.
I’m having a hard time following this (argument? discussion?), so I think I’ll just bail out. You guys lost me at the bible talk.
“As far as corporations ruining comics for kids, If you know your comic book history,if it weren’t for those corporations comic books would never have existed in the first place.”
That is in no way a defense of those same corporations ruining comic books.
And scroll up, Paul. You started it.
DJ Sloofus wrote:
It was something somebody on the Newsarama thread said about Bibles. Jamal said that when a Bible is sold in a store, the publisher of that Bible receives a royalty payment. That’s really the opposite way royalties work. Publishers don’t get paid royalties. They are the ones paying royalties to whoever owns the rights to what was published. In this case, the Bible. The whole point was worthless because the Bible is in the public domain. I pointed this out and Jamal copied & pasted something about women buying purple Bibles to match their dresses. Weird.
It was then I decided to bail on the Newsarama discussion because it was pointless.
then you didn’t see the other links to bible publishers talking about their royalty structures. I’m not surprised though. After reading your various post your opinions are usually misinformed. For example: Alex Ross is doing Superpowers for Dynamite Entertainment, the characters are public domain characters and just like with Alan Moore’s ABC comics you can bet they’ll make Royalties off of the trade sales. Obviously you didn’t know that.
Ron:
You’re saying that corporate comics killed the industry for kids, I make the argument to you,how? they have a lower price point and generally make it possible for smaller publishers to even get their work on the stands. there’s no monopoly on the publishing side. there’s questionable practices on Diamonds side.
As far as commisions go i spoke to my buddy again, who works for Warner bros and he said, QUOTE:
We’re not going after freelancers for doing private commissions if they don’t infringe on DC’s trademark. it’s something that doesn’t cost us anything, They’ve been doing it since the industry has been around and If we did it would cause alot of undue tension with the freelance community.
Paul Striber wrote:
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you? You are clearly lying. Not only do I not believe a buddy of yours that works for Warner Bros told you that they don’t care if artists reproduce their copyrighted protected properties, I do not believe you even have a buddy.