Bent Corner

All the various comic book news sites on the Internet are all a flutter over the fact that John Nee, DC Comics Senior Vice President of Business Development turned in his resignation. A week ago.

Who the heck is John Nee?

I’m sure he is a nice guy with lots of talent and ability, but I honestly have never heard of him. I don’t even know what exactly someone in charge of Business Development actually does. I would be hard pressed to name you the person in charge of Business Development over at Marvel Comics.

I think the only reason this is being treated like news is because there were multiple rumors floating about that said there was going to be a major shake up over at DC Comics. Some were speculating that Dan Didio, Executive Editor at DC Comics, was going to get the ax.

Instead of Dido getting fired, we find out that Nee turned in his resignation. In fact, today he was supposedly over at the DC Comics offices doing whatever he does.

Link

A list of the top 20 selling graphic novels sold by book retailers in the United States shows something that is beyond dispute - manga is popular and superhero comics are not. It’s not even close.

If I worked over at Marvel or DC, I would be worried. In fact, I would be very worried. Out of the top 20 graphic novels sold in books stores, only two (2) come from Marvel and DC.

The one lone book from Marvel is an adaption from a Laurell K. Hamilton Anita Blake Vampire Hunter novel. The characters don’t belong to Marvel. Both the author and the series has an existing fan base that automatically resulted in sales with readers that may have never read a graphic novel before.

The lone DC book was the acclaimed Alan Moore’s Watchmen. It was first published in 1986 and is considered by almost everyone to be the greatest graphic novel ever written.

Eighteen of the top 20 graphic novels sold in book stores did not come from either Marvel or DC. How can both companies just continue to ignore that? If I was in charge of either Marvel or DC, I would mimic the manga model. I find it remarkable that they don’t.

The big news in the world of comic books is that Time Warner is no longer the sole owner to Superman. The heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of Superman’s co-creators is now entitled to claim a share of Superman. Siegel along with fellow Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster sold the rights to Superman 70 years ago for $130.

It’s worth substantially more now.

Siegel’s widow Joanne Siegel and daughter Laura Siegel Larson now own half of Superman. Which half they actually own is not known. They are also due compensation for all use of Superman going back to 1999. That includes revenue from the recent $200 million “Superman Returns”.

I don’t think anyone should own the intellectual property rights to something created in the 1930’s. Superman should have gone into the public domain a long, long time ago. With that said, if anyone is going to have ownership to something created so long ago, it might as well be the creators. Or in this case, the people related to at least one of the creators.

Hopefully this will pave the way for William Shakespeare’s relatives to finally get what is owed to them.

I saw this image today over at Zuda Comics, the DC Comics web comic website. I thought I recognized the font that was used in the title. I spent an hour or so yesterday looking through fonts over at dafont.com and this font looked familiar.

It’s a font called Bleeding Cowboy and its created by Last Soundtrack. The font is labeled on the dafont website as being free for personal use. On the Last Soundtrack website, it states that fonts are for personal use only.

For the commercial usage, a “donation” is required.

I’m not sure what the policy is on fonts. Its not like this is a generic Arial or Verdana font. This font used in the title is extremely stylized. It possesses a unique artistic style. It would seem to me that the font’s artist should at least be credited when it is used to create more art, especially when that art is used for a commercial project. Over at the Zuda Comics website, credit for the title page is given to Jill Allyn Stafford.

Maybe Jill Allyn Stafford and Last Soundtrack are one in the same.

Update: (8 March 2008) Jill Stafford did the art on the title pages for Bayou (the first piece being on page 4 of the story), but she did not choose the font, nor did she do the lettering/numbering.

I’ve been trying to keep up with the online funny book feminist overreaction to Tiffany Fallon being painted up to look like Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy. Even though Fallon is technically nude on the cover, it’s not the most titillating image to ever grace the cover of a magazine, especially a magazine such as Playboy. You have to look close to even realize that she is indeed even naked.

Some funny book feminists have been vocal with their disapproval of the cover. Ragnell writes over at Written World:

If they’re smart, they’ll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we’d see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer’s no. You won’t see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.

The “sexualized images of Batman“ she is referring to is the watercolor artwork of artist Mark Chamberlain. They are more then just sexualized images of Batman. They show Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder engaged in various sex acts. With each other.

Say what you want about the Playboy cover, but at least Wonder Woman isn’t engaged in sodomy with an under aged minor.

It’s true DC sent a “cease & desist” letter to the New York Chelsea art dealer that was selling the gay Batman and Robin watercolors. That was over two years ago. I don’t know what ever became of the case. Honestly, I don’t really care. I noticed today that at least some of the art is still up for sale at the artist’s website. That makes me think DC wasn’t too successful in getting the art removed.

Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy is not the same thing as artwork featuring Batman and Robin engaged in sodomy. Then again, what if it was? I don’t remember anyone - male or female - getting angry over the Chamberlain artwork showing Batman engaged in gay sex. In fact, I remember the complete opposite. I remember most people reacting to the gay Batman and Robin art as though it was kind of funny.

Imagine that.

What’s sure to enrage female comic book fans, Tiffany Fallon is on the cover of Playboy magazine sans clothing with her body painted to look like Wonder Woman. The costume is a little off, but it’s certainly a Wonder Woman costume. What does that say about me when I look at a photo of a nude woman and I notice that her red boots are a little off because they don’t have the gold trim normally seen on Wonder Woman’s boots?

Part of me is somewhat surprised that Playboy magazine is still in circulation. Not only because it’s a magazine and magazines are a lot less prevalent in the age of the Internet, but because it is a magazine dedicated to showing pretty females in the buff. I would have thought the Internet would have replaced the need of a magazine such as Playboy. Maybe Playboy is for men that like to look at naked woman, but don’t know how to find porn on the Internet.

In other words, really dumb men. Not being able to find pictures of nude women on the Internet is a lot like not being able to find water at the ocean.

I have to admit that this doesn’t bother me all that much. I’m not a fan of the sexualization of comic book characters, but I guess that’s when it’s done by the actual comic book publishers. For instance, when Marvel Comics authorized that ridiculous Mary Jane Watson statue. The one where she is doing the laundry. For some reason, this doesn’t bug me too much.

It wouldn’t bother me either if Superman or Batman received the same treatment. In fact, I would think it was pretty funny.

I’m not even sure if DC Comics or their parent company, Warner Brothers, authorized Playboy to do this or if it fell into the territory of fair use. It’s not an exact copy of the Wonder Woman costume, but she is referred to as Wonder Woman on the bottom left of the cover.

Todd Allen of Comic Book Resources interviews lawyer Darren S. Cahr (AKA Super Lawyer) concerning the intricacies involved with trademark and copyright laws and how they pertain to the use of BitTorrent technology to share comic books. Marvel and DC have recently begun taking steps to stop BitTorrent sites from sharing comic book scans.

From the Comic Book Resources article:

The question is, if you own a physical copy of the comic, is it still illegal to download a digital copy?

“Yes,” says our Super Lawyer, “just as if you own a copy of a comic book you can’t simply take another copy of the same issue from a store. At least that is the position of the publishing and music industries.”

So the touted Super Lawyer is equating downloading a digital copy of a comic you already legally own to going into a store and stealing a physical issue. The big difference is that when you steal a physical comic, that result for the store is one less copy to sell. That is something that doesn’t happen when you download a digital copy of a comic. Another difference is that a digital scan of a comic is not the same thing as a physical paper comic. One is made of ones and zeros and must be viewed on a computer. The other is printed on paper and involves ink and some staples.

A physical comic and a digital copy of a comic are different from one another. They are not the same thing. Even someone who is not a Super Lawyer can easily tell the difference between the two.

I’m not sure why someone would even want two physical copies of a comic, but I can see why someone would want the physical version and a digital version of the same comic.

Also from the article:

Is it really a good idea to go after some of your more regular customers? This is slippery slope on both sides. On the other hand, there’s something the torrent crowd needs to accept, that they’ve been screaming to the hills about, and that’s the cease and desist letter. Did it occur to anyone that someone like Marvel has to send those letters to maintain their trademarks?

Describing the BitTorrent “crowd” reacting to the cease and desist letter as “screaming to the hills” isn’t really necessary or productive. It’s comes across as unnecessarily snarky. Both sides should be able to discuss this issue without resorting to making insulting remarks about the other side.

When will Marvel and DC send similar cease and desist letters to artists that sketch comic book characters for money? There are artists making money sketching characters they don’t own the rights to. If Marvel and DC are going to go after those that infringe on their intellectual properties, they ought to be consistent. People are making a nice profit infringing on Marvel and DC intellectual properties. It’s not the BitTorrent crowd.

One annoying aspect of the article is the author evidently felt the need to dumb everything down so we comic book nerds could understand the concepts involved. He referred to the BitTorrent controversy as “Secret Torrent Download Crisis Wars”. He also tries to describe the lawyer as some sort of legal “Super Hero” when it comes to the subject of intellectual property and the law.

Who is Allen writing this article for, 12 year olds?

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.

Who didn’t see this coming? DC Comics has sent a second letter to the folks over at the comic book BitTorrent site Z-Cult FM asking them to remove all DC comics from their trackers. Both Marvel and DC had - in a joint effort - already sent a similar letter, but it was rejected by Z-Cult FM administrators because the comic book publishers failed to follow the proper Z-Cult FM procedures for getting copyrighted material removed.

Something like that.

This of course does absolutely nothing to stop the BitTorrenting of comic books. This just means that it wont be done through Z-Cult FM. People will just start using the major BitTorrent tracking sites. The same sites that people use for BitTorrenting music, movies, and TV shows.

Marvel and DC Comics can try to send a letter to The Pirate Bay.

The only thing this hullabaloo with Z-Cult FM has really done is to raise the public consciousness that a person can use the unstoppable technology of BitTorrent to download comic books for free. So much has been written this past week about Z-Cult FM. If people didn’t know about it before, they certainly do now. That in itself is ironic because Z-Cult FM was always kind of on the down-low. Not a lot really got written about the Z-Cult FM community before last week. Alexa shows that their web traffic has nearly doubled in the past week.

Maybe Marvel and DC should have just continued pretending that Z-Cult FM didn’t exist. They may have wanted to stop people from downloading comics. Instead, they may have only helped open the flood gates.

The news that Marvel and DC Comics were finally taking an interest in BitTorrent networks such as Z-Cult FM got me wondering just what effect peer-to-peer file sharing did to their financial well being. Do peer-to-peer networks such as Z-Cult FM actually hurt the comic book industry? Are comic book publishers losing money because of Z-Cult FM?

We’ve seen what file sharing has done to the music industry. It’s been losing a lot of money because it it. Lots of money. What has it done to comic book publishers?

I found sales charts for the last ten years on Comics Buyer’s Guide. If you look at the overall sales numbers for the North American comic book direct market, you will notice that sales have actually been steadily increasing since 2004.

• 2004 - $328.25 million (5.68% increase)
• 2005 - $352.33 million (7.34% increase)
• 2006 - $395.55 million (12.27% increase)
• 2007 - $429.90 million (8.68% increase)

Z-Cult FM began in 2004. I honestly don’t know when people started downloading comic book scans. I know I first heard of it in 2004. I first learned about it from an article on Ninth Art.

There seems to be a parallel between downloading comics and buying comics. It would seem the more people download comics, the more people buy comics. That’s something not seen in the music industry. Record sales have plummeted with the popularity of peer-to-peer music sharing networks. Record sales continue to decline.

Why isn’t this true with comic books?

Updated (7 February 2008): I’ve added the 2007 figures.