Comments on: Bravo, Papercutz! http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/ Independent Opinions on Comics of All Kinds Tue, 21 May 2013 16:48:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Johanna http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/comment-page-1/#comment-82833 Johanna Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:52:12 +0000 http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/#comment-82833 Ray’s original question speculated about creators who never got paid at all. In that kind of situation (which this is not, so it’s only hypothetical), there certainly would be something wrong with reprinting a work with no further payments, even if it was originally work for hire. Morally, if not legally.

]]> By: Nat Gertler http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/comment-page-1/#comment-82823 Nat Gertler Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:16:44 +0000 http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/#comment-82823 There are actual practical reasons for cutting Geary in on the Great Expectations deal. Not only is Geary someone that NBM is already working with (and presumably wants to continue doing so), but Rick had all the original art for this, which could be scanned for making a reasonable-quality reproduction.

That’s not to say that Papercutz isn’t also interested in doing what they feel is the right thing. (Having said that, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with reprinting a work-for-hire work under its original understanding of no royalties. Certainly, when First made their original deals, there was an expectation and hope that this material would be reusable for a long time, as the original Classics Illustrated books were.)

]]> By: Ray Cornwall http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/comment-page-1/#comment-82815 Ray Cornwall Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:47:51 +0000 http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/01/10/bravo-papercutz/#comment-82815 *NOW* I’m impressed. Classy!

]]>