7 ms·

I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That li

by thurn 14y ago

I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an exploitive relationship.

cgh 14y ago
Work-for-hire is actually the norm in the mainstream comics world (DC, Marvel). Creator-owned comics do exist and there's a pretty big label that does nothing but (Image), but as you say there's considerable risk involved.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure there are royalties for DC & Marvel artists these days, going back to the big squall in the 1980's. (For when their work is recreated, not their characters. They give the characters over 100%.) This doesn't mean that Disney should or should not follow that practice.
  - cgh 14y ago
    No, DC and Marvel are work for hire. You are allowed to keep original artwork to sell later if you want.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      If by "work for hire" you mean the company owns the work, I agree completely. But they also, by contract, give royalties when issues (including reprints) sell over a certain amount. (You could also say that their base pay for the work assumes a certain number of sales.)
ctide 14y ago
If that works for you, that's great! Many software developers around these parts (myself included) want equity in the companies we work for. Equity is just our industry's form of royalties. Make awesome software that people love? Greater valuation of your equity!
IheartApplesDix 14y ago
But then your employer starts releasing volumes of your old work with the title "Thurn's life work" one day, and one of your friends say, hey nice book, so you're going to pay me back that $200 you borrowed in college right, Mr. Big Shot?
milfot 14y ago
The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business. It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much and box packers paid so little? The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.
- crazygringo 14y ago
  Not really. Once you get into understanding how investors, investment and VC, etc. work, the mathematics of risk and payoff become very clear. If you, as an investor, are throwing millions of dollars into a product that requires millions of dollars, and has only a 10% chance of success, then you a commensurate share of the payoff as well, which may even be most of it. At my last job, I got to choose the balance between salary and equity I wanted -- and I really had to calculate if I wanted to earn a little less (or a lot less) in exchange for a greater share of future profits. Or to earn a little more (or a lot more) in exchange for giving that up. And having gained quite a bit of knowledge from the investor side of things, at least here in the tech industry in NYC, I don't think it's accurate at all to say it's "usually an exploitative relationship". At least, as long as employees bother to figure out how it all works. Of course your employer can sack you or withold a raise. But of course you can leave for another company, or tell them you're leaving if they don't give you a raise. But you've got to have enough skill to be of value, and enough negotiating skill not to be taken advantage of, as well. Just like a company has to have enough skill not to hire not to be taken advantage of by its employees -- the employees who don't contribute, the employees who spend more time playing politics, etc.
njharman 14y ago
Its not hard to understand. You are NOTHING like an artist. Is your name used to promote work? Do you have to go on promotional tours to show your face / drum up sales? Is your work unique, no it's not. You can easily be replaced. You have a skill. Artist has talent and popularity. They could find another artist. Not easily and not with the fame and following and thus profitability of existing artist.
- Evbn 14y ago
  You seem to be conflating "artist" with "spokesmodel". Is Britney Spears the artist on her records? Only one part of many.

by thurn 14y ago

cgh 14y ago

Work-for-hire is actually the norm in the mainstream comics world (DC, Marvel). Creator-owned comics do exist and there's a pretty big label that does nothing but (Image), but as you say there's considerable risk involved.

danielweber 14y ago
I'm pretty sure there are royalties for DC & Marvel artists these days, going back to the big squall in the 1980's. (For when their work is recreated, not their characters. They give the characters over 100%.) This doesn't mean that Disney should or should not follow that practice.
- cgh 14y ago
  No, DC and Marvel are work for hire. You are allowed to keep original artwork to sell later if you want.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    If by "work for hire" you mean the company owns the work, I agree completely. But they also, by contract, give royalties when issues (including reprints) sell over a certain amount. (You could also say that their base pay for the work assumes a certain number of sales.)

ctide 14y ago

If that works for you, that's great! Many software developers around these parts (myself included) want equity in the companies we work for. Equity is just our industry's form of royalties. Make awesome software that people love? Greater valuation of your equity!

IheartApplesDix 14y ago

But then your employer starts releasing volumes of your old work with the title "Thurn's life work" one day, and one of your friends say, hey nice book, so you're going to pay me back that $200 you borrowed in college right, Mr. Big Shot?

milfot 14y ago

The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business. It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much and box packers paid so little? The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.

crazygringo 14y ago
Not really. Once you get into understanding how investors, investment and VC, etc. work, the mathematics of risk and payoff become very clear. If you, as an investor, are throwing millions of dollars into a product that requires millions of dollars, and has only a 10% chance of success, then you a commensurate share of the payoff as well, which may even be most of it. At my last job, I got to choose the balance between salary and equity I wanted -- and I really had to calculate if I wanted to earn a little less (or a lot less) in exchange for a greater share of future profits. Or to earn a little more (or a lot more) in exchange for giving that up. And having gained quite a bit of knowledge from the investor side of things, at least here in the tech industry in NYC, I don't think it's accurate at all to say it's "usually an exploitative relationship". At least, as long as employees bother to figure out how it all works. Of course your employer can sack you or withold a raise. But of course you can leave for another company, or tell them you're leaving if they don't give you a raise. But you've got to have enough skill to be of value, and enough negotiating skill not to be taken advantage of, as well. Just like a company has to have enough skill not to hire not to be taken advantage of by its employees -- the employees who don't contribute, the employees who spend more time playing politics, etc.

njharman 14y ago

Its not hard to understand. You are NOTHING like an artist. Is your name used to promote work? Do you have to go on promotional tours to show your face / drum up sales? Is your work unique, no it's not. You can easily be replaced. You have a skill. Artist has talent and popularity. They could find another artist. Not easily and not with the fame and following and thus profitability of existing artist.

Evbn 14y ago
You seem to be conflating "artist" with "spokesmodel". Is Britney Spears the artist on her records? Only one part of many.