The Copyright Dilemma

A stray Google search brought me to Cartoon Stock, a stock art service. I admit I'm not fan of stock art agencies, but I was puzzled by this "vintage" cartoon, for which Cartoon Stock claims to own the reproduction rights. Below the cartoon is the statement, "Copyright in this image is owned by the original artist." The cartoonist is John Leech, and he died in 1864. This can't possibly be correct, as any copyright would have run out.

What reproduction rights does Cartoon Stock actually own? This cartoon should be in the public domain. Or do they have the rights to their scan of the cartoon? Many museums that forbid photography do something similar. While they can't copyright the works of art, they can copyright the photographs. This allows museum control of the image reproduction of otherwise public works of art.

I find it disheartening that whatever I draw, write or paint today could be sold for a couple of bucks to anybody and his dog tomorrow. How well are ever-changing Copyright laws protecting the interests of creators?

While many countries still permit Work for Hire, which removes a writer or artist's authorship, other countries enforce what they call Moral Rights. Moral rights protect the creator's right of attribution to and integrity of her work. Some go further; France reverts all rights and ownership of a work to the creator after a certain period of time. Is the US taking a step backward by introducing legislation that, rather than automatically protecting a copyright holder, will put the onus on the artist rather than the unauthorized user?

Things have improved since Charles Dickens toured the US, speaking out about the importance of international copyright recognition. Said Dickens in a letter to a friend,


I spoke, as you know, of international copyright, at Boston; and I spoke of it again at Hartford. My friends were paralysed with wonder at such audacious daring. The notion that I, a man alone by himself, in America, should venture to suggest to the Americans that there was one point on which they were neither just to their own countrymen nor to us, actually struck the boldest dumb! Washington Irving, Prescott, Hoffman, Bryant, Halleck, Dana, Washington Allston -- every man who writes in this country is devoted to the question, and not one of them dares to raise his voice and complain of the atrocious state of the law. It is nothing that of all men living I am the greatest loser by it. It is nothing that I have a claim to speak and be heard. The wonder is that a breathing man can be found with temerity enough to suggest to the Americans the possibility of their having done wrong. I wish you could have seen the faces that I saw, down both sides of the table at Hartford, when I began to talk about Scott...


I had no sooner made that second speech than such an outcry began (for the purpose of deterring me from doing the like in this city) as an Englishman can form no notion of. Anonymous letters; verbal dissuasions; newspaper attacks making Colt (a murderer who is attracting great attention here) an angel by comparison with me; assertions that I was no gentleman, but a mere mercenary scoundrel....

Are we back to square one, with publishers not having to pay Dickens a dime?

Should we protect the rights of those who came before us? I have to wonder if that has an effect on how we choose to protect the work of living creators. If so, how do we define the limits of protection, respect, and moral responsibility?

Illustration Agreements

Harvard Law School attorney Stu Rees did his thesis on comic strip syndicate contracts. Stu represented me and several other cartoonists and helped change the way syndicate contracts were written and negotiated. Here's a link to his thesis.

The Graphic Artists Guild keeps an eye on what types of contracts illustrators are having to sign. It offers a good resource for understanding contracts as well as offering some real-life contracts as examples. GAG Contract Monitor.

The Authors' Guild has Negotiating tips for nine typical contract clauses.

Famed Illustrator C. F. Payne has some strong thoughts on Work-for-Hire agreements. While hard to avoid, WFH agreements remove an illustrator's legal authorship to his or her work. You're not just selling rights, nor simply the original art, but your very claim to authorship. Not a new article but an important one, especially since Payne's career has skyrocketing (at least compared to mine!) since he wrote this article, indicating it's not necessary to sell out in order to make a living.

Our best luck is with clients who do not have a boilerplate contract. Oftentimes clients who do have a contract have "borrowed" it from someone else, rather than having an attorney draft one for them. In any case, it is better for the Illustrator to have his or her own boilerplate, often referred to as a Letter of Agreement (see GAG Contract Monitor above). This allows the Illustrator to have more control in the negotiation process, and creates a better opportunity to explain the terms for usage of rights.

It is best to grant usage rights as specifically as possible. For example, Exclusive North American print rights for one year in March 2007 issue of Passing Classical Gas magazine. After that point, all rights revert back to you.

Limit the number of unpaid revisions to one or two. Chances are this will halve your annual workload and double your income for the year! I'm only slightly exaggerating.

How do you know if you've negotiated a good deal? If afterward you don't feel like you just screwed yourself. Never be afraid to say No and ask for what you are worth.

Ted