Post by angryquacking on Feb 11, 2022 14:41:11 GMT
Hi folks, I'm glad to have found this board. I have a general Disney Comics publishing question.
Let's say I work for a publisher who is generally interested in adding some existing Donald Duck comics to their offerings, and possibly in foreign languages (ie. translating an English language comic into Portuguese). I am obviously aware that many publishers around the world have published Disney Comics at different times, and that some are still actively doing so, while others are currently out of print/not being published.
If I wanted to approach a publisher with a proposal for reprinting some existing comics (or perhaps publishing them in a different format ie. digital, or in different languages) - do I need to approach the publisher directly and see what they can offer in terms of rights and permissions? Or is this centralised with Disney themselves? (My impression was that I'd need to approach different publishers on an individual basis rather than it being centralised with Disney, but I may be wrong about this.)
Welcome! First of all, I am not a publisher, or a lawyer, but this is my rocky understanding of how it all works.
Disney comics are traditionally distributed via licensing agreements. This license is first and foremost for the use of the characters, which are under copyright and belong to Disney. In a licensing agreement, Disney and the publisher work out that exact details of the publishing license: the depiction of the characters, allowing for the creation of new comics or just reprinting old ones, the percentage that goes to Disney, the whole shebang.
One important thing to note is that most Disney comics licenses are exclusive to that country: if there's already a Disney comics publisher in your country, you're likely out of luck. This is why you see in some countries a succession of publishers for the main titles. In the USA, the 'core four' titles have been published by Western Publishing (under the Dell, Gold Key, and Whitman imprints), Gladstone, Gemstone, Boom Comics, and IDW. Some publishers in other countries have held the license for the better part of a century. Hachette held the license in France from 1934 to 2019, when they were incorporated into another entity. In Scandinavia, Egmont has had the license since 1948, and they've taken on half the world besides. In Brazil, Abril held the license from 1950 to 2018.
Not all licenses are comprehensive and exclusive. For instance, the Dutch publisher decided in the early 2010s that comics based on Disney's movie properties didn't sell enough for them, so they dropped them and they were picked up by Big Balloon. In France, Glénat is a regular publisher of hardcover collections (comparable to Fantagraphics in the USA), and they've recently started a line of high-end auteur based graphic novels, where characters are allowed a little freedom. The exact details will differ from country to country. There's usually a niche for a one-off publication of one's Disney's many side properties, but any long-term plans will be a different matter. But hey, only Disney knows!
I would think a potential publisher has little to gain from contacting an existing publisher, as far as the license goes. After all, you may find that are competing for the same rights and properties. Perhaps, if you're sure that you're not in one another's way, and you already know the people who work there (it's a small world and all that). But I have no experience in that business, so don't take my word for it.
If it's a licensing agreement you want, Disney seems to me the obvious place. They have a number of regional offices abroad, but it's not unusual for Burbank to call some of the shots. I know of Disney Europe in France, there may be others. I'm not sure how centralized/decentralized their internal systems are.
EDIT: Of course, once you get a license of a sort, you would start to build contacts with other publishers as you need to purchase the stories they created for publication in your magazines. The main production outputs are currently DPG in Holland, Egmont in Scandinavia, Panini in Italy, and Disney Publishing Worldwide, with some minor production in France and Brazil.
Last Edit: Feb 11, 2022 18:26:41 GMT by That Duckfan
as you need to purchase the stories they created for publication in your magazines
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
as you need to purchase the stories they created for publication in your magazines
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
as you need to purchase the stories they created for publication in your magazines
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
But don't you still need to pay the publishers to purchase the printing files for the stories? I think someone else here said earlier that's how it works.
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
But don't you still need to pay the publishers to purchase the printing files for the stories? I think someone else here said earlier that's how it works.
I think this is how it works, or at least how it worked. I remember reading Becattini (?) claiming that Mondadori used to print English stories back in the days because they were cheaper, but I might be wrong and/or confused.
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
But don't you still need to pay the publishers to purchase the printing files for the stories? I think someone else here said earlier that's how it works.
That is true. But that isn't "income" for the producing franchise. It is just re-imbursing them for the cost of printing them for the requesting franchise.
Post by Daniel Maline on Feb 17, 2022 11:33:53 GMT
Disney owns their trademarks and characters (means, for example, that they own Marvel's versions of Loki and its variations, but not the original Loki from the Norse mythology), but they sells licenses to publishers in various countries (for example, Egmont in North Europe) so that they can then publish the Disney related material in the terms of the agreement and their licenses contract. Licensed publishers hire artists and writers who create content for publication on demand and independently for a fee. And while Disney owns the characters, artists and writers own the copyright to their works. Therefore, publishers need both, permission from the Disney for the license and permission from the copyright holder to publish their works.
Note: I’m not a Disney agent, I’m not a publisher, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a lawyer either, but this is what I have read and understood about it.
That's not how it works with Disney comics. Publishers don't get any money when the Disney comics they produced are reprinted by other companies. For example, Egmont does not get a dime when the Life of Scrooge stories are reprinted again and again and again around the world.
I didn't know that, thanks for the correction.
I’m not sure what exactly you meant, but I don’t think Egmont’s name and release information has been added to its releases just for decoration and fun. I don’t know how other publishers work, but in any case, in this way, Egmont marks that those Disney products are their publications that was published under a Disney license and that no one else makes money with their Disney license. At the same time, Egmont, as a business, ensures that it makes money by publishing licensed Disney products. And other publishers get their own revenue from the products that they publish. If publishing were a profitless and financially loss-making business that would have to be done at their own expense, no publisher would do it.
Licensed publishers hire artists and writers who create content for publication on demand and independently for a fee. And while Disney owns the characters, artists and writers own the copyright to their works. Therefore, publishers need both, permission from the Disney for the license and permission from the copyright holder to publish their works.
If I understood correctly, you are saying that if a company wants to publish a Disney comic, they also need permission from the writer/artist of that comic because they own the copyright to their work. That's absolutely not how it works. Which is one of the reasons Don Rosa quit 15 years ago. Nobody who wants to publish the Life of Scrooge saga needs permission from Rosa, and the same goes for all other Disney comics and their creators too.
I’m not sure what exactly you meant, but I don’t think Egmont’s name and release information has been added to its releases just for decoration and fun. I don’t know how other publishers work, but in any case, in this way, Egmont marks that those Disney products are their publications that was published under a Disney license and that no one else makes money with their Disney license. At the same time, Egmont, as a business, ensures that it makes money by publishing licensed Disney products. And other publishers get their own revenue from the products that they publish. If publishing were a profitless and financially loss-making business that would have to be done at their own expense, no publisher would do it.
Again, I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but if you think that for example Fantagraphics paid Egmont any money for publishing the Life of Scrooge books, you are mistaken.
Disney owns their trademarks and characters (means, for example, that they own Marvel's versions of Loki and its variations, but not the original Loki from the Norse mythology), but they sells licenses to publishers in various countries (for example, Egmont in North Europe) so that they can then publish the Disney related material in the terms of the agreement and their licenses contract. Licensed publishers hire artists and writers who create content for publication on demand and independently for a fee. And while Disney owns the characters, artists and writers own the copyright to their works. Therefore, publishers need both, permission from the Disney for the license and permission from the copyright holder to publish their works.
Note: I’m not a Disney agent, I’m not a publisher, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a lawyer either, but this is what I have read and understood about it.
No, this is not how it works with licensed Disney comics. The writers and artists don't own any copyrights to their work. The arrangement is work-for-hire, so Disney owns the material 100% after it's been produced.
Don Rosa was so annoyed by not getting royalities from or being notified about worldwide reprints of his comics that he copyrighted his name. This has led to publishers in some countries reprinting his stories without any credits.
Licensed publishers hire artists and writers who create content for publication on demand and independently for a fee. And while Disney owns the characters, artists and writers own the copyright to their works. Therefore, publishers need both, permission from the Disney for the license and permission from the copyright holder to publish their works.
If I understood correctly, you are saying that if a company wants to publish a Disney comic, they also need permission from the writer/artist of that comic because they own the copyright to their work. That's absolutely not how it works. Which is one of the reasons Don Rosa quit 15 years ago. Nobody who wants to publish the Life of Scrooge saga needs permission from Rosa, and the same goes for all other Disney comics and their creators too.
That is quite correct: once the artist gets reimbursed for their work, they have no control over the story/art they created.
Don Rosa is the one interesting exception. Rosa trademarked his name at some point in the 2000s, specifically to prevent publishers from wantonly using it to advertize their products. Thus, you can't legally publish "The Don Rosa Collection" without authorization from Rosa, who will then use this as leverage in order for publishers to print the stories the way he wants them to be printed. I'm not sure if he gets any money out of this, I believe not. It's primarily a mechanism for quality control.
Don Rosa was so annoyed by not getting royalities from or being notified about worldwide reprints of his comics that he copyrighted his name. This has led to publishers in some countries reprinting his stories without any credits.
Minor correction: Don copyrighting his name was mostly about quality control and not royalties. He was annoyed about books with bad coloring and bad translation bearing his name.
But don't you still need to pay the publishers to purchase the printing files for the stories? I think someone else here said earlier that's how it works.
I think this is how it works, or at least how it worked. I remember reading Becattini (?) claiming that Mondadori used to print English stories back in the days because they were cheaper, but I might be wrong and/or confused.
I assume he meant "cheaper than producing new Italian stories" and potentially "cheaper to translate than Portugese/French/Dutch stories"...?