6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:So you’re going to continue to ignore that his thread wasn’t focused solely on comics-related contract law, and insist that you know these subjects better than someone who deals with it for a living. Awesome.
That means that you’d be fine if I - someone who’s not a “computer cartooner by trade” - declared that I know more about your field than you do, yes?
Why do you feel that you don’t need to see the contracts involved to know what’s in them? Do you jump to the same conclusions of content when you sign contracts?
Not at all. I’m telling you that there is an inherent difference between a contract between a writer and a licensee and one between a writer and an IP owner. The contracts the lawyer you brought up deal with licensees , not the actual owners of the intellectual property. That is a major difference. Contracts with a licensee are inherently more restrictive in what benefits the writer or artist are entitled to than one made with the owner of the IP itself.
The specific medium itself also plays a part in this since different media each have different standards on what’s typical in a contract. Contracts for comics are different from ones for novels, movies, etc. Each medium has their own contract business models. So, no, I’m not ignoring anything. I’m saying that the situations are inherently different because of who the contracts are with and what media is involved.