8 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

You’re letting some prejudice show here. For starters, Trexler has a work history prior to joining the CBLDF. For another, he doesn’t “work for comic books,” but for an organization that focuses on protecting creators’ rights (among other things) within the comics industry. (Are you suggesting these creators - some of whom also work in “writing” - are lesser in the publishing world?) For another, not all comics work is work for hire. (See, for example, the case of Gaiman v McFarlane.) And, for another, some novel work is work for hire.

So, we’ve got more of you speaking in absolutes about subjects you’re not party to, and that aren’t so absolute.

The other problem is he is effectively selling the people he claims to represent down the river. Im not buying his claims because they dont line up with what I already know about publishing contracts.

Just now, Daeglan said:

I dont need to. This is well established contract law. You cannot remove the obligation of an existing contract by selling the company. There is legal precedent that establishes these rules and as I said at the time he wrote the novelizations he had already done a lot of work for Star Trek. soo yeah I am pretty sure his contract is fine and covers this eventuality. We dont need to see the contracts. We already know Disney does shady **** with their artists. So why are you giving Disney the benefit of the doubt?

So...you don’t need to read a contract to know what’s in it?

What benefit of the doubt am I giving Disney (or Foster), exactly, by saying I don’t know what the contracts say? On the flip side, why are you assuming content of contracts you haven’t read?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The other problem is he is effectively selling the people he claims to represent down the river. Im not buying his claims because they dont line up with what I already know about publishing contracts.

So, you’re a lawyer with more experience in this arena, and his citing precedents for how contracts like this have been seen to work in the past is “selling the people he claims to represent down the river?”

More accurately, you’re not accepting the information provided by someone with experience in these matters, because it doesn’t line up with the conclusion you prefer.

But we’re supposed to buy your claims, coming from the same sorts of armchairs we’re in?

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

So, you’re a lawyer with more experience in this arena, and his citing precedents for how contracts like this have been seen to work in the past is “selling the people he claims to represent down the river?”

More accurately, you’re not accepting the information provided by someone with experience in these matters, because it doesn’t line up with the conclusion you prefer.

But we’re supposed to buy your claims, coming from the same sorts of armchairs we’re in?

More like knowing contract law already covers this eventuality, because it would be stupid for it not to.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

More like knowing contract law already covers this eventuality, because it would be stupid for it not to.

So you’re saying you “know contract law” better than someone who deals with it for a living every day?

But at the same time, you don’t need to read a contract to know what’s in it?

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

So you’re saying you “know contract law” better than someone who deals with it for a living every day?

But at the same time, you don’t need to read a contract to know what’s in it?

I can put 2 and 2 together. I don't assume Alan Dean Foster is lying. Why would he? That would promptly blow up in his face. He explained the relevant part of the contract. I don't need to see the contract. As to Disney. I have worked for Disney. I know first hand how they treat their artists and creators. So Disney doing shady crap is no surprise to me. They have long history of doing shady crap. sometimes they get away with it. often they don't.

I do have to wonder why you are so eager to defend Disney over the guy who literally started the EU.

Let’s be realistic here. Not everyone - even a professional - reads or understands every bit of a contract they enter into. This reality, for example, is what led to the near-mythical (but confirmed) element of Van Halen’s touring contracts that required a bowl of M&M’s backstage with all the brown ones removed. It wasn’t a case of rock & roll excess, but a test for the venue. If they saw brown M&M’s in the bowl, they knew that the small details of the contract hadn’t been honored, so what else, possibly safety-related, had been ignored? But I digress....

None of us here know for certain what happened with Foster’s contracts, nor Disney’s contracts acquiring LFL and Fox. The ethical thing for Disney to do would be to offer support or payment to Foster. They may not be legally obligated, but it would be the decent thing to do.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Let’s be realistic here. Not everyone - even a professional - reads or understands every bit of a contract they enter into. This reality, for example, is what led to the near-mythical (but confirmed) element of Van Halen’s touring contracts that required a bowl of M&M’s backstage with all the brown ones removed. It wasn’t a case of rock & roll excess, but a test for the venue. If they saw brown M&M’s in the bowl, they knew that the small details of the contract hadn’t been honored, so what else, possibly safety-related, had been ignored? But I digress....

None of us here know for certain what happened with Foster’s contracts, nor Disney’s contracts acquiring LFL and Fox. The ethical thing for Disney to do would be to offer support or payment to Foster. They may not be legally obligated, but it would be the decent thing to do.

They very likely are obligated. Because contracts have rights and obligations you cant get the rights with out the obligations.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

I can put 2 and 2 together. I don't assume Alan Dean Foster is lying. Why would he? That would promptly blow up in his face. He explained the relevant part of the contract. I don't need to see the contract.

Who accused Foster of lying? It’s possible to genuinely believe he’s legally entitled to continued royalties when he’s not. It’s unlikely he was remotely direct party to Disney’s acquisitions of LFL and Fox, so if language in them nullified those obligations to pay, he wouldn’t know. Legal action (such as he’s undertaking) is how that question would be answered definitively.

But, if you honestly believe you don’t need to see contracts to know what’s in them, then I’d really like to do business with you. 😏

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

As to Disney. I have worked for Disney. I know first hand how they treat their artists and creators. So Disney doing shady crap is no surprise to me. They have long history of doing shady crap. sometimes they get away with it. often they don't.

So, taking this as a given, why do you find it impossible to believe that there could be language in the acquisition contracts that would nullify their obligation to pay royalties per old contracts with the companies being acquired?

This does, however, explain the bias in the conclusion you’ve reached. Thanks for that.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I do have to wonder why you are so eager to defend Disney over the guy who literally started the EU.

If you really think that accepting the experience of a professional who deals with this kind of issue who doesn’t have a dog in the fight (but, based on history would fall more on Foster’s side) and says that it’s possible for the obligation to be nullified, then saying that without reading the contracts involved I can’t reach a conclusion on the legalities but think personally that helping Foster out is the right thing to do is “defending Disney,” I honestly don’t know what to tell you.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

They very likely are obligated.

They may very well be. No one here has said they absolutely can’t be.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Because contracts have rights and obligations you cant get the rights with out the obligations.

Meanwhile, at least one lawyer with experience in such contracts says that it’s not only possible for them to be separated, but that it’s happened in the past.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

No, my conclusion is that, as has been noted by at least one lawyer who heads an organization that prioritizes creators’ rights in exactly this type of situation, corporate acquisitions can have some truly astounding variances; that I don’t presume to know whether or not Foster secured representation when two companies he’d done work for in the past (whether directly or indirectly) were sold to a different company at two different times; that neither of us can say with certainty what the terms of the contracts involve say because we haven’t seen them. But one of us is still insisting that one party’s account is the gospel truth, while the other is saying that, without the details, all we’re doing is speculating based on how such things have been seen to work in the past.

Which part is ludicrous?

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

So, you’re a lawyer with more experience in this arena, and his citing precedents for how contracts like this have been seen to work in the past is “selling the people he claims to represent down the river?”

More accurately, you’re not accepting the information provided by someone with experience in these matters, because it doesn’t line up with the conclusion you prefer.

But we’re supposed to buy your claims, coming from the same sorts of armchairs we’re in?

@Nytwyng , as had been repeatedly stated, what your “comic book” Lawyer is talking about are work for hire contracts. Alan Dean Foster was not under Work for Hire. His contact was a completely different contact for a completely different medium of storytelling.

I’m a graphic designer by trade, there is a huge difference between a work for hire gig and Alan Dean Foster’s contact. Most book authors don’t work on a work for hire basis. They work on perpetual royalty contracts. You can’t apply comic book work for hire standards to perpetual royalty contracts.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Nytwyng , as had been repeatedly stated, what your “comic book” Lawyer is talking about are work for hire contracts. Alan Dean Foster was not under Work for Hire. His contact was a completely different contact for a completely different medium of storytelling.

Never mind that the threads discussed more than work-for-hire and was looking at examples as they might relate to Foster's situation, right?

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I’m a graphic designer by trade, there is a huge difference between a work for hire gig and Alan Dean Foster’s contact. Most book authors don’t work on a work for hire basis. They work on perpetual royalty contracts. You can’t apply comic book work for hire standards to perpetual royalty contracts.

Thanks. I was afraid I'd go a day without a patented Tramp Graphics "ackshewally" complete with "emphasis." And thanks also for ignoring the bulk of what I've been saying to focus on gnawing on the same bone Daeglan is. (And you, too, with the "comic book lawyer" thing? So does that make you a "computer cartooner by trade?")

2 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Never mind that the threads discussed more than work-for-hire and was looking at examples as they might relate to Foster's situation, right?

Thanks. I was afraid I'd go a day without a patented Tramp Graphics "ackshewally" complete with "emphasis." And thanks also for ignoring the bulk of what I've been saying to focus on gnawing on the same bone Daeglan is. (And you, too, with the "comic book lawyer" thing? So does that make you a "computer cartooner by trade?")

You’re missing the point several people have been making. Alan Dean Foster’s contact was not a Work for Hire contact. It was a perpetual royalty contract. In order to get out of paying royalties to Mr Foster, Disney would need to buy out his contract.

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

They very likely are obligated. Because contracts have rights and obligations you cant get the rights with out the obligations.

Contracts are not literally magic. Bad contracts exist. Incompetent lawyers exist.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You’re missing the point several people have been making. Alan Dean Foster’s contact was not a Work for Hire contact. It was a perpetual royalty contract.

Says who?

And specifically where and when, as in please support this with a link where Foster or his lawyer say it is specifically contract of this kind.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You’re missing the point several people have been making. Alan Dean Foster’s contact was not a Work for Hire contact. It was a perpetual royalty contract. In order to get out of paying royalties to Mr Foster, Disney would need to buy out his contract.

I suppose two qualifies as “several.”

Your absolute certainty about the contents of contracts that you weren’t a party to comes from...?

I’m not quite sure why you expect me to give more weight to the words of a “computer cartooner by trade” who insists he knows what’s in contracts he’s never read than to someone who works in contract law day-in and day-out who says he doesn’t know what’s in the contracts in question but offers possibilities seen from experience that could be in play.

4 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

And specifically where and when, as in please support this with a link where Foster or his lawyer say it is specifically contract of this kind.

What’s funny is that the very reason this thread can exist is that Foster/his lawyer say that he’s due back and future royalties by Disney due to his contracts for his Star Wars and Alien books, while Disney says that their acquisitions of Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox (wait for it) assigned them the rights to the associated properties but not previous financial obligations associated with them.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, that at least one lawyer who works with that kind of contract law, for an organization that works with creators’ rights, has said that assignation of rights without obligation can and does happen.

I’ve yet to see any coverage of the issue that says Disney’s claim is preposterous and impossible. That lends weight to the idea that it can happen, whether or not it did in these instances. That’s why it’s not open-and-shut.

Whether or not Disney is legally obligated to pay those royalties is a completely separate discussion, though, from both the ethical and public relations aspects. Is it a decent thing to do to help someone out who’s in dire straits? Sure. Does not doing so play into the Greedy Evil Corporation image that Disney has for some (and, really, most large organizations have to some degree)? Absolutely.

But, apparently, to some, saying, “I don’t know what the contracts say, but it’d be better if Foster got some cash,” is an unforgivable betrayal of Foster and complete defense of Disney.

This has been a fun read. Thanks. Needed that after this week. A gift.

13 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

What’s funny is that the very reason this thread can exist is that Foster/his lawyer say that he’s due back and future royalties by Disney due to his contracts for his Star Wars and Alien books, while Disney says that their acquisitions of Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox (wait for it) assigned them the rights to the associated properties but not previous financial obligations associated with them.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, that at least one lawyer who works with that kind of contract law, for an organization that works with creators’ rights, has said that assignation of rights without obligation can and does happen.

I’ve yet to see any coverage of the issue that says Disney’s claim is preposterous and impossible. That lends weight to the idea that it can happen, whether or not it did in these instances. That’s why it’s not open-and-shut.

Whether or not Disney is legally obligated to pay those royalties is a completely separate discussion, though, from both the ethical and public relations aspects. Is it a decent thing to do to help someone out who’s in dire straits? Sure. Does not doing so play into the Greedy Evil Corporation image that Disney has for some (and, really, most large organizations have to some degree)? Absolutely.

But, apparently, to some, saying, “I don’t know what the contracts say, but it’d be better if Foster got some cash,” is an unforgivable betrayal of Foster and complete defense of Disney.

14 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

I suppose two qualifies as “several.”

Your absolute certainty about the contents of contracts that you weren’t a party to comes from...?

I’m not quite sure why you expect me to give more weight to the words of a “computer cartooner by trade” who insists he knows what’s in contracts he’s never read than to someone who works in contract law day-in and day-out who says he doesn’t know what’s in the contracts in question but offers possibilities seen from experience that could be in play.

And you seem just as certain that his contract is null and void, based upon one lawyer who deals exclusively with comic book authors, not authors of novels, and work under completely different contracts than comic book creators.

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And you seem just as certain that his contract is null and void, based upon one lawyer who deals exclusively with comic book authors, not authors of novels, and work under completely different contracts than comic book creators.

What part of “if” or specifically saying I don’t know what’s in the contracts involved conveys this certainty you claim I present?

But, sure...you know the details of contracts you’ve never read. And you know the possibilities of such contract law better than a professional in the field, by virtue of dismissing his entire career based on his current organization. That’s like saying that, for example, Robert Irvine isn’t a chef and restaurateur because he currently hosts a TV show about trying to help turn around failing restaurants.

Or are you seriously suggesting that, when he studied contract law, he was only taught aspects of it that would pertain to an organization that he would join years in the future and that his ability to research precedent is locked to only pertain to that organization?

@Nytwyng , you’re missing the point. The lawyer you keep referencing does not deal with book authors, or the contracts that they in particular deal with, and therefore is basically irrelevant. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The contracts used in the comic book industry and those in the book industry are different . The business models are different. The standards are different.

Not only that but who the contracts were with are different. Foster’s contracts were not with licensees. They were with the IP holders themselves. The lawyer you referenced talks about contracts with licensees . Once again, comparing apples and oranges.

Based upon the articles, Alan Dean Foster’s contract is a perpetual royalty contract made with Lucasfilm directly, not with a licensee . He did the same with 20th Century Fox. When Disney bought Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox they bought everything, including those obligations.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Nytwyng , you’re missing the point. The lawyer you keep referencing does not deal with book authors, or the contracts that they in particular deal with, and therefore is basically irrelevant. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The contracts used in the comic book industry and those in the book industry are different . The business models are different. The standards are different.

Not only that but who the contracts were with are different. Foster’s contracts were not with licensees. They were with the IP holders themselves. The lawyer you referenced talks about contracts with licensees . Once again, comparing apples and oranges.

Based upon the articles, Alan Dean Foster’s contract is a perpetual royalty contract made with Lucasfilm directly, not with a licensee . He did the same with 20th Century Fox. When Disney bought Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox they bought everything, including those obligations.

Citation required that the lawyer in question is only familiar with small subsections of contract law, and has never worked for any entities other than CBLDF.

Hang on, let me save you the trouble.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jefftrexler

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Nytwyng , you’re missing the point. The lawyer you keep referencing does not deal with book authors, or the contracts that they in particular deal with, and therefore is basically irrelevant. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The contracts used in the comic book industry and those in the book industry are different . The business models are different. The standards are different

So, you are, in fact, stating that his contract law education somehow could see into the future, and was limited only to a small subset of contract law as it applies to an organization he would join years later?

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not only that but who the contracts were with are different. Foster’s contracts were not with licensees. They were with the IP holders themselves. The lawyer you referenced talks about contracts with licensees . Once again, comparing apples and oranges.

Based upon the articles, Alan Dean Foster’s contract is a perpetual royalty contract made with Lucasfilm directly, not with a licensee . He did the same with 20th Century Fox. When Disney bought Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox they bought everything, including those obligations.

So, you’ve read all the contracts involved, then, to be able to declare this with such certainty? Sounds like you should give up your day job as a “computer cartooner by trade” and, instead, be a “sci-fi tie-in novel lawyer.”

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Citation required that the lawyer in question is only familiar with small subsections of contract law, and has never worked for any entities other than CBLDF.

Hang on, let me save you the trouble.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jefftrexler

No, dontcha see? Once someone becomes employed by a particular organization, they lose any and all knowledge that isn’t directly related to that organization’s focus. One’s current occupation defines the limits of one’s scope of knowledge.

Of course, I think you can pick out the irony here, in a “computer cartooner by trade” choosing to declare himself a greater authority on contract law than a contract lawyer.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

So, you are, in fact, stating that his contract law education somehow could see into the future, and was limited only to a small subset of contract law as it applies to an organization he would join years later?

So, you’ve read all the contracts involved, then, to be able to declare this with such certainty? Sounds like you should give up your day job as a “computer cartooner by trade” and, instead, be a “sci-fi tie-in novel lawyer.”

I’m saying that the specific contracts you brought up that he was referring to in regards to his business as part of the CBDLF, deal only with Work for Hire comic book contracts between writers and licensees , not contracts for novels between authors and the IP holders themselves. That’s the key difference. Regardless of his further experience, the types of specific work for hire contracts with licensees he discussed in his CBDLF dealings don’t cover perpetual royalty contracts directly with the IP owners themselves. That is the difference. I don’t need to see a particular contract to know that there is a difference between a contract with a licensee and one with the owner of the IP itself. I don’t need to see a particular contact to know that there is a difference between contracts for comics and one for novels. The lawyer you mentioned would probably tell you the same thing. You can’t use an example of a completely different type of situation to talk about a totally different one.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I’m saying that the specific contracts you brought up that he was referring to in regards to his business as part of the CBDLF, deal only with Work for Hire comic book contracts between writers and licensees , not contracts for novels between authors and the IP holders themselves. That’s the key difference. Regardless of his further experience, the types of specific work for hire contracts with licensees he discussed in his CBDLF dealings don’t cover perpetual royalty contracts directly with the IP owners themselves. That is the difference. I don’t need to see a particular contract to know that there is a difference between a contract with a licensee and one with the owner of the IP itself. I don’t need to see a particular contact to know that there is a difference between contracts for comics and one for novels. The lawyer you mentioned would probably tell you the same thing. You can’t use an example of a completely different type of situation to talk about a totally different one.

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?