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.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Got it. Despite his knowledge and training in the field, you know better than him. Despite his citation of precedent that rights can be assigned without obligation, your word (complete with “emphasis”) overrides that. “Ackshewally” trumps training. Your layman’s assumptions of the contents of all the contracts involved (without having read them) constitute incontrovertible fact, while the words of a trained professional discussing possibilities that might exist are utter nonsense that should be ignored.

I guess the next time any of us need a contract written up or reviewed, we should consult a “computer cartooner by trade” rather than a lawyer.

ETA: (Anyone else finding it funny that someone who isn’t a contract lawyer with experience in corporate and IP law is saying that a contract lawyer with experience in corporate and IP law should stay in his lane on a subject that has to do with contracts involving corporate and IP law?)

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

Got it. Despite his knowledge and training in the field, you know better than him. Despite his citation of precedent that rights can be assigned without obligation, your word (complete with “emphasis”) overrides that. “Ackshewally” trumps training. Your layman’s assumptions of the contents of all the contracts involved (without having read them) constitute incontrovertible fact, while the words of a trained professional discussing possibilities that might exist are utter nonsense that should be ignored.

I guess the next time any of us need a contract written up or reviewed, we should consult a “computer cartooner by trade” rather than a lawyer.

ETA: (Anyone else finding it funny that someone who isn’t a contract lawyer with experience in corporate and IP law is saying that a contract lawyer with experience in corporate and IP law should stay in his lane on a subject that has to do with contracts involving corporate and IP law?)

Get out while you still can. He's gone full Tramp. That way lies madness.

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Get out while you still can. He's gone full Tramp. That way lies madness.

Oh, I know.

He routinely demonstrates the belief that he knows everything better than authorities on whatever subject is being discussed. I’ve even seen him telling others how they should play their characters (then wonder why pbp games he’s in fall apart).

As a follow up:

https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2020/12/16/22166064/star-wars-alien-novelization-disney-royalties-sfwa-alan-dean-foster

How ‘bout that. It says that Disney’s claim is exactly the scenario Trexler described, and that it’s the sort of thing that can happen, with a final resolution not yet reached.

Crazy.

49 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

How ‘bout that. It says that Disney’s claim is exactly the scenario Trexler described, and that it’s the sort of thing that can happen, with a final resolution not yet reached.

It shouldn't be that complicated, as the article notes, the law is more friendly to the corporation than the creator. "There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal, but which are completely immoral." Paying these royalties is not going to affect Disney's bottom line one iota, it would be a rounding error on their profits.

Shame, he's a super nice down to earth guy when I've spoken with him.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

It shouldn't be that complicated, as the article notes, the law is more friendly to the corporation than the creator. "There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal, but which are completely immoral." Paying these royalties is not going to affect Disney's bottom line one iota, it would be a rounding error on their profits.

I don't disagree.

Follow-up from Trexler/CBLDF after the Polygon article: