There is a difference between being generous to your employees and being ethical.

Let's take Marvel and it's 1960s creators -

First of all, Stan Lee it is widely agree upon, has been compensated very nicely for his time with Marvel.  On the other hand, Stan was the company's lone editor for many years, and it's most prolific writer.  He also has the most widely-recognized name because of his endless promoting of the company [and as many would argue, himself.

Jack Kirby on the other hand is generally seen as the company's top artistic talent - having had a hand in the creation of many of the company's characters both with Joe Simon [Captain America] and with Lee [the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Thor, Iron Man, the Silver Surfer, the Hulk, etc.].  Kirby was an indispensible part of the company when it grew to prominence in the 1960s, no one will argue that point.

Steve Ditko, while not the co-creator of a large number of characters like Kirby, had a hand [with Lee] in creating Marvel's most popular [and profitable] character - Spider-Man.

Along with less recognized artists like Don Heck, Jack Keller, Dick Ayers, Al Hartley and Stan Goldberg, Kirby and Ditko provided the pencils for Mavel in the early 1960s up until the mid to late 60s when their comics line expanded and veteran artists like Gene Colan, John Buscema, Marie Severin, Bill Everett John Romita joined [or returned to] Marvel.  Plenty of new talent like Sal Buscema, Barry Windsor-Smith and Jim Steranko were added as well.

So where do you draw the line at creators who deserve a share of the profits?  Just Lee?  Lee, Ditko and Kirby?  All of them?

Personally, my belief is that Stan Lee has been over-compensated over the years, but I don't blame him for that.  When Martin Goodman sold the company, Lee was given a sweetheart deal to ensure that he would be staying.  Kudos to Stan for getting a good deal for himself.

Kirby on the other hand, fared much better than some other creators like Don Heck who fell outr of fan favor and found working in the industry to be a struggle.  Would exclusive contracts, like the artists frequently receive now, have been the answer?  Well finacially for the artist it would have been a great help, but the industry just wasn't operating like that in the 1960s.  You were basically freelance, and if you were good at it, you could make a decent living.

Now 30, 40 years later, what does the comics industry owe to these men?  Legally, nothing more than they were paid for thei work-for-hire or reprint fees called for.  Morally, it's a bit murky - it would be nice to see the Dave Cockrums of the world benefit from the huge profits they brought to their publisher.  But on the other hand, they assumed none of the finacially risks and obligations that Marvel assumed when contracting creators and publishing the comics.

Bottom line, as it's been mentioned here, Marvel and DC have lived up to their obligations, and in some cases gone beyond that.  However, in an industry where fictional characters are the company's true assets, that're not in the position to open the door to writers and artists who have a hand in creating or developing their most profitable characters.  You open a Pandora's box - the Kirby estate should reveive money from the Hulk movie?  Then why not Herb Trimpe?  Peter David?  Marie Severin?  Where would it stop?  You would have Steve Ditko, Gerry Conway, John Romita, the Ross Andru estate, Todd Macfarlane and others lining up for some of that Spider-Man money.

So while many people as the question 'Doesn't Marvel have the moral obligation to compensate them better."  few people ask the question "Don't these creators have the moral obligation to accept that they worked under circumstances that wer mutually agreed upon at the time that didn't provide for a future financial windfall if the characters became hugely successful?  I don't begrudge anyone for asking for whatever they can, it's just that I don't think there should be any sense of entitlement when a paid emplyee makes a huge profit for a company.

But, sour as the deal might have been, everybody knew about it. Everybody. Does that make it "right"? "Moral"? "Ethical"? This is how I have always defined it -- if I am at a convention, and I offer you 100 dollars to carry my portfolio up to my room and then let me hit you on the head with it (my portfolio is heavy), if you take that C-Note, you really don't have much room for complaint when we get up to my room and I hoist my portfolio over your head, do you?

I see the point JB and others are making - and it's one I really hadn't considered.

If you paid, say, the Kirby estate for their contributions, other artists and writers might line up and demand their piece of the pie. I can see how that would be problematic for Marvel and D.C.

But on the other hand, it bugs me that many of the legends who built the industry are literally struggling to pay their bills, while the companies reap literally hundreds of millions of dollars with their creations. I recently heard the story of one well-known artist, a gentleman now in his seventies, who still toils away doing sketches on the convention circuit because he simply needs to work.

Maybe it's not practical to fix that, but doggone it, it just doesn't feel right to me. However, I don't claim to have any easy answers.

Was Kirby influenced by his peers to seek out reparations? In the newly-minted adult-fan adoration of comics, was Kirby convinced to "go for the money?"

Money, I guess, to be made from "redistributing" his original artwork?

"Reflecting on the reality of 'the deal' for artists of yesterday and today, I guess there's a strong argument for self-publishing one's concepts, thereby maintaining complete control."

****

And bearing the complete financial burden when that concept tanks.

Do most of the alternate comic book companies today give creator's the right to own their creations?

Is this a good time to try and approach these companies?

QUOTE: Reflecting on the reality of 'the deal' for artists of yesterday and today, I guess there's a strong argument for self-publishing one's concepts, thereby maintaining complete control.

These days it doesn't seem as bad as it was back in the day.  I'm completely ignorant of what creative types get, but I remember Chuck Dixon once mentioning that he got more money for naming Robin's car than he did from his creator owned properties.  But that doesn't change what was back in the 60s and 70s and companies can't exactly afford to make retroactive payments.

QUOTE: Do most of the alternate comic book companies today give creator's the right to own their creations?

Near as I can tell, most do BUT you don't get any money up front.  So you need to be able to afford to do the work without getting paid up front (and potentially not making much at all if your book doesn't sell well).

But even then it boils down to how much money, control, etc. you want and which is the most important to you.  Doing your new character for Marvel may get you less on a percentage basis, but being able to have them fight Dr. Doom in #5 could generate more sales so you actually make more in the long run.

Do most of the alternate comic book companies today give creator's the right to own their creations?

Is this a good time to try and approach these companies?

***

Yes, most independent publishers right now are letting creators retain the rights to their characters. But as Dave just pointed out, making money from them is not an easy thing.

It seems to me as good a time as any to approach these companies, IF your primary concern is getting your work published in some form, but not making enough money to "quit yoiur day job."

I've been involved in the "breaking in" game for about a year and a half now and am starting to actually get somewhere. The "independent scene" is a crowded mess right now, but things can happen (at least in my experience) if you simply set yourself apart from the crowd by being persistent and acting like a mature, professional adult.

Royalties are the best and worst thing that has happened in comics in the past 25 years or so. Best -- when I got my royalty checks for CLASSIC X-MEN they were higher than what I had been paid for the original pencils, almost by a factor of 2. Worst -- as I predicted when they were introduced, royalties inspired a whole lot of talent to seek out only the books that were guaranteed to pay big on the back end.