"You don't hear people talking about how Dave Sim was "screwed" because Todd McFarlane "only" paid him $100,000 to write a single comic book. "

Nor do you see Todd McFarlane using Cerebus in the Spawn comics in subsequent issues and claiming him as his own character. The central issue between Neil and Todd, as reported, was not money but ownership of the Angela character. The money issues are derived from that ownership issue. 

You don't hear people talking about how Dave Sim was "screwed" because Todd McFarlane "only" paid him $100,000 to write a single comic book.

***************

Of course, we did get to listen to him complain about how bad Marvel screwed him. Even though he made more money off Spider-Man than Ditko ever did. 

Jim, the argument (at least when I read it) was that Neil specifically entered into an agreement with Todd before handing in a script that the character of Angela was not work-for-hire but a creator owned character. Which I think meant that Neil owned half and Todd half. The bone of contention being that Todd used Angela with other creators and failed to pay Neil his share for the use of the character or acknowledge him properly as co-creator, both in printed copies of the comic (paperback collections) and in the copyright/ trademark registration paperwork. Like he's supposed to. I don't remember the exact details.

Either way, Erik Larsen was the one who compared Gaiman's situation with Sim's and my point was that they are not the same. Sim did not create a character for the story he wrote. He simply used Cerebus, Spawn and the supporting cast and made some references to other characters. Neil Gaiman created a continuing character for the comic with a promise of shared ownership.

When Mcfarlane disregarded Gaiman's wishes in regards to the use of the character and failed to pay him his half for the use of the character adn further did not properly acknowledge him as co-creator, that is tantamount to claiming sole ownership of the character and "cutting" Gaiman "out".

Which is why I say that one cannot compare Sim to Gaiman because Sim created no characters for Spawn that could be the argued over. The closest would be if Todd appropriated Cerebus, which he didn't.

Most move on. Todd is not the aberration --I am.

Great points. Todd doesn't have to justify to anyone his choice of involvement in comics. I think alot of folk wish he'd make a dramatic return to boost comic sales, as if he owes something to the industry; at the same time, I'm sure others are simply surprised that someone with such talent isn't producing any work for consumers to enjoy.

Speaking for myself, if I ever 'broke' into comics, I'd be at my drawing table every day thanking God for such a sweet opportunity to do something I love for a living. Then maybe I'd blow a few hours playing videogames and ignore my stupid editor's emails wondering where my work is <g>.....

I read somewhere that laboring at something that started out as a hobby is a surefire way of killing your enjoyment of it as a hobby.

John Byrne and Erik Larsen seem to be an exceptions to this rule.

John doesn't seem to follow DC, Marvel, or Image; don't know if he reads anything regularly but he does pick up a cool item like an action figure or car once in a while so he's still a active fan if not a hobbist. He could be using this site mostly to promote himself but the feeling I get is that of enjoying talking about comics.

Erik pencils, inks, letters, colors, and edits comics (including a letter's page) ... and still finds time to visit his local comic book store and chin with other comic fans -- as a fan. In fact, he participates this very forum as a fan.

Makes me wonder how many of today's "professionals" are people who started out as fans and -- after discovering the rigors of working in the comic book industry -- decided that the only way they could maintain their enthusiasm as fans was to adopt a lackadaisical attiture about deadlines and commitments. Trying to have their cake and eat it in a way.