With all of the exclusive creator/talent signing deals... 4 4

[RockMyAmadeus]

14 hours ago, Turtle said:

A lot of the early "SS guys" were in it for the love of the hobby.  Talking with any of them made that abundantly clear.  Many of them had ample opportunity to "lock up" talent by using connections but I think they realized that such a thing is bad for the hobby they loved.

This wave of stable-makers intent on obtaining as many exclusive agreements as possible doesn't seem to have the same (any?) regard for the hobby as a whole.  As you said, exclusive agreements are bad for creators, bad for CGC, bad for "SS guys", and bad for fans.  The only winners are these stable-makers. 

Look how many once-passionate collectors have been driven out of the SS market as a result.  The Signature Room used to be a hotbed of fan activity.  The posts following a convention were electric...people were excited to post what they got and people were excited to see the books that came out of a show...but no more.  The Sig Room is a shadow of its former self.  It morphed from a place to share enthusiasm for a hobby to a medium on which to conduct business.  From my experience, people won't voluntarily walk away from a money-maker, no matter how bad it is for everyone around them.  Unless CGC intervenes, the Golden Goose's death is inevitable. 

It is incredibly offensive for creators...fueled by misinformation...to treat people who slab with such contempt and open scorn. Do they treat publishers with such scorn? Do they treat distributors, printers, and retailers with such scorn? But...those people are "making money off the creator", and not just for something with such a dubious effect as a signature. They make money off of the creator's blood, sweat, and tears...a willing exchange the creator makes for the opportunity to get their vision out to the public. But if you want the book signed AND slabbed, you must be a filthy slabber who doesn't give two squirts about the comics you're getting signed.

J. Scott Campbell actually said, TO MY FACE, as I was preparing to hand him a batch of books "Hold on, I need to take care of the fans first" Because, clearly, I'm not a fan if I slab. Did the "fans" hand him $1300 for 15 minutes worth of work...? 

It is also incredibly offensive for ANYONE to ask what I intend to do with MY PROPERTY. "Is that for CGC?" "None of your damn business" is the correct answer. What business is it of anyone what I choose to do with my property? Do you get asked what you intend to do with that sandwich you bought at lunch? No. Don't put me in a position where it's temping to lie to you, because many people will. 

It's one thing to facilitate, and take books for customer, and arrange private signings. Go for it. Knock yourself out, live the American dream.

It is QUITE another to convince creators and CGC that everyone must be FORCED to go through "Company X", or they can forget about having that creator's sig in a slab. That's just monopoly, on a small scale....and you're doing harm to the creators, the fans, and CGC. You may not see it yet...but you will. Will you have devoured the last crumb, and then, like locusts, leave behind nothing but destruction and famine...?

Edited October 21, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[kevhtx]

I am a pro-business guy so as long as people aren't lying, stealing or doing things unethically, then its just business. Some may not like it, but the marketplace has to adapt. Im sure that many creators look at everyone involved and see money being made on a product they helped create (no matter who it is, facilitators, CGC, publishers, collectors who keep books/sell books like me and so on) and decide that they too should make on their hard work. Im sure they don't always distinguish between who is the better ethical money-maker between one party or another (when comparing two similar players).  

In the end, treat your customers and suppliers right, do a good job and the market will treat you right. There will always be obstacles to overcome as well, but its that way in every line of work. None of us goes to work every day without having to deal with some sort of BS, but we still love what we do (at least most of us I hope).

I have dealt with pretty much every facilitator on the boards and a lot of sellers. I have my favorites and have great experiences and I have had so-so experiences. I continue to give business to those that provide good service.

People talk about "Monopoly" in regards to these exclusive deals. Its not. Otherwise, Lebron James should be able to go play for whoever he wants and get out of his contract whenever he wants. If I am a creator and I want to sign with someone to go through them to get my art/creations signed, I should have that right. Some may like it, some may not. Its inevitable imo. To each their own. It causes other facilitators to go through more hoops (and maybe pay more?) to get books signed, but thats the market.

[BeachBum]

2 hours ago, kevhtx said:

so as long as people aren't lying, stealing or doing things unethically

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, kevhtx said:

I am a pro-business guy so as long as people aren't lying, stealing or doing things unethically, then its just business. Some may not like it, but the marketplace has to adapt. Im sure that many creators look at everyone involved and see money being made on a product they helped create (no matter who it is, facilitators, CGC, publishers, collectors who keep books/sell books like me and so on) and decide that they too should make on their hard work. Im sure they don't always distinguish between who is the better ethical money-maker between one party or another (when comparing two similar players).  

If you're a "pro-business" guy, then you understand that work-for-hire means that you, the worker, do not own the work you create. 

If I work for, say, the Dow Chemical Company, and I create something for which I can get a patent, guess who owns that patent, even if it's in my name...?

Right. Dow Chemical, not me. Dow Chemical took the risk, not me. Dow Chemical put up the capital it took for me to be able to innovate, not me. 

This "hey, wait a minute! I created that, I should have part of the success!" is an expression of naked greed. How so? Because if a creator is in the situation of having their creation become a success, and they're not part of that success, and no one was defrauded in the process, that means they chose security over risk. It's a fundamental fact of life: if you want the reward, you must take the risk. There's no escaping it. Saying, often long after the fact, "hey! I deserve a cut of that!!" is someone wanting the reward without the risk.

Needless to say, that's not how business, or life, works. There was nothing preventing Siegel and Shuster, as an example, from starting their own comic book publishing company and publishing Superman on their own. 

They did not. 

Instead, they chose the security of an established publisher, and then AFTER the fact, complained about it. 

In the same way, the creator had absolutely nothing to do with the COPY of the book I own. They created the work on which that copy is based...but they do not own THAT COPY. And the acquisition, preservation, and storage of that copy is what the owner...not the creator...took a risk on. The creator is no more entitled to "a cut of that" than I am entitled to advertising revenue from posting on the CGC board, even though I contribute to the interest in said board, which generates ad revenue for CGC.

Ironic, no?

It has nothing to do with "ethics." It has to do with rights. And the fact is, a creator has no right to the copy being presented to them to sign. No "ethical" distinction need be made.

3 hours ago, kevhtx said:

In the end, treat your customers and suppliers right, do a good job and the market will treat you right. There will always be obstacles to overcome as well, but its that way in every line of work. None of us goes to work every day without having to deal with some sort of BS, but we still love what we do (at least most of us I hope).

I have dealt with pretty much every facilitator on the boards and a lot of sellers. I have my favorites and have great experiences and I have had so-so experiences. I continue to give business to those that provide good service.

This is all well and good, but doesn't have anything to do with the issues involved.

3 hours ago, kevhtx said:

People talk about "Monopoly" in regards to these exclusive deals. Its not. Otherwise, Lebron James should be able to go play for whoever he wants and get out of his contract whenever he wants. If I am a creator and I want to sign with someone to go through them to get my art/creations signed, I should have that right. Some may like it, some may not. Its inevitable imo. To each their own. It causes other facilitators to go through more hoops (and maybe pay more?) to get books signed, but thats the market.

"People" would be me, since I brought it up, and your analogy doesn't work. It really doesn't make any sense at all. You have it completely backward. These creators aren't employees of these exclusives, nor are they signing contracts with them (and they would be incredibly foolish to do so; they're not providing any goods or services to the exclusives.) It is the other way around: the exclusives are offering the CREATORS their services, in exchange for consideration (that is, cash money) to provide a service that these creators believe they want or need. It is the EXCLUSIVES who are "signing with" the creators. 

LeBron James works, by contract, for the Cleveland Cavaliers. He offers his services in exchange for consideration...just like the "exclusives" do...HE is the one providing the services. Creators aren't providing services to exclusives, they're providing them to those seeking signatures. Exclusives are providing services to creators. It's not about whether a creator has the RIGHT to sign a contract with a exclusive, but you've mixed up who is providing the service, and who is providing the compensation for said service. You have confused just who is providing what services to whom, and so made an analogy that isn't valid.

After all...it's not as if the creators are RESTRICTED by CONTRACT from signing anything outside of the auspices of the exclusives. That would be the kind of "LeBron James" type deal you're talking about. LeBron can't go play for the Lakers just because he felt like it. The creators can sign anyone's comic, at any time, for any reason, and don't need the exclusives to do so. In fact, such an arrangement would be quite absurd, unless the creators were being offered absurd sums of money to only autograph under certain conditions...and, again, they would be fools to sign such a contract, which is why much more famous people...like actors and athletes...have rarely, if ever, entered into such agreements. 

That's not as elegant as I would have liked, and a lawyer could probably word it better, but the gist is there.

The situation these creators have, which CGC honors, is a "gentleman's agreement", by which NO PARTY is bound. CGC honors it because they believe it's good for their bottom line, and no other reason. CGC does not have to honor this agreement...you want to see something laughable, you try and take CGC to court as a creator for slabbing your signature...but they do it anyways, because they want to create GOOD WILL.

So yes, when you can only slab your signed books by a particular creator through "Company X", it has become a de facto monopoly.

Edited October 21, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

Can you imagine...?

"I'm sorry, Walt Simonson, you can't sign that comic book. You're under contract with me to only sign X amount of comics under X conditions. Put that pen DOWN."

That's not how it works.

Not that it can't GET to that place, but let's hope it never does.

[Jimmy Linguini]

interesting thread.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Jimmy Linguini

[kevhtx]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're a "pro-business" guy, then you understand that work-for-hire means that you, the worker, do not own the work you create. 

In my view, thats not the issue here at all. The product here is the signature, sketch/remakr, not the comic book. So, none of that matters. The comic book has been purchased by the collector and so the publisher has no right to tell the creator (or collector) what he can or cannot do to that comic unless its in the creator's contract with the publisher that they cannot sign their books. If this were a situation where the publisher was selling the book before the signature and then the collectors were getting them signed, obviously the creator has the say so. They don't in this case (unless its somehow spelled out in the contract). Im sure based on your post, you probably have a big problem with Stan Lee and how he has made his living these past decades.

As for the monopoly comparison, it is accurate depending on the contracts/employment terms between the creators and publishers. If they have rules against what they are doing, obviously its wrong for them to do it, if not, they are free to do as they please.

[kevhtx]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Can you imagine...?

"I'm sorry, Walt Simonson, you can't sign that comic book. You're under contract with me to only sign X amount of comics under X conditions. Put that pen DOWN."

That's not how it works.

Not that it can't GET to that place, but let's hope it never does.

Yes, it can. It already happens and has for years. In sports.

Many athletes have contracts with and get paid by sports card companies that they won't sign for other companies.

Do they do it in secret/private? Im sure they do. In public signings though and for the most part, they don't.

Edited October 22, 2017 by kevhtx

[RockMyAmadeus]

55 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're a "pro-business" guy, then you understand that work-for-hire means that you, the worker, do not own the work you create. 

In my view, thats not the issue here at all. The product here is the signature, sketch/remakr, not the comic book. So, none of that matters.

That's correct. However, you can't then argue that the creator "wants a part of it", since they have nothing to do with the "new creation" of a signed and slabbed comic, other than the signature. 

"That's my point! Their signature is creating value!" As I have exhaustively detailed elsewhere in this thread, that's not necessarily true. If creators want a "cut" of the "signature profit", then they should also accept the RISK of the "signature loss"...that is, the cost of the signature should be commensurate with the value added/not added/taken away to/from the actual book.

That's a legitimate argument...IF the creator is willing to accept the risk involved...no risk, no reward...but in practice, no one is going to be willing to do the accounting for such a venture. It's simply too unwieldy. And, let's be frank: if a book is LESS valuable because of a signature, what creator in their right mind would be willing to PAY a customer for their signature, which is taking this accounting to its logical conclusion? 

In other words: if your signature adds, say, 20% to the average value of a book, the creator is owed a certain percentage of that 20% as the fee for the signature. What percentage could be determined. If, however, your signature adds nothing to the value of the book, the creator gets nothing for the signature. And, if the book is worth LESS because of your signature (a rare thing, but it does happen...see above) OR the book sells for LESS than the cost to obtain an SS slab...then the creator OWES that percentage of the loss to the owner of the book.

That's how business works...if you want the reward, you have to take the risk.

Realistically, however, who is going to agree to this...?

55 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

The comic book has been purchased by the collector and so the publisher has no right to tell the creator (or collector) what he can or cannot do to that comic unless its in the creator's contract with the publisher that they cannot sign their books. If this were a situation where the publisher was selling the book before the signature and then the collectors were getting them signed, obviously the creator has the say so. They don't in this case (unless its somehow spelled out in the contract). Im sure based on your post, you probably have a big problem with Stan Lee and how he has made his living these past decades.

While I doubt such a contract clause would EVER stand up to a court challenge, I don't have any idea what "If this were a situation where the publisher was selling the book before the signature and then the collectors were getting them signed, obviously the creator has the say so" means. Can you please clarify/restate?

I have no idea what you're referring to re: Stan Lee. How do you know how he has "made his living these past decades"? I imagine that's something that only Stan, his accountants, lawyers, and those he chooses to tell know. So, to what are you referring?

55 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

As for the monopoly comparison, it is accurate depending on the contracts/employment terms between the creators and publishers. If they have rules against what they are doing, obviously its wrong for them to do it, if not, they are free to do as they please.

I already explained this. You tried to use LeBron James as an example, and as I already said, it's not as if the creators are RESTRICTED by CONTRACT from signing anything outside of the auspices of the exclusives. LeBron is RESTRICTED from playing for other teams by CONTRACT. 

They're not analogous. 

So, if a "Company X" has a "talent" which chooses to only sign FOR SLABBING with that "Company X", and you CANNOT get your books signed and slabbed...by CGC's choice, mind you, there's nothing whatsoever from preventing them from slabbing signed books, with OR WITHOUT the permission of said creators, legally OR ethically...that's a MONOPOLY. I respect that CGC of their own free will, and under no obligation whatsoever, HONORS the requests of creators to not slab their signed books under yellow labels (they have ALWAYS been willing to slab them in Qualified labels)...they don't have to, and the only actual legal control a creator would have is to simply choose not to sign at all.

CGC does it to maintain good will. They are under absolutely ZERO obligation, legally OR ethically, to do so. And...I suspect that if CGC chose to force the issue and slab SS whether the creator wants it or not, what would creators do...? Not sign at all? Customers would be under ZERO obligation to disclose what they intend to do with the book (as, indeed, they are not NOW), so the only real choice a creator would have is to simply not sign. That would create a backlash against THEM, so they'd be forced to the table to negotiate. 

I don't see that as a bad thing. Creators are ALREADY putting fans AND CGC in a bad place by demanding to know what the owner intends to do with HIS PROPERTY, and charging a PENALTY based on the answer, so, in essence, they've started the "fight."

Edited October 22, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

41 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Can you imagine...?

"I'm sorry, Walt Simonson, you can't sign that comic book. You're under contract with me to only sign X amount of comics under X conditions. Put that pen DOWN."

That's not how it works.

Not that it can't GET to that place, but let's hope it never does.

Yes, it can. It already happens and has for years. In sports.

Many athletes have contracts with and get paid by sports card companies that they won't sign for other companies.

Do they do it in secret/private? Im sure they do. In public signings though and for the most part, they don't.

YES! YES, EXACTLY!

Now you're with me! Notice the words you used: won't sign for other companies. 

And it need not even be "in secret/private"...if I'm just Joe Blow off the street, and not "Company Y", and I walk up to whomever and say "will you sign this?"...there's nobody in the world that is going to say "uh, sorry buddy, my signature's under contract, and I can't sign anything unless it's at an official "Company X" event." 

Talk about UNENFORCEABLE contract clauses.

If, however, you are NOT an "other company", there's nothing preventing your things from being signed. And unless Company X is willing to pay, say, Andy Kubert a million dollars or so, Andy Kubert's PROBABLY not going to sign a "will not sign under any other conditions" contract with Company X...not that Company X won't try. Not saying Andy Kubert couldn't...just saying it's highly unlikely he would.

I'm glad we're on the same page.

[kevhtx]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

While I doubt such a contract clause would EVER stand up to a court challenge, I don't have any idea what "If this were a situation where the publisher was selling the book before the signature and then the collectors were getting them signed, obviously the creator has the say so" means. Can you please clarify/restate?

I have no idea what you're referring to re: Stan Lee. How do you know how he has "made his living these past decades"? I imagine that's something that only Stan, his accountants, lawyers, and those he chooses to tell know. So, to what are you referring?

I meant publisher signings and if they were selling books there (customers had not purchased the books yet). In general, selling books or not, if the publisher has a signing, it would override any exclusive contract I would think.

As for the Stan comment, I was just kidding since he has made a living signing products based on content that he created for Marvel for decades.

 

 

[kevhtx]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

YES! YES, EXACTLY!

Now you're with me! Notice the words you used: won't sign for other companies. 

And it need not even be "in secret/private"...if I'm just Joe Blow off the street, and not "Company Y", and I walk up to whomever and say "will you sign this?"...there's nobody in the world that is going to say "uh, sorry buddy, my signature's under contract, and I can't sign anything unless it's at an official "Company X" event." 

Talk about UNENFORCEABLE contract clauses.

If, however, you are NOT an "other company", there's nothing preventing your things from being signed. And unless Company X is willing to pay, say, Andy Kubert a million dollars or so, Andy Kubert's PROBABLY not going to sign a "will not sign under any other conditions" contract with Company X...not that Company X won't try. Not saying Andy Kubert couldn't...just saying it's highly unlikely he would.

I'm glad we're on the same page.

We aren't on the same page. I don't know about just the general kid walking up the someone in private asking for an autograph. I think generally they could get a signature from anyone and a company isn't going to sue because its not really damaging them financially. I do know that sometimes in sports they do get turned down for whatever reason and Im sure exclusivity contracts sometimes are the excuse.

But at signings, if I walk up to a creator with a Marvel comic lets say, and he can't sign Marvel comics due to contract he is under, that would be the same result. I wouldn't get a signature. It absolutely happens in sports. Athletes many times tell kids and people they can't sign things because they are under contract with COMPANY X. There was actually a joke about it in Jerry Maguire movie years ago. It happens. Its enforceable through civil suits. If the company thinks the party broke the contract, they sue them for damages. I'm sure this isn't the oddest type of contractual agreement either.

Anyway, Im not going to get into back and forth on this. Ill just agree to disagree on it and move on. We just see it differently.

[RockMyAmadeus]

46 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

We aren't on the same page. I don't know about just the general kid walking up the someone in private asking for an autograph. I think generally they could get a signature from anyone and a company isn't going to sue because its not really damaging them financially. I do know that sometimes in sports they do get turned down for whatever reason and Im sure exclusivity contracts sometimes are the excuse.

That was mostly sarcasm on my part. If you think that comic book creators...not superstar athletes...are going to sign "exclusive signature contracts" with ANYONE, which will determine just where, when, and how they will sign ANYTHING, bucking decades of tradition, then either you don't really understand the dynamics at play here, or I have wildly underestimated the situation.

I'll leave it to others to determine who is correct.

46 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

But at signings, if I walk up to a creator with a Marvel comic lets say, and he can't sign Marvel comics due to contract he is under, that would be the same result. I wouldn't get a signature. It absolutely happens in sports. Athletes many times tell kids and people they can't sign things because they are under contract with COMPANY X. There was actually a joke about it in Jerry Maguire movie years ago. It happens. Its enforceable through civil suits. If the company thinks the party broke the contract, they sue them for damages. I'm sure this isn't the oddest type of contractual agreement either.

Think about the practicality of that for a moment. It's not as if employees of Company Y are going to these creators, to try and get them to sign outside of Company X's auspices. These are FANS or, at the very least, private individuals. If a creator WANTS to sign, he's going to sign, contract or no. Good luck on Company X trying to sue a creator in that situation, and if they DID, you can better believe no more creators will be signing with Company X...EVER.

And why won't Company X, or ANY company, be pursuing such a situation in the first place...? Because there's absolutely no money in it. Oh, sure, it looks like there is, and there would be for the "hottest" creators...for a while. But once the prices start escalating to pay for "enforcers", and fans can't get through to creators AT ALL without going through the wall, then it will be tumbleweeds and ghost towns.

And creators like Mike Golden and Mike Zeck ALREADY don't like how Renee Witterstaetter treats their fans like cash cows. How do I know? Because the minute she's out of earshot, the prices go down, and the atmosphere gets much more relaxed. They tolerate it because she does make them money, but they certainly don't like it. 

By the way...if a creator can't sign a Marvel comic...fine, let's say the comic industry was even REMOTELY healthy enough to be dictating terms like that...even if it was, you could still get something else signed. Jim Lee doesn't like to sign Marvel books...he's the "co-whatever-in-charge" of DC. But he WILL sign them, with a grumble. 

PS. Earlier, you said "creators...decide that they too should make on their hard work", it wasn't clear until after that you were talking about SIGNATURES, not the actual creations, themselves. That's why I emphasized ownership of the COPY. It wasn't clear at first that by "hard work" you meant "signing comics." I wouldn't classify signing even a few thousands books as "hard work." Maybe that's just me.

46 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Anyway, Im not going to get into back and forth on this. Ill just agree to disagree on it and move on. We just see it differently.

We most certainly do, and I think each of us has made our cases in a way that clarifies the situation quite well. I appreciate the dialogue, but these arguments need to be internally consistent. Trying to compare the contract situation of LeBron James...who cannot play professionally for other teams while under contract with Cleveland...to "exclusive" companies providing a service to creators as it currently stands, is not consistent, logically. As far as not going to get into a back and forth, it's probably a bit late for that, but I think that's a good call on your part. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

I meant publisher signings and if they were selling books there (customers had not purchased the books yet). In general, selling books or not, if the publisher has a signing, it would override any exclusive contract I would think.

As for the Stan comment, I was just kidding since he has made a living signing products based on content that he created for Marvel for decades.

 

 

Again...not sure how you know how Stan has made his living. That's not something I would be comfortable saying about someone I didn't personally know, and wasn't them, their accountant, their lawyer, or close personal friend. I DO know that Stan has, because it was made public, a "$1,000,000/year" contract with Marvel. Aside from that, how can anyone say they know how someone makes their money? For the vast majority of his career, Stan charged $0 to sign books. Not sure how much of a living he made at that point signing anything.

I've never heard of a "publisher signing", and, while such a thing might be possible, I seriously doubt the moribund comic book industry, which struggles to sell numbers that would have gotten all but the top FOUR comics published last month cancelled, is in a position to be making such contracts with people.

[kevhtx]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again...not sure how you know how Stan has made his living. That's not something I would be comfortable saying about someone I didn't personally know, and wasn't them, their accountant, their lawyer, or close personal friend. I DO know that Stan has, because it was made public, a "$1,000,000/year" contract with Marvel. Aside from that, how can anyone say they know how someone makes their money? For the vast majority of his career, Stan charged $0 to sign books. Not sure how much of a living he made at that point signing anything.

I've never heard of a "publisher signing", and, while such a thing might be possible, I seriously doubt the moribund comic book industry, which struggles to sell numbers that would have gotten all but the top FOUR comics published last month cancelled, is in a position to be making such contracts with people.

This is why I don't like getting into back and forth. Because if I make a general example, its picked apart trying to be extremely specific and/or misunderstood. Especially if it was somewhat joking like about Stan.

Stan charges $100-150/per autograph now along with appearance fees. He has charged a fee for a long time now. Point being, he makes money off the fact that he created content for Marvel and has for years. The fact that he gets some money from them now is because he sued them and won. He wanted a lot more, but lost many, many legal battles. But, I digress.

As for the publisher signings, the creators do signings for the publishers at times. At conventions, if the publishers are there and have a booth, at specific times, they will sometimes go to that booth and sign for the publishers. Ive heard that sometimes they can only sign those publishes books for fans (I don't know if thats true?). When saying that earlier, I don't know the contract details between the publisher and the creator so if there are those types of stipulations then they have to abide by them. I was just saying if there were stipulations. Obviously I don't know the details between them. 

Ive been in line at a con (LA Comic Con last year) to get something signed and when I got to the creator (Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon), because they were there with a sponsor (Hot Topic), they wouldn't let them sign my comic, I had to get their poster signed instead or nothing at all. The creator (Roiland) looked at me and said, sorry, I can't sign that. He pointed to the hot topic person standing behind him. 

I'm just clarifying my earlier statements since you didn't understand them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

This is why I don't like getting into back and forth. Because if I make a general example, its picked apart trying to be extremely specific and/or misunderstood. Especially if it was somewhat joking like about Stan.

So, you're not done with the back and forth, then...? That's the danger of saying one is done with a conversation: if one is really not, it puts one in the awkward position of saying one thing, then doing the opposite. Better to not commit to that in the first place, am I right? If you're going to voice an opinion, you have to be prepared for that opinion to be challenged, especially when your opinion is, itself, a challenge of things others have previously said.

That's the way the internet works. My comments are picked apart all the time, and I have no problem with that. It's how we learn, how we make our points understood, and how we understand others. It's not unfair; it's just the way things work.

19 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Stan charges $100-150/per autograph now along with appearance fees. He has charged a fee for a long time now. Point being, he makes money off the fact that he created content for Marvel and has for years. The fact that he gets some money from them now is because he sued them and won. He wanted a lot more, but lost many, many legal battles. But, I digress.

Sure, but do you know how much Stan makes of that $100-$150? Is it anyone's place to be counting someone else's money? Sure, I imagine he makes some money off of his signatures, but is that how he "makes his living", meaning that's the sole or major source of his income...? And even if it is, how is that anyone to determine but him? 

Some might say that Stan is wayyyyy out of line for suing Marvel like he did. When he worked for Marvel, he knew his work was work-for-hire. He knew that he didn't own his creations, yet he created them anyways. He might have convinced Goodman...with whom he was very close...he married Goodman's wife's cousin, after all....to share in the rights, but he didn't. So he created content for Marvel. And? My aunt created content for Boeing...patented and all. Does she get the money for doing so? Nope. Boeing owns the patent, not my aunt.

34 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

As for the publisher signings, the creators do signings for the publishers at times. At conventions, if the publishers are there and have a booth, at specific times, they will sometimes go to that booth and sign for the publishers. Ive heard that sometimes they can only sign those publishes books for fans (I don't know if thats true?). When saying that earlier, I don't know the contract details between the publisher and the creator so if there are those types of stipulations then they have to abide by them. I was just saying if there were stipulations. Obviously I don't know the details between them. 

This is all interesting, genuinely...but it doesn't relate to what this thread is about at all. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with this practice, since a creator is free to sign whatever he/she wants at other times and locations.

40 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Ive been in line at a con (LA Comic Con last year) to get something signed and when I got to the creator (Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon), because they were there with a sponsor (Hot Topic), they wouldn't let them sign my comic, I had to get their poster signed instead or nothing at all. The creator (Roiland) looked at me and said, sorry, I can't sign that. He pointed to the hot topic person standing behind him. 

That raises a few questions: first, before you got in line, were you aware of this situation? If not, did these people have signs explaining this? If they did, you can't really fault them for you not knowing, can you? If they did not, I would have done everything in my power to make sure I knew the rules before getting in line and wasting the time. And there have been situations that I was in where creators were only allowing certain things to be signed: at IDW, for example, at NYCC, the limit was THREE items for Byrne, and TWO of them had to be IDW products. No problem, I knew that going in, and didn't have five Marvel/DC books for him to sign, and then get upset when the IDW folks said no. 

If a creator is there, sponsored by a specific company, then I ought to know that going in, and if I don't, that's on me. That said, however...Hot Topic doesn't own Roiland, and I know that he has signed comics in other venues with no problem. So, I just avoid the Hot Topic signing , and go to the others.

The problem with the exclusives, however, is that THERE ARE NO OTHER VENUES at which I can get my book signed and slabbed without going through them. That's the problem. They are the wall around which I cannot go, even if I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with them...and believe me, having dealt with Stan's handler, Max, personally, I don't know many people who are thrilled at such a prospect. 

Haven't you seen the notices peppered all around the SS forum? "No other signings from Creator X will be accepted for SS"...even if you have a witness, even if you ARE a witness, even if you have your own facilitator, even if you get a witness from CGC. If you don't go through Company X, forget it.

That's not right.

Sorry your Rick & Morty comic didn't get signed.

47 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

I'm just clarifying my earlier statements since you didn't understand them.

I understood them...I just didn't agree with them. No problem.

[kevhtx]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, you're not done with the back and forth, then...?

That raises a few questions: first, before you got in line, were you aware of this situation?

Yes, I am.

Just for people's interest. Yes, I was aware of the situation at the time. They were handing out free posters (for people who didn't have something to get signed), but no limitations posted or stated. They changed 10-20 minutes into the signing because a facilitator pulled out a ton of comics, got them signed and pissed them off. They said it slowed down the line. So, they made everyone else behind the facilitator get only 1 thing signed and it had to be the poster. (and FYI, It was a facilitator the one I was with knew, but I didn't recognize him and have not seen him at a con since). It turned out ok, because I probably would have sold that R&M #1 too early and the prices have spiked a ton more since then so it all worked out.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, kevhtx said:

Yes, I am.

Just for people's interest. Yes, I was aware of the situation at the time. They were handing out free posters (for people who didn't have something to get signed), but no limitations posted or stated. They changed 10-20 minutes into the signing because a facilitator pulled out a ton of comics, got them signed and pissed them off. They said it slowed down the line. So, they made everyone else behind the facilitator get only 1 thing signed and it had to be the poster. (and FYI, It was a facilitator the one I was with knew, but I didn't recognize him and have not seen him at a con since). It turned out ok, because I probably would have sold that R&M #1 too early and the prices have spiked a ton more since then so it all worked out.  

But you didn't state your displeasure at this changing of the rules after you had already spent your time in line?

It also begs the question: were these people somehow slaves to the facilitator, and forced to sign his "ton of comics"? They couldn't have said "you can get this many done right now, and then you have to go to the end of the line"...? 

What kind of unprofessional dolts are they, that they got "pissed off" instead of simply managing the line like professionals...? Do they lack even basic control over their emotions and their environment?

They had no right to get mad at anyone. The people they should have been mad at were themselves, but they took it out on everyone else in the line...?

That's simply unprofessional, if that is what happened.

It also raises another question: you presented the "Hot Topic/Justin Roiland" situation as a "no comics allowed per the sponsor" example. Here, this is what you said earlier:

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

Ive been in line at a con (LA Comic Con last year) to get something signed and when I got to the creator (Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon), because they were there with a sponsor (Hot Topic), they wouldn't let them sign my comic, I had to get their poster signed instead or nothing at all. The creator (Roiland) looked at me and said, sorry, I can't sign that. He pointed to the hot topic person standing behind him. 

You said the sponsor, Hot Topic, wouldn't let them sign your comic, as an example of a "sponsor" signing, and they weren't allowing it. But now, your story has changed a bit from "they weren't allowing comics" to "they WERE allowing comics, until someone brought a stack, and whoever was managing the situation couldn't handle it properly."

So, it wasn't really an example of what you were talking about earlier, right...?

I'm glad you did better on your Rick and Morty comic.

[kevhtx]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But you didn't state your displeasure at this changing of the rules after you had already spent your time in line?

It also begs the question: were these people somehow slaves to the facilitator...

It also raises another question: you presented the "Hot Topic/Justin Roiland" situation as a "no comics allowed per the sponsor" example. Here, this is what you said earlier:

You said the sponsor, Hot Topic, wouldn't let them sign your comic, as an example of a "sponsor" signing, and they weren't allowing it. But now, your story has changed a bit from "they weren't allowing comics" to "they WERE allowing comics, until someone brought a stack, and whoever was managing the situation couldn't handle it properly."

So, it wasn't really an example of what you were talking about earlier, right...?

I'm glad you did better on your Rick and Morty comic.

I absolutely did tell them I was displeased. I was pissed off. I stood in line for almost an hour. I told them specifically it was ridiculous that I couldn't get 1 comic signed since it takes just as long to sign a comic as it would the poster. I had it out and ready to sign. They were insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

As for the "slaves" question, I have no idea. Im sure they could have stopped him or did as you said. I wasn't up there at the time. That was the explanation we were told. And, after we got out of line and saw the facilitator, he had a bunch of comics signed (I don't know how many exactly, at least a few that I saw). 

This is an example of what I was talking about. Taking an example and picking it apart. The example was purely about whether or not a sponsor/publisher could make a creator sign/no sign something at their signing. My story didn't change at all. Hot Topic was allowing comics to get signed at the beginning of the signing. When I tried to get my comic signed, I could not. The sponsor told the creator he could not sign it for me and the creator told me that he couldn't sign it. The fact that I didn't clarify that detail right when I posted is irrelevant.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

I absolutely did tell them I was displeased. I was pissed off. I stood in line for almost an hour. I told them specifically it was ridiculous that I couldn't get 1 comic signed since it takes just as long to sign a comic as it would the poster. I had it out and ready to sign. They were insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

As for the "slaves" question, I have no idea. Im sure they could have stopped him or did as you said. I wasn't up there at the time. That was the explanation we were told. And, after we got out of line and saw the facilitator, he had a bunch of comics signed (I don't know how many exactly, at least a few that I saw). 

This is an example of what I was talking about. Taking an example and picking it apart. The example was purely about whether or not a sponsor/publisher could make a creator sign/no sign something at their signing. My story didn't change at all. Hot Topic was allowing comics to get signed at the beginning of the signing. When I tried to get my comic signed, I could not. The sponsor told the creator he could not sign it for me and the creator told me that he couldn't sign it. The fact that I didn't clarify that detail right when I posted is irrelevant.

No. The point was purely about whether or not a sponsor/publisher would only allow certain things to be signed AT ALL. But that wasn't the case with the Hot Topic/R&M signing. The fact is, they DID allow comics to be signed, which isn't at all how you presented it at first. No one "picked it apart"; your example didn't relate to your point. It would be like saying "if Marvel was having a signing at their booth, they allowed DC/Image/Dark Horse books to get signed, until someone came up with a PILE of DC/Image/Dark Horse books, and then they said "no more DC/Image/Dark Horse books!" THAT would be analogous to your Hot Topics example, but I was never talking about decisions based on caprice.

Here's what you said:

2 hours ago, kevhtx said:

As for the publisher signings, the creators do signings for the publishers at times. At conventions, if the publishers are there and have a booth, at specific times, they will sometimes go to that booth and sign for the publishers. Ive heard that sometimes they can only sign those publishes books for fans (I don't know if thats true?). When saying that earlier, I don't know the contract details between the publisher and the creator so if there are those types of stipulations then they have to abide by them. I was just saying if there were stipulations. Obviously I don't know the details between them. 

Ive been in line at a con (LA Comic Con last year) to get something signed and when I got to the creator (Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon), because they were there with a sponsor (Hot Topic), they wouldn't let them sign my comic, I had to get their poster signed instead or nothing at all. The creator (Roiland) looked at me and said, sorry, I can't sign that. He pointed to the hot topic person standing behind him. 

In the example you gave, you're talking about a publisher (or, in this case, a sponsor) only allowing certain things getting signed, and disallowing other things getting signed, from the outset, as a PRE-condition of the signing. That's not at all what happened, though. In this case, they DID allow comics, until someone decided not to. You've completely changed the parameters of your argument from "publishers/sponsors can dictate what creators can and cannot sign at their events" to "publishers/sponsors can change their minds midway through an event." It guts the whole point you were trying to make. A sponsor "changing their mind midway through a signing" is not at all the point we were discussing, and is wholly irrelevant to the entire discussion. Had you gotten in line BEFORE said "facilitator", you WOULD have been able to get your comic signed.

I'm not trying to be contentious or argumentative with you, but you can see where someone might have an issue with this, can't you...? If your arguments aren't consistent, they're going to get challenged, and rightfully so. Don't be offended: be consistent.

Had they done that to me, after waiting in line for an hour, I would have gone to the convention organizer and told them what happened. You get enough complaints like that, you don't get invited back, no matter who you are.