WHAT is Mohawk Media and WHY are they threatening to sue Al Bigley?
Oh my goodness, isn’t this just timely? And right in the middle of my VERY BAD PUBLISHER reposts!
OK, a publisher is approaching creators asking them to work on spec on a MR T project, and promises BIG RETURNS on the back end.
That’s what they ALL say.
This publisher’s previous graphic novel featuring MR T was touted in this press release. Did anyone ever see this? Did it sell? Did it make any money for the creators?
Buckley continues: ‘Most so-called “graphic novels” are reprints of comics, the equivalent of cobbling together a bunch of episodes of a TV show and calling it a “movie”; or works that, in their desire to be highbrow, determinedly distance themselves from their comic forefather.
‘Neither makes full use of the inherent potential in graphic novel storytelling. This book – an all-original like Mr. T himself – does.’
Good lord.
One wouldn’t want to be distanced from one’s “comic forefather”.
LESSON FOR TODAY:
Working on spec NEVER WORKS. At least, not in my experience.
Rarely does ANY celebrity-related project pay off for the comic creator. I’ve NEVER had a celebrity related project do diddly squat for my career. Ever. Period.
If JK Rowling waves her magic wand and gives you the Harry Potter assignment, you can bet the publisher will pay you up front.
A lot.
If MR T is all that and a bag of chips like his press release claims, he ought to be able to afford to pay the artist up front, too. One thing’s for damn sure: someone can afford a lawyer.
I spent years doing free crap on a small press author’s books, and at no time ever did a single one of those free jobs (correction: for one job in ten, I was paid a WHOPPING $500) pay off in terms of future work, prestige, better work, or anything else. Ever!
PROFESSIONALS GET PAID!!!
And as you know from my previous VERY BAD PUBLISHER posts, creative accounting can keep you from ever seeing any profits on the back end.
The other lesson for today: some Very Bad Publishers shut down and reopen under new names. Why, one of my old Very Bad Publishers did this years ago, then tried to get me to sign a contract with them all over again.
Yet they did not let me know they were on the Board of Directors for the new company. They simply had an editor call me up and make me an offer. It was some time before I found out that they were the exact same people whose company I had just left, using a new name.
Nice one, hunh?
No, didn’t fall for it.
AND BY THE WAY, a few words about those STUPID EMAIL DISCLAIMERS. Just because you send someone an email, that does not force a contract upon the recipient.
A secret shared with dozens of freelance artists you do not know, and with whom you have no prior professional experience, and whom you do not necessarily intend to pay for their work is no secret at all.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 am
What’s funny about the whole Mohawk Media thing is that they cannot afford to pay the artists but they apparently can afford a lawyer. They are also based in the UK and are threatening to sue for defamation and I am willing to bet that neither they nor their ‘lawyer’ know anything about US Law.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
This may be of interest: an article on libel tourism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/technology/20iht-libel21.1.9346664.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Someone from Mohawk Media just popped in to have a look at this post.
A word of advice:
Soliciting spec work via mass email and giving away your publishing plans in same is not good strategy.
Might have been better to simply send out an inquiry, then send a note requiring respondents to agree to keep project a secret.
Only then should you ask them to consider doing the work on spec.
This would have protected the project and protected the reputation of your client.
You don’t send a mass email to a bunch of total strangers and then demand that they honor a confidentiality agreement tacked to the end of your email as if they had entered into a contract with you.
And even better advice: don’t solicit professionals to work for you on spec.
Hope you appreciate the advice, and glad I could help.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’d just like to say the above comment is made of win
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I’m only here to help!
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thanks for the link to ‘libel tourism’.
Looks like they could win a suit for libel in Britain but that the judgment would be unenforceable in the US.
Of course they are depending on the person who is being sued not defending them self in Britain.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Eloquent as always, Colleen!
March 1st, 2010 at 5:31 am
Came across this blog very late in the day, but feel duty bound as Mohawk Media’s new EIC to address it. This has been taken completely out of context.
In the interest of fairness, nobody approached us for comment. Nobody even asked all the creators we have worked, and continue to work, with about our perfect track record.
In regard to this matter, we said, very clearly, “work for free initially only”: ie. the pitch. Following which, if accepted, payment would be backend. That is how this industry generally operates.
To touch on other points, the MR. T graphic novel was released and proved very successful. It is available from most major retailers and from http://www.mohawkmedia.co.uk/mr-t-store.htm
March 1st, 2010 at 11:14 am
Your company did not suddenly come across my blog late in the day.
My stat counter shows your company found this blog post immediately after it was originally put online (July 2,) and came back to read it repeatedly. Your IP was also logged as having been back to the blog several times since, including last week.
No one approached you for comment because you are more than capable of sending out press releases without any help from me, even as you are capable of threatening creators with lawyers. And since your company has been aware of this blog post since last summer, you had ample time to address it in the interim.
You ask creators to “work for free” on the “pitch,” which is the definition of spec, and your terms are clearly outlined in your initial letter which is posted at the link. This practice is opposed by the Graphic Artist Guild, of which I am a member.
Payment on the back end IS working on spec. This is not considered advantageous for the creator on company-owned projects.
NO. It is not how the industry “generally” operates. But I am genuinely amused that you would have the cheek to try this with me.
Good luck with your book. I am glad you consider it “very successful”. However, I have been unable to quantify this with performance values on industry sales charts. There is no independent information available about your actual sales and rankings.
I am not obligated to take your word for it, but I really don’t care.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:48 am
“That is how this industry generally operates.”
You’re kidding, right? I don’t know anything about your company
but it is most assuredly NOT how this industry “generally operates,” and of all the people in the world you could try to dump that comment on, don’t you think Colleen might just be about that worst possible choice? Seeing as how she has worked for everyone and knows the players and is not afraid of calling nonsense for what it is?
I have a lot of sympathy for publishers. I want all ethical, quality publishers to succeed. But Colleen is right, a purely backend deal is generally a crap deal for the creator and promises of a huge return in the end should be taken with a bucket of salt at best.
When I talked with Image about a purely backend deal, they were remarkably forthcoming. They went out of their way to explain the risks and the possibility of the worst-case scenario. That is the ethical approach. At least then, the inexperienced creator can decide if they want to do the project for reasons other than starry-eyed optimistic dreams of pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I wish you luck, but Colleen is dead on in her comments. If you have a bunch of creators who feel that they were treated fairly and got a lovely payoff at the end of their backend deal with you, it might not be a bad idea to include their endorsements in future attempts to solicit creators.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
From the original solicitation:
“Any potential revenue that is generated is likely to be beyond what comic books often generate.”
Quantify that, please. Do you have any idea what comic books often generate? What is your standard? The Superman franchise? Shmoos? What?
“As and when any revenue is generated, you will get a nice royalty payment.”
That is the definition of spec.
“As we say, this opportunity has every chance of leading to further work, royalty payments, getting your name in lights, and much more beyond!”
This last would make me run like hell.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:21 pm
OH to the SNAP XD
I’m just glad I’m not the only one who analyzes their webtraffic like that. That is awesome.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“As we say, this opportunity has every chance of leading to further work, royalty payments, getting your name in lights, and much more beyond!”
Um, let’s see…. This is put forward as if it is something special coming from working with this company. BUT… assuming the talent agree to whatever the contract is, and the work does see print, it then becomes an established CREDIT. And an established credit, no matter WHO it is done with “has every chance of leading to further work, royalty payments” and the rest of the blah, blah, blah.
The way it is put forward sounds like they’re trying to make it something special to themselves. “We will make you a STAR! Not the way some other company would.” I know what you mean, Colleen — when someone in what ought to be a flat out professional approach starts throwing in the “Big Star Future If You Come With Us” language, it starts getting creepy.
Treat me like a professional, please, not a starry-eyed child.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
*pops popcorn, passes big bucket around, grabs a cider*
Watching this is more entertaining than watching the gold medal game yesterday…
March 1st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I think someone can now add “got told by Gail Simone” to their professional credits. XD or at least to their resume….
March 1st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
This is definitely better than watching curling on TV.
Whoa! IP traffic? You mean you can see me?
What am I wearing?
March 1st, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Your “comics forefather” called.
Joe Shuster wants to warn you against signing bad contracts.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I’m always impressed by the information Colleen has on her traffic. I’m still trying (after three years) to learn how to make sense out of the visitor stats my webhoster provides. I get a list of unique IPs that hit my site, but not where they come from (I’d have to do a separate search for that, I suppose). And I’m still trying to figure out which of those lines actually tracks the traffic for my SCRIBBLER’S GUIDE blog. I’ve been thinking of setting up a separate tracker for that.
But Colleen… she is a model of, well, KNOWING her own business!
March 1st, 2010 at 1:57 pm
@ Dean. PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON!
Actually, you haven’t shown up yet. There’s a lag. But it is simplicity itself to match the post IP to the one on my stat counter. (EDIT) Usually the lag is no more than a couple of minutes. Sometimes it runs over an hour.
I can see what browser people are using and what OS.
Which is how I was able to identify the former publisher who spent a lot of time reading my blog. I took the IP and ran it through the system. I was able to identify the physical location of the IP, which just so happened to match the address of the former publisher. Or, more precisely, the former publisher’s new address. Which is in a town with a very unusual name.
For example, I was pretty sure that when someone from Mameroneck, NY was popping in, it was likely an editor at Archie Comics (yes, it was. Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
I was also able to view the rather frenetic traffic of Moondoggie Writer Bob, who was terribly interested in this blog, especially the Tootsie Roll post. And for some reason, he spent a lot of time looking at my Star Wars cards. Not too successful at getting official licenses himself, it always irked him that I could.
As for Mohawk Media, they have a unique IP, and when they visit my blog, they are identified by name. Many companies are. I know which major publishers drop in, for example. And I can see when Google IT Corp visits my blog as well.
I don’t have any interest in the personal info of people who come here, and all info is deleted within hours. But I track and log people who have given me problems in the past, such as Moondoggie Writer Bob – he who was never my boyfriend – and Teh Crazy former publisher.
And, of course, it is handy info to have when you need to block a troll.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Oh, dear. I’ve been monologue-ing. Now I have revealed my secret super power.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
my webhost gives me many more stats than I can understand, but what I do understand is excellent. Like I can see what search engine words or phrases were used to get people to my site, and then backtrack it. Some of them are just weird. But some lead me to interesting sites I never would have found otherwise. It’s kind of like playing “CSI, the home Interwebs edition”
March 1st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Heh. But is anyone waiting to swoop in and defeat you whilst you monologue? Don’t think so.
Of course, since I zip by using a broadband card that ends up giving me a different IP each time I go online, I do sometimes wonder how trackers register me. Am I new each time? Especially if I only visit and don’t post? It’s a mystery to me.
Still… Colleen, I love it when you come back at people with “Someone with your IP check this out months ago. So I’m not believing your ‘I just found this’ stuff.” You have high entertainment value with those.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
OK, Dean. You finally showed up.
Your OS is WinVista.
And you still don’t have any clothes on, you pervert.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Arlnee — mine does that much too. And I’ve occasionally used the search strings for posts on my LiveJournal and more recently on the SCRIBBLER’S GUIDE blog. I get hits from people doing different searches on “hero’s quest”, for instance. It is fun seeing those. I don’t think I’ve ever backtracked the search strings though. That could be fun.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
@scribblerworks: Even more amusing is the fact that way up there in the third comment, way back last summer, she says point blank “someone from there logged in here this morning.”
So yeah.
I’m not so worried about Dean, it’s the other dude whose pants are around his ankles XD
March 1st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
it could have been my dude. We tend to share ips, but not computers. He has told me “if it has anything to do with CD or ADS, the answer is ‘Yes!’” I love that man of mine.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
BWAHAHA!!!!
This blog is populated by men with pants around their ankles!
March 1st, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Forget about Big Brother, Colleen knows all and sees all!
For the record, I view this site in a professional manner…I swear!
With this being the supposed “Information Age” and people like you posting information warning against such practices, it’s still aggravating reading more tales of people falling for this nonsense.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Good times, good times!
Yes, IP tracking and stats logging is very, very revealing. If more people were aware of that, I think they’d act a bit less like prats.
And as much as it might look like I spend hours and hours… it’s more like I open up the page, fully intending to comment pithily… and then get summoned to Meetingland. When I come back, I have no idea what my witty intended comment was anymore. Le sigh.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
@Colleen – took you this long to figure that out? There are days when I join the men too just because I haven’t have my caffeine yet.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
A Distant Soil blog: the sekrit virtual nudist colony and kaffeklatch XD
March 1st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
@Arlnee – I’m in! Last one in the hot tub is a newb!
March 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
um, point of order?
In the original posting on the Oh Danny Boy site the owner/ operator of Mohawk Media was listed as a “Christopher Bunting”… and the original editor as a “Stuart Bunting” that sent the original press release.
So, is this “Chris Mohawk” the same Chris Bunting, and if so, how is he the “new” EIC since it’s his company.. .unless he fired Stuart Bunting… who may or may not be related. Or exist.
Hm! Interesting! (takes off Horation Caine glasses, hears the Who playing in the background….)
March 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I pity the fool.
The previous Mr T graphic novel, which does not wish to be distanced from its “comic forefather,” is available at Lulu.com.
Should I belabor the obvious?
OK.
This limited edition (4,000 copies) advance graphic novel of 100 pages sells for $32.70, and was released in Feb 2008. And is, apparently, still available. At Lulu.com.
http://www.lulu.com/content/1387633
Beating the dead horse, it is still available. 2 years later. 4,000 copies.
A 100 page softcover for $32.70.
Just sayin’.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:10 pm
@ Arlnee:
The author of the book is also listed as a Christopher Bunting.
You simply must click that link and read the promo copy. It makes me tingly.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
oh god there is too much lulz, I’m overdosing
Limited edition run. On Lulu.
I think I broke a rib…
March 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
100 page softcover GN for $32.70… that’s about what my last POD book sells for, and it’s over 700 pages long.
Either someone hiked up the price waaay over cost, or Lulu has gone rogue and busted out of the pen…
March 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I laughed so hard I peed. Too much coffee and LULZ. This thing is awesome.
I may drop a giant squid on your city 35 minutes ago.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Okay, I’m reading the description… I see a lot of “hey remember this?” and no actual content description. I think if I click the “more” button it will say “remember all that? None of that is actually in here.”
March 1st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
okay, I clicked the link and I’m wrong, that’s exactly what it is in there. That’s worse than the movie trailers that tell you the whole story in two minutes, except it’s supposed to tease a 90 minute film.
Epic.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
There’s a LOT to wade through here, making it difficult to see what the actual point you’re attempting to make is. I came across this late in the day as EIC, a role I’ve only been in for just over a couple of months.
If life has taught me anything, it that there is always two sides to any story. Any balanced journalism reflects that. There’s no excuse for it not to, online or otherwise.
I’m prepared to come into the lion’s den and at least attempt a civilised debate, yet you seem to be displaying outright hostility against me, my publisher, the book, and even our earlier press releases, that had absolutely no relation to this matter.
You’re right on one point: It’s not generally how the industry operates. After all, while Image do pay backend, a number of established US publishers have changed policies. One of which now expects the creator(s) to finance the project with a prospect of a backend royalty, while another pays a royalty only if/when the title makes profit. Others are slow paying, or don’t pay at all. Yes, there are a few good ones, where credits due, but they often pay after publication. (And my comments don’t or haven’t included the Big Two.)
Your comments are “dead on”? Really? We have paid, and always pay, all our creators immediately upon completion of work. Hardly smacks of lack of ethics or false promises.
But I’m sure you knew that already seeing as you’re a member of GAG and obviously armed with all the facts in order to make fair comment and informed analysis.
Right?
March 1st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The sad thing is, this blog may be the ONLY industry buzz this thing sees. Which is probably why he posted and ran.
He’s probably crafting his next press release even as we speak:
Gail Simone says about it, “I want (this book) to succeed… Good luck!”
March 1st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Actually, unless I’m mistaken, I believe that the artist created a direct homage piece to some of Gail’s work in the Mr. T graphic novel.
I wasn’t aware of having run anywhere today.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
oh yeah. We’re gonna need a bigger boat.
And more popcorn.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@Colleen XD Ozymandias FTW!
March 1st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Just this morning you stated that your business practices were the norm, and mere hours later you have returned to acknowledge that they are not.
Thank you. Better late than never.
“…as and when any revenue is generated, you will receive a royalty.”
Yes, that is spec.
“You’re right on one point: It’s not generally how the industry operates.”
That was the salient point, actually.
It’s nice that you pay your creators, but this does not obviate in any way that your original solicitation required creators to provide work for hire on spec. Which you now acknowledge as fact.
And it in no way obviates your company’s abominable treatment of Al Bigley who pointed out exactly what you yourself acknowledge: you hire creators on spec.
The only new point now is that you are offended we find your press releases amusing.
Well, OK.
“One of which now expects the creator(s) to finance the project with a prospect of a backend royalty, while another pays a royalty only if/when the title makes profit.”
That is spec.
Just because other people do it, that does not make it an ethical business practice, and it is not in the best interest of a professional creator to agree to such a practice on a company-owned property. Judging by your sales, no one is getting rich on this deal, but if you have managed to make some bucks, more power to you.
As one of the creators on the book in question, and the EIC as well, I’m betting you do get paid.
No one made the claim you never paid anyone. The claim is that spec is an absolutely lousy practice, rarely works out for creators, and celebrity tie-in projects are usually lousy for careers. And you threatened to sue an artist for voicing their opinion.
The straw man argument about the Graphic Artist Guild is equally laughable, as nowhere did I claim being a member made me privy to your inner workings, just that your solicitation clearly states that the spec hiring practices to which you now freely admit are against ethical principles.
http://www.no-spec.com/
http://www.zeldman.com/2007/08/14/dont-design-on-spec/
http://www.designertoday.com/Articles/4533/Spec.Work.and.Creative.Professionals.aspx
Oh, and you forgot to mention that the “confidentiality agreement” in your email – the one you used as leverage to threaten to sue Al Bigley – is not legally binding on the recipient of your email. So, I am right about that, too.
Thanks for stopping by and acknowledging that spec hiring practices are not the norm. I am glad we are in full agreement on that point.
You’ll have to direct the “dead on” crack to Gail Simone, since she is the one who made the comment.
To conclude, there aren’t two sides to this story. There is only the truth.
You solicited creators to work on spec. Al Bigley posted a note about how this is a dangerous practice for artists. Your company threatened to sue him for it.
You should have apologized, and moved on.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
“Actually, unless I’m mistaken, I believe that the artist created a direct homage piece to some of Gail’s work in the Mr. T graphic novel.
I wasn’t aware of having run anywhere today.”
Then stop digging.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:44 pm
@Arlnee: i cannae pop popcorn any faster! *passes scotch whiskey*
@Colleen: I am humbled by your knowledge. If I could have been your apprentice 20 years ago…
March 1st, 2010 at 5:48 pm
@mamid: pour the kernels directly into the nacelles. The antimatter friction pops them so fast it’s done before you start
Of course it tends to glow and your kids will have three eyes, but small price to pay, right?
I believe I will have that scotch.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Poster by Matt Clarke of Design Intellect.
http://www.design-intellect.co.uk/
March 1st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
You need to know the full picture. Or as it’s sometimes also known: “the other side to the story”. Which you assured me, doesn’t exist.
I personally spoke to Al long before he was approached with that potential offer. I liked Al and his work a lot, and so recommended him when Mohawk Media decided to email a bunch of artists (most we knew very well and had worked with already) seeing what they felt about it.
It was not a “press release”. It was simply putting out ‘feelers’ to firm contacts to see what they felt. There was no pressure, nor were we holding guns to their heads, forcing them to do it. True, it was initially intended to be backend, bar a decent advance. But nor was any of it set in stone, and we decided a backend deal not the way to go.
Only then did Al, and I think it fair to say, without asking us any more details, seem to take offence, and it all got a bit out of control.
I’m guessing Al is your friend and this may partly come down to a loyalty thing? The problem is any validity that your points may (I really do say “may”) have, or any moral high ground you believe that you do have, appears voided by your seemingly constant sardonic approach.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your style, in which case, I apologise, but there’s a strong suspicion that this could (if it hasn’t already) degenerate into the sort of seemingly catty and nauseating comments so often associated with this type of blog. In which case, I won’t waste any more of my life beyond this, because it doesn’t start and end in nerdom.
If you hate backend so much, why not go criticise other publishers who actually use it? Plenty of ‘em, some with great reputations, and defended fearlessly by their creators. All you’ve actually done is single one out which doesn’t.
Nor have I “freely admitted” that I am against either spec work or backend deals. It’s an issue that’s far bigger than this thread or us. You attempting to put words into my mouth is the complete opposite of “freely admitting” and “ethical principles”.
Besides, you don’t need to fight Al’s fight. I believe Stu apologised as much as he felt it deserved, the feeling being that Al, as a seasoned pro, should have heard us out – and most certainly should have honoured the confidentiality. And do tell me the ‘lawyer’ who told you confidentiality disclaimers have no legality. Please. Because you’ll see in their email that they have one. So what does that tell you?
March 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
…we have mansplaining, interrogating from the wrong perspective, internet lawyers, and a flounce!
Put that with the free space and I call BINGO
March 1st, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Hey, I was screwed over by the “spec” process. Then again, that publisher screwed a lot of us over.
Maybe if you were offering a fair wage per page and a percentage, artists like Colleen would be willing to talk about it. You’re not. They’ve been burned once too often and I am glad to live vicariously through them and not get burned by the same fire.
You have entered the realm of troll, chrismohawk, and it makes me so happy that I am not even qualified to be looked at by your kind of publisher.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:03 pm
(the free space being “you’re just a girl what could you possibly know about COMICS, Colleen?”)
March 1st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
a lot more than she is given credit for, that’s for sure.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:13 pm
actually that should read “what could you possibly know about the BUSINESS of comics?”
The answer to both of which is, “more than you”
March 1st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@Arlnee: Applause!
March 1st, 2010 at 6:18 pm
*bows*
before I slog off to work may I just say, the pic with the beer goggles? Priceless. I donate my applause to the creator of that picture.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:35 pm
It’s good that you won’t be back sir, because…all right, it appears you are a sensitive guy, so I will spare you one tart rejoinder.
This blog has been dedicated – for some years now – to posting information about creator rights and publishing business practices. You have not been singled out. You are the subject of one blog post on this matter, but this blog isn’t about you. And since this post was up as of July of last year, your attempt to spin it has only resulted in getting it moved right back up the search engine.
Nowhere did I write that you “… “freely admitted” that I am against either spec work or backend deals.”
I wrote that you were for it. That is the point. I wrote it over and over and over again.
I wrote about your original solicitation for work, described as a blind email. This has been pointed out over and over again as well. Your claim that you actually knew “most” of the creators you solicited may be true (I really don’t care,) but “knowing” a creator and sending them an email does not confer legal rights of confidentiality to you.
You opine that your poorly written book press releases are the subject of derision, but I fail to see how anyone could defend them as quality work.
Be that as it may, the press releases and the solicitation are two different matters, though they both call into question your professional standards (and I recommend a rewrite on that press material). There is nothing in my post or subsequent comments that state you sent the job solicitation out as a press release. It is clearly stated – and redundantly redundant – that your solicitation for work was in an email.
For someone with a personal dialogue with Al Bigley, your company was quick to threaten to sue him. What a pal.
And no, I do not do this out of some personal attachment to Al Bigley. And frankly, the suggestion is so lame I can barely dredge up the energy to mock it.
I declare that any publisher who sent out solicitations for spec work in a blind email, and then threatened to sue creators who discuss it, is not a place creators are best served marketing their services.
Not just you.
Scornful derision does not in any way devalue the validity of an argument.
You solicited creators to work on spec.
A creator openly discussed the matter.
You threatened to sue the creator.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you merely knew the creator, or if you fed him chicken every day and sent him to bed tucked under an Eiderdown quilt. You threatened to sue a creator who advised other creators not to work on spec. This creator had no prior written agreement with you.
My “lawyer” (because you appear to believe that word needs to be in quotes) is Mike Lovitz, and he is one of the top art and entertainment lawyers in this field. You’ve given him a good laugh over this.
http://www.law.com/jsp/iplawandbusiness/PubArticleIPLB.jsp?id=1202434327007
Disclaimers at the bottom of an email are a formality to declare the nature of business correspondence between parties actually engaged in contractual relations.
They do not confer a binding agreement on a recipient who is not under contract with you. No, really. Go ahead and try that one in court. Especially over international lines. The world needs a test case or three.
No one told you that your buddy “Stu” had to go on apologizing indefinitely to Al Bigley. The error on your part is to bring this matter up again after eight months to spin it with a disingenuous post about the nature of your business. Since you acknowledge that you did solicit for spec and support the practice, and that was the entire point of my post in the first place, well, thank you.
That said, I am very happy if you no longer ask creators to work on spec, and even happier if you pay creators fairly.
None of which obviates the point of the original post.
I have nothing against Mr T. I’m sure he’s a very nice man.
But he needs to trade up.
(This post was edited for clarity and spelling.)
March 1st, 2010 at 7:29 pm
I find chrismohawk’s defense of other publishers who offer back-end (citing Image) amusing. The difference being that usually (as I understand it), the fact that the creative team are funding the initial costs OF the creative team upfront, to be recooped by the back-end — that’s understood as part of their deal ON CREATOR OWNED PROPERTIES.
From what I could make out regarding the matter that started the discussion, this company had a COMPANY OWNED property, for which they solicited artists who would be willing to do a short initial conceptual work ON SPEC. Even I would go “Huh?” at that!
I would think the solicitation would be obviously a “work for hire” situation. And if you are hiring people for such work, you are HIRING them — you PAY them!
March 1st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
That would be the case, Scribbler.
And for those who do not know, A Distant Soil has been published by Image since 1996.
I will never again work on the back end on anything company-owned. In my entire career, there has never been a pay off on one of those deals.
And I have done multiple celebrity-related gigs. They really don’t pay off much, either. As I said in my original post, you can’t assume that proximity to a celebrity will rub stardust on you. A lot of young creators think that if they work with famous people, they will be famous. That’s just not how it goes.
Fame doesn’t pay. You can sell a lot of books and still make lousy money. Proximity to the success of others is not about you. There is no success without right action.
The contract and the work is what it is about. Everything else is illusory.
FYI, here is the blog which originally aired the grievance:
http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/original-art-stories-mr-t-and-working.html
March 1st, 2010 at 8:53 pm
So, Chris, just so I’m 100% clear, you pay a page rate upon completion of the work, in all cases, and not merely royalties?
I’m just asking for clarity’s sake here.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:01 pm
“If life has taught me anything, it that there is always two sides to any story.”
Yes, and those two sides are (1) the truth and (2) the excuses, rationalizations, dissembling and misrepresentation intended to avoid the truth.
Mr. Mohawk: Hi. My name is Jim MacQuarrie, and I am one of the directors of an organization called “Unscrewed!” which was set up specifically to confront and prevent the abuse and exploitation of artists by unscrupulous publishers. You’re on our radar now.
Please know that if you were to file a lawsuit against Al Bigley or any other artist based on the spurious claims described here, Mr. Bigley will not be facing you alone. We will make it our fight as well. As things stand so far, nobody has a claim of action against you or your company. You were forthright and honest in stating the terms of your contract, so nobody can accuse you of fraud. You are offering a lousy deal, but you are offering it legitimately.
But when you accuse people like Mr. Bigley of violating a contractual agreement into which he did not enter, and threaten him with a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), you are in danger of crossing a line. If you proceed with this course, you will find yourself in a fight that you cannot possibly win. I would suggest that your best course of action is to forget the bluster and threats. Go peddle your bad contract to anyone gullible enough to go for it. It’s perfectly legal (if ethically dubious and professionally counterproductive), and let the critics say what they will. Trying to threaten them into silence will not work.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:40 pm
OK, I don’t get the impression that Mohawk Media has any further interest in pursuing a SLAPP. I think the dude came in to do some damage control, which was bungled badly.
Here is what would have been a more productive approach:
“We at Mohawk Media deeply regret the unfortunate incident with Mr. Al Bigley, and apologize for any misunderstanding. There is no quarrel between us now, and we are happy to move on with our new endeavors.
It is a great privilege and pleasure to work with the legendary Mr T! And we wouldn’t want this incident to reflect badly on him or our hard-working staff in any way.
We are now soliciting artists and writers for future projects and want to assure potential clients that we are not asking them to work on spec. We’ve rethought our business practices and can guarantee that creators are paid on delivery of work. We realize that in this tough economic climate artists need to make a living, too.
It’s difficult for any start-up operation in this business, and we have made our share of mistakes. But please don’t hold this against us. We are learning, and we are looking forward to a bright and productive future.
Thank you again for your interest in Mohawk Media. We hope you will check out our new projects and that creators will think about the possibility of coming to us with their samples. We’d be happy to provide references from prior clients who have been pleased with their association with us.
Mohawk Media is looking forward to making a better future for our work, our readers, our creative team, and especially for or idol, MR T!”
That’s what I would have written.
Better still, let it go and not mention it again. The search engines would eventually bury it. Bad call. Really.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Gee, Colleen! Can I hire you to write my blurb copy when I need it?
March 1st, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Ahhhh, the infamous Mr Mohawk.
Chris, seriously mate, if you want to pick on someone then I’m your huckleberry. First you approach Al, claim to be his pal, yet you were bloody fast to threaten him, more than once, because he spoke out against your desires to ask artists to submit professional work without any form of payment, other than the promise of cash down the track? Perhaps.
Sue me, big boy,see how far you get and leave Al and Colleen alone. Both of them are worth more than you and your company are combined. And, frankly, when it comes down to it, I’d believe Al and Colleen over the likes of you, yet another dodgy publisher. And that’s all you are frankly, just the same as any number of publishers that exist to prey on people who need cash.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:30 pm
And BTW, my “lawyer” and I, the infamous Mike Lovitz, will be giving a talk on creator rights at Wondercon next month.
It will be moderated by Mark Evanier, Saturday, April 3, from 1-2 PM, Room 232/234.
Hope to see you there.
My “lawyer” and I look forward to discussing matters of interest with you.
Like how you shouldn’t work for hire on spec with companies no one ever heard of.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Careful, Colleen, he may pilfer that statement you made and incorporate it into their future releases. They should have just let things go. Something may have popped up with some digging, but this just placed it to the forefront.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:03 am
BTW, this thread has almost everything. 20th Century Danny Boy has used the phrase, “I’m your huckleberry,” which is one of the most awesome declarations ever, and I will go to my grave loving Val Kilmer for it.
A little bit of mansplaining from the opposition always makes me feel so feminine, coupled with the Dame sans Merci insinuation that my arguments are dismissable because I am a big meanie.
The only thing left is for someone to invoke Godwin’s Law.
The Decourus and Compleat Interwubz Intercourse.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:59 am
no, I will not tempt fate and enact Godwin’s law…
tempting tho.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:18 am
no, don’t invoke Godwin’s because that automatically ends the argument (and the lulz) XD
FWIW I completely agree re: “I’m your huckleberry” That movie actually made me like westerns again.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:22 am
I don’t get the reference, then again, I don’t generally enjoy westerns.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 am
“Tombstone.” I don’t generally enjoy them either, and this one was a little extra bloody for me (Untouchables-caliber bloody) but the scenes with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were fantastic.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 am
Eh, We may never get to Godwin’s Law.
He is now using a different computer account. Not the same IP from last summer. He’s reading but not commenting.
Which is fine. And probably the wisest course.
Here’s hoping they pay all their creators good and fair rates, offer fair contracts to all parties, and enjoy much success.
And here’s hoping some aspiring creators have learned what spec means, and, most importantly, what – and who – to avoid.
And oh, yeah. Tombstone. One of my favorite movies.
Because every wank should end on an up note.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:58 am
Colleen-
Thanks for hipping me to this whole issue flaring back up. I would think you’d be in better contact with me, seeing how we’re such great pals!
I do NOT recall anyone from MOHAWK contacting me prior to the mass e-mail “offer,” but I get so many “we’ll keep ya in mind” kinds of e-mails, so I can’t say for sure.
I CAN say, however, I got NO apologies, profuse or otherwise, from anyone at MM. Only more threats to “behave.” I love how they word things as if they and I spent months hashing things out…
I have no beef with MM or anyone there. Never did. I simply do not agree with their business practices and stated such in a “buyer beware” kinda e-mail shout-out. I’m glad to see they’ve revised their practices. Or so they say.
I can only wish them every bit of luck. I very much look forward to doing such in person some day. I’ll be watching convention schedules!
Al Bigley
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
I heard All and Colleen are secretly married and have eight hypothetical kids.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
Oh! So that’s why ADS is taking so long? o.O
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Never joke about deadlines, Mamid.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Nom Nom Nom.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
You know, the more I think about it, the more bugged I get about the “Oh, you’re friends with SoAndSo. That invalidates anything you might say about the matter” attitude. As if anyone (but especially females) cannot be objective about issues their friends are facing.
I realize that’s off the point regarding MM – but the attitude was nagging at me this morning when I woke up and was thinking over yesterday’s exchanges.
I mean… does anyone say that to GUYS who are speaking up for someone, especially in support of them? Not so much, I feel.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
It’s mansplaining bingo!
The punch line is, of course, I don’t know Al except for the ten or so messages we have exchanged on Facebook.
And despite MM’s initial claims, it appears they don’t know Al, either.
MM wrote:
“I personally spoke to Al long before he was approached with that potential offer.”
Al wrote:
“I do NOT recall anyone from MOHAWK contacting me prior to the mass e-mail “offer,” but I get so many “we’ll keep ya in mind” kinds of e-mails, so I can’t say for sure.”
Oh, beHAVE.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
what I find most hilarious is that he hasn’t tried to whine again. *pops more popcorn*
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Ah, mamid… perhaps he is one who can learn when his foot is too far into his mouth.
That’s the thing about the internet – one’s unwise or injudiciously phrased statements live on to haunt one for ages and ages.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
this thing has like 80 comments on it now. Not bad for a six month old blog entry!
Meanwhile over on the daily comic side, Rieken is standing around yelling “so what am I, chopped liver?”
Oh, wait…
XD
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I just wandered in from my other obsession on another website… or three…
Never learn to knit, Colleen. You’ll loose years to it. I know I have!
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Well, I seem to have arrived at the back end. Where do I sign?
The thread that has everything — except dogs yapping at its behind…
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
And now a quote from All About Eve.
It’s too thrill-making.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I just finally read all the other linked blogs through and yah, I’ve been hit by the same genre of “producers” that are being harped about here. My art was used without payment, not even a fragging copy of the book (Oh, no, you have to pay for your own copy, and we own the copyright to your artwork now) and my cross stitch patterns apparently are still being sold and I haven’t received on red cent.
I’ve been asked a lot why I don’t produce more. I should just show people this thread.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:23 am
[...] faboo legal eagle Mike Lovitz, (you know, the attorney this publisher does not appear to believe actually exists,) weighs in HERE on the recent swipe-irific controversy [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 am
Damn, it’s good to see I’m not the only one who loves Tombstone. I’ve been quoting that line, and the other classic, “You’re a daisy if you do,” for years now. Great stuff.
Just so MM know – it’s no use going after Al. I broke the story and drew people’s attention to it in the first instance, and I’d do it again in a heartbeat. Al is a class act Mr Mohawk, you’d do well to learn from the way he comports himself.
Colleen – your spotting of my huckleberry quote only enhances your image in my eyes!
Cheers
Danny
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
What I want to know is why MM approached my blog about this and not yours. Your blog is the one with all the info and direct quotes from the letters. I just linked to it and made some general commentary.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I tend to quote classic Warner Brothers cartoons.
I also hope I am never on the wrong side, especially with female bloggers. They can access that mystical power known as “Mommy Voice”, and having a German mother, I know too well its power.
Thanks for linking back to this, otherwise I would have missed this delightful exchange!
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“Yer beautiful in yore wrath.”
John Wayne, The Conqueror
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
That is one of the suck, suckity, suckiest movies in cinematic history. No wonder I love it so!
Oh, John, you barbarian!
And BTW, I have no idea why your posts keep getting eaten by the moderation filter. Sorry about the post delays.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
@Colleen, he posted to YOUR blog because he thought it was safe and he could use it for free publicity/spin doctoring. He couldn’t or wouldn’t stand up on the blog that accused him for fear of getting his ass handed to him so he came here instead. More fool he.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
No problem, Ms. Doran. You can see where they come from (work, cell). The cell, I think, keeps recycling the IP address. Or maybe the Internet has become sentient, and knows too much about me. (Whoa… a computer becomes bored, so decides to initiate Turing tests with random users. Black comedy, no? Title it: “God Is Laughing”)