-
Angelosherman 03/20/2012 12:26:00 AM
I think that once some cartoonist or entrepreneur comes up with an revolutionary idea, he or she will be able to
make big bucks on the internet. Others will follow suit. So since the net is really putting paper out of work.... the modern cartoonist has to change also.
It could boil down to the web or certain sites not being free anymore..and when millions of people pay a small rate ( 25 cent?) Then the cartoonist ,webmaster and whomever ..may make a profit.
-
05/27/2011 12:55:00 PM
now now, stop trying to get rob in trouble with his corporate overlords... oh wait it's Friday isn't it? help us! keep us safe from the bad man!
-
05/27/2011 5:31:00 AM
This article mentions so many online comics and does not provide a link to a single one. Is everyone who works on this website over 60 years old and retarded? Yes, I know I can google them, but as a reader, I expect YOU to do that work for me, and provide the link. Shitty, half-assed job you did here.
-
05/27/2011 3:25:00 AM
"Cartooning never made me a living," says Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winner and comics god. "It was as a screenwriter that I made a living."
Probably because the cartoons weren't that memorable. Obviously his talents lay with screenwriting. Nobody honestly says, "You know know Coppola, you should really give up this directing schtick for your vineyards, that's where your passion really lies."
(p.s. Coppola's wines are shit and the swill he names after his daughter is an insult to her.)
-
05/27/2011 2:41:00 AM
Rob Bricken sent me here. He is a bad man. -shudders- A bad, bad, baaaad, BAAAAAAAD man. -weeps-
-
05/27/2011 1:15:00 AM
Jesus Christ this is a depressing (however realistic) article...
-
Spoon 05/26/2011 10:51:00 PM
something something Topless Robot something
-
Pie 05/26/2011 10:35:00 PM
The guy from ToplessRobot said if i posted here with all you fags and niggers that he would get a copy of L.A.Noire os some shit well dont give it to him b/c i think he may be racist.
-
05/26/2011 9:56:00 PM
I am here commeting because the lovely and sexy human being known as Rob from Toplessrobot.com said I should visit here.
-
Tea 05/26/2011 8:59:00 PM
Present dear Rob over at Topless Robot an L.A. Noire since blogging doesn't seem to pay especially well either.
-
Guest 05/26/2011 8:13:00 PM
Rob at Topless Robot pimps you well. Give the man L.A. Noire as a reward.
-
Christie 05/18/2011 10:29:00 PM
Despite everything the article is saying, for once I don't feel discourage. Am I stupid or something?
-
04/27/2011 6:36:00 PM
Eric Stephenson, the publisher of Image Comics who was interviewed for this piece, had some interesting things to say about this article in a recent interview: http://bit.ly/stphnsn
Specifically, he calls it "bullshit" and lays into the writer for manipulating his quotes. Considering how controversial this article was when it was published, it's not really that surprising.
-
Guest 04/26/2011 2:19:00 PM
Another question: If the Village Voice is still printing new issues, why does it suck so much?
-
04/24/2011 6:54:00 PM
Dilbert made Scott Adams a bunch. Calvin and Hobbs also did fine.
You just have to have some creativity, honesty, and a story to tell.
-
PHR 04/20/2011 2:49:00 PM
The uncool part of this is that Eric Stephenson of Image Comics probably knows, but can do nothing about, the fact that at least 1 of every 500 or so (0.2% seems about right) of the childish/amateurish comic submissions is a masterpiece that is not apparent as one in a first glance, but, with so much clutter, it can't be found or discerned in current market conditions. Only what seems good at first glance can be given a chance. Kinda sucks for the genuine experimentalist, but there is no other way short of assembling 10000 volunteer readers who will pore over every submission to every place, spending no less than a week on each (in batches), in order to find the undiscovered masterworks. Same thing with art, music, literature, etc.
And, of course, everyone who writes in a naive, ostensibly amateurish or primitive style wants to believe that THEIRS is the unfound gem, but probability does not allow for this.
Damn. The harsh laws of market and probability have too much of an impact on the discovery of creative greatness. Uncool, but so be it: know it and survive in it. Maybe even thrive. Much success and imagination to all!
-
regular 04/15/2011 6:58:00 PM
good one
-
Shaunmjones 04/14/2011 8:36:00 PM
Your an idiot then
-
Ted Piwowar 04/13/2011 5:58:00 PM
Interesting article - I also have a few friends whom have worked in the comic-book fields and have either survived, moved on, or retired from the field. I understand now why they're not bloody rich - :/
-
Twillz1 04/13/2011 4:32:00 PM
An engaging article, with one of the better conceptual covers in quite some time. Kudos!
-
04/13/2011 9:37:00 AM
Another gem of an article!!..
-
Mimi Pond 04/12/2011 9:44:00 PM
Bite me.
-
regular 04/12/2011 9:33:00 PM
It doesn't surprise me that comic artists aren't becoming wealthy. It isn't very hard work considering some alternatives out there.
-
04/12/2011 3:30:00 AM
During the 80s hasd some cartoonist work. Illustrated for a hospital but then went to work in Cardiac trauma unit then in Neurology. In the end cartooning is in the heart but the reality bites. This article is so true
-
04/12/2011 12:58:00 AM
I'm thinking you're referring to a comment you left on the 'apologising' article, not this one. I see a comment from you on the other article and I'm guessing that's what you're talking about here.
-
04/10/2011 7:34:00 AM
Wow. I can't believe that an innocuous comment I left yesterday was removed. Why not just close the comments?
-
Coffeestained 04/09/2011 7:32:00 PM
Research is easy. Matt Groening, as of 2010, has a net worth of around half a billion dollars, according to several online celeb wealth sites. He is much richer than most successful movie stars, nevermind TV stars.
-
Tuckertoons 04/09/2011 5:25:00 PM
See what can happen when we the people speak up.....
April 8, 2011
Village Voice 'Making This Right' and Paying Contributors to Comics Issue
Source: The Village Voice
Village Voice editor Tony Ortega announced today that he will pay all of the cartoonists who contributed to the paper's Comics Issue without compensation. The Voice faced harsh criticism this week for not paying the contributors.
-
04/09/2011 2:11:00 PM
But your work!
-
Guest 04/08/2011 7:42:00 PM
Can Matt do that? Well, maybe he really can't. He's not as rich as you might guess based on the stuff he's created. He doesn't own The Simpsons, and I doubt he even owns Futurama. I have no idea how much he gets in royalties, nor how well-off he is in general, but at a rough, completely ex recto guess I'll bet he's worth less than the average lead actor in a successful TV show.
And even if he could do that - subsidize some artist he wants to take under his wing, or his own strip - it's hardly a solution for the industry's problem.
-
Troy Stallion 04/08/2011 5:23:00 PM
Your arguments are too emotional. Nowhere in my post do I blame "the children" for this problem. While I do realize that in contemporary American culture the definition of childhood has been extended to people in their thirties, where I come from children are typically less than twelve years old.
None of the illustrators who are choosing to work for free are children.
They are all "professional" adults who understand that they are providing a service.
In many cases a service that they were trained for at an expensive University or Art School, and they understand that they will not be compensated for that service.
Their behavior is completely consensual, making your argument of "corporate anal-rape" preposterous nonsense.
They don't have to take the illustration assignment if they aren't going to be paid.
They can say no. No one is making them do this, it isn't a work gulag.
What other profession would be so self-destructive in its neediness for attention that it would destroy its own economic future?
-
04/08/2011 1:52:00 PM
Nailed it!
-
Kyle Rimkus 04/08/2011 9:14:00 AM
I though Hellman and Millionaire made their livings the last 15 years from mass-postings on comic book message boards? Perhaps if they'd spent less time anon/pseudonymous-ly stirring shit on TCJ.com and elsewhere, and more time drawing and furthering their careers, they wouldn't be in this mess. Of course it would also help if they weren't both FUCKING DICKHEAD VERMIN, like most cartoonists. I say good riddance to them, and 99% of all other cartoonists, I wish them nothing but homelessness, sickness and shame.
-
04/08/2011 3:25:00 AM
"That's like saying, "if bitches didn't want to get raped, they shouldn't be wearing clothing like that." Do you understand?"
No, it's not like that at all. How you got that from what I said I don't know...
The people providing the art for the articles know and accept in advance that they'll be receiving no payment. They're not being tricked after doing the work, they're told in advance that 'exposure' is all the payment they'll get and they accept this.
Reading the rest of your reply, you seem to have somehow gotten on to the idea that these people providing illustrations for the Village Voice thought they were going to be paid. This is completely wrong and thus there's very little sense in your post. The situation we're talking about is one of artists doing work for free and knowing full-well no payment is being offered.
"If you don't pay an artist, you're going to get a shitty looking piece of artwork."
No, not necessarily. Flick through other Village Voice articles with spot illustrations and you'll see that this is not true. All these illustrations, according to what has been written here and elsewhere, were working with absolutely no payment. Many of them though, I should note, are probably not drawing new work specifically for the article but simply licensing old work.
-
04/08/2011 2:44:00 AM
because that kid doesn't know how to draw worth shit.
because that kid will play x-box for the next three weeks while you're learning how to draw and write better.
-
04/08/2011 2:34:00 AM
"If the Village Voice can get these people to work for free, why shouldn't they? ...It's these artists that are responsible for the lowering the worth of such work"
That's like saying, "if bitches didn't want to get raped, they shouldn't be wearing clothing like that." Do you understand?
"If you knew a capable plumber would work for free, why would you go and pay for a plumber?"
Nobody wants to get dirty doing plumbing for free. Artists do art for free because art is their religion--and because "exposure" is always thrown out there with a tone that suggests that the artist eventually find paying work from somebody who isn't actually a total cheapskate--which never happens, because everybody is a cheapskate, and nobody wants to hire an artist who's known for work he gives away for free.
So are we gullible? Yes. And is it okay to take advantage of the gullible?
*your opinion goes here, and reflects how others will treat you*
"...why would you ever pay for a plumber?"
So that he does a good job. If you don't pay an artist, you're going to get a shitty looking piece of artwork. If you don't pay an amateur artist (the more easily found and not-paid) you're going to get REALLY shitty art.
-
Tuckertoons 04/08/2011 2:01:00 AM
Every one loves what we do, but few are willing to pay for it! Artists need patrons, we can be terrible business people because we are devoting so much time to developing our art, and it's appalling that a mega corporation cannot afford a spare 20 of ( hopefully ) more for artists that fill an issue that they sell advertising for, it's shameful! Where are the modern day patrons of the arts? Is it all about the bottom line for these corporations? I write and draw a weekly left of center political cartoon for a small handful of weeklies, check it out at my website www.whatnowtoons.com
feel free to donate if you like the work.
-
PANdaRUS 04/08/2011 1:39:00 AM
It's a real shame when even alternate means of using our talents result in more of the same. I took up web design for a while to off set the losses in cartooning only to have 12 year olds, using bootleg software, and operating out of Internet cafes in other countries undersell the cost of my work on Craigslist! Who is going to pay decent money for illustrations when some kid will do it for $60 to buy a new Xbox game!?
-
04/08/2011 12:06:00 AM
I keep seeking out my local alternative weeklies that have "Life in Hell" (Matt Groening), but it keeps disappearing. Can't Matt offer a discount rate (and even subsidize/sponsor an additional comic or two)?
-
04/07/2011 11:47:00 PM
Yes, let's blame the children. That makes sense.
Wait... No.
Listen. We're all stupid when we're young. It's called BEING YOUNG. Please point me in the direction of he who was born with an understanding of how the post-education world works. No, Gautama Buddha does not count.
Obviously, you're still young. S'okay, bro. So am I.
Doesn't mean corporate anal-rape is s'okay, though.
-
04/07/2011 11:41:00 PM
Let's take an even simpler, closer example here: if there were competent/decent writers willing to work for free, just as many as there are competent/decent illustrators willing to work for free, then the Village Voice would have the EXACT same policy when it came to writing, without a doubt I say!
The answer to the question then is that in some part the illustrators/etc/etc have allowed themselves to be priced this way, they've dragged themselves down to this poor level. There are other factors, certainly, but I'd say this is one of them and definitely a large part of why publications like the Village Voice have these policies.
-
04/07/2011 11:35:00 PM
I agree that it's horrible that a publication of the Village Voice's level would ask/expect people to work for free but I think the larger blame falls on the artists who accept these terms, their doing this not only affects their own worth but the worth of everyone else in the field. I can understand an unknowing just-out-of-school beginner going for something like this, not knowing any better, but many of the artists featured are fairly established, they have no decent excuse. If the Village Voice can get these people to work for free, why shouldn't they? It's these artists that are responsible for the lowering the worth of such work, of creating policies where big publications find they don't need to write a cheque. If you knew a capable plumber would work for free, why would you go and pay for a plumber? If you found out that there were 40 - 50 plumbing in your area who did work for free, why would you ever pay for a plumber?
-
04/07/2011 11:34:00 PM
Well, see, chicks aren't really into guys on welfare. And I like chicks, and I want to BONE them, so, you know...
-
04/07/2011 11:24:00 PM
First, there is NO ONE entering comics these days to "get rich" who is not a child in terms of maturity, carried there on the wings of their innocent ignorance. To you, "good money" may mean "big screen TV this week! big screen!!" To us, "good money" means we can afford to feed our kids this month.
Second, Comics is more than a career to a lot of us. We're not all art-whores, like apparently you are. Would you tell a Christian minister, or a Shinto monk to "go elsewhere" when they ask why their salary is so low? Grow up or get out.
Third, no, stop, you DON'T have any experience. Don't talk about stuff you don't understand. You'll mislead people who might actually give a shit.
I'm obviously ten times more pissed off about this then I should be letting on, but whatever. I've still got my wings, and I ain't gonna lie and say they aren't there.
-
Troy Stallion 04/07/2011 11:14:00 PM
It used to be that illustration (not comics) was a respectable and rather well paying profession. But at that time (1930's through the 1980's) standards were much higher than they are today and there were far fewer participants. Nowadays there are thousands of middle class hipsters graduating every June from every State University and Art School with either a BFA or an MFA.
At the same time there is hardly any work or no work at all for most of them. Most of them want to be famous and believe that they are entitled to be such a creature. Because of their desire for celebrity they are willing to work for free (exposure). Do not blame the publications that are taking advantage of this hideous trend. Instead one should blame the Universities and Art Schools for encouraging far too many students to enter a field that they will never earn a living from, and while you're at it blame Generation Thumbs themselves. After all, no one is making them work for free. They are purposely degrading their own chosen "profession" in a naive pursuit of fame.
-
Guest 04/07/2011 10:57:00 PM
Thanks, guys. You told us over and over that comics don't pay and the best reason you gave was "they never did pay." There are a lot of comic artists out there who can make it big, and a lot of this article seems like biased whining.
Also way to go so far as to pull the "get a real job" line. I mean ouch, do you have any respect for comic artists if all you're talking about is how it's a low-paying "fake" job? Do you really think the main concern of most artists is how much money they're going to make?
-
04/07/2011 10:32:00 PM
I agree that the people aren't buying, if not for the reasons you've given, then something--but that doesn't excuse all the advantage-taking. Furthermore, a lot of these companies aren't exactly penniless themselves--if they feel that an article (for ex) will sell better with illustrations, why the hell not pay for it?
-
04/07/2011 10:08:00 PM
We don't need lawyers for contracts. We have this thing--maybe you've heard of it?--it's called the Internet. Fabulous, really--we can look up every passage of a contract by the keywords that it uses.
But then what? I hear negotiation really isn't "happening" right now. They'll find someone else if you're not willing.
And we're not all born with the same skill sets. I cannot get a job as a well-paid scientist -- just as you will never get a job as a shit-paid artist.
Nah, this ain't on par with racism and classism. But it sure as fuck has a lot in common with child-labour.
-
04/07/2011 9:47:00 PM
The ones making a shit-ton of cash off their movie deals? Yes, those Comics companies are doing fine.
-
What a joke 04/07/2011 9:13:00 PM
Great article, Village Voice. I look forward to the followup, "Why doesn't anybody get interest on their bank accounts anymore?" written by Tim Geithner.
-
04/07/2011 8:51:00 PM
amazing the balls of VV to publish this and shaft cartoonists @ the same time
-
Mimi Pond 04/07/2011 6:07:00 PM
Thanks for speaking for all of us, Genevieve.
-
04/07/2011 5:23:00 PM
I happen to be one of the lucky few making a living at comics, and I'll say a few things that occur to me in reading this.
1. Why didn't you answer the question you posed in the title? We all want to know the answer, and you didn't really dig into it at all.
2. For those commenters who denigrate American comics, it's true that there are plenty of bad ones, but the point is that even the good ones, the ones that get a lot of attention, tend not to sell big numbers. Why?
3. I think comics are hurt by the "quick-read" factor. It seems as though people don't like to plunk down $5-20 on a book that takes an hour or two to read when they have novels, movies, DVDs, games, etc. competing for their attention. Meanwhile, graphic novels tend to have the highest circulation of any section in libraries, so people are certainly interested in reading them, they just don't necessarily want to BUY them.
4. Award-winning books sell big numbers. I think we could really use a couple of crossover awards (or award categories for existing awards) that target comics and GNs but that have meaning to the school/bookstore/library establishment.
-
guest 04/07/2011 4:51:00 PM
Telling cartoonists you will give them 'exposure' instead of paying them is truly spineless. What you are saying is that it is OK to pass the responsibility on to someone else to pay them. Guess what, exposure does not buy groceries or put gas in the car.
That is a true insult to anyone trying to make a living.
What other profession is asked to work for 'exposure?' Does a plumber come to your house for exposure, does a doctor do surgery for exposure?
-
04/07/2011 2:20:00 PM
Also, I wasn't aware the Voice was a "large" company or that spot illustration for it was work-for-hire
-
04/07/2011 2:18:00 PM
Nice to know you have the disposable income to hire agents and lawyers just like that. Most of the cartoonists I know don't.
-
Surku 04/07/2011 9:32:00 AM
American comics.
I wouldn't buy. Do better.
-
04/07/2011 7:49:00 AM
Cartoonists are their own worst enemies.
-
04/07/2011 12:35:00 AM
It's disgusting to contact a writer or an artist or a cartoonist and hit them with that "exposure" bullshit. I had no fucking idea the Village Voice had slipped to the level of a Cragslist scam.
Maybe once the Voice goes under, and the editorial staff is out on the street looking for "opportunities", they'll get an idea of what it's like to try to make a living with assholes looking for free work making up the bulk of publishing.
-
04/06/2011 11:31:00 PM
Who are you talking to? The author of this piece? Why the fuck would a freelance writer need balls to point out that the publication that's probably paying him shit pays shit?
-
04/06/2011 11:28:00 PM
Were cartoons ever really big? The comics/cartooning industry has a relatively low barrier of entry compared to other arts, so there'll definitely be way more practitioners than those who can make a living from it. But the good will be noticed, and yes, they should be compensated.
-
Aldous Massie 04/06/2011 10:55:00 PM
Well put.
-
Coy_dog0 04/06/2011 10:14:00 PM
Interesting.
How much have you done to personally negotiate YOUR salary with your employer? Easier said than done, son.
-
Winston Rowntree 04/06/2011 9:05:00 PM
Yeah, so a) False premise. Comics AREN'T big, that's WHY they don't pay. And b) they also don't pay because publications like yours are too cheap to pay cartoonists. As you somehow had the balls to admit to in this very article. So you suck, basically is my point here.
-
04/06/2011 8:55:00 PM
I read an article through Boing Boing recently stating that the comics industry was doing quite well, compared with more traditional publishing (novels/fiction), but maybe they were arguing that comics aren't in decline like fiction is. I guess that isn't saying to much if it wasn't a particularly lucrative industry to begin with.
-
04/06/2011 8:34:00 PM
Maybe the next time you go in to work, you can suggest to corporate that they don't pay you anymore because, what the heck, they own the work you do anyway!
-
04/06/2011 8:32:00 PM
This article is the equivalent of going to Africa with the cure for AIDS, then asking the people there why AIDS is still a giant epidemic. It's redundant and retarded. Fix this mistake, VV, and pay your fucking cartoonists.
-
04/06/2011 7:52:00 PM
Most cartoonists can't afford lawyers, and are generally ignored by agents.
-
Nyxie 04/06/2011 7:27:00 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head here - I'd be interested to know how many published authors actually make enough from just their books alone to support themselves. It seems like many of them have other jobs, or make money from appearances and merchandise as well. Same goes for musicians.
I'm even reminded of a rant by my college sociology professor about organized sports - the chances of striking it rich as a writer/artist/creative are probably better than the chances of getting rich playing professional sports if you're an athlete.
-
04/06/2011 7:06:00 PM
They have absolutely no hesitation admitting they're part of the problem. Village Voice, you suck.
-
04/06/2011 7:03:00 PM
i think at this point, cartoonist just need to get funds from the people who care the most about comics they love. like this campaign for this comic
http://kck.st/glS4nE
-
04/06/2011 6:50:00 PM
article translation:
WHAAAAAAAAAAAA I didn't make any money doing art for on scale for a large company who owned the work I did cause I'm too stupid to hire an agent/lawyer to negotiate my contract
-
Mimi Pond 04/06/2011 6:16:00 PM
Village Voice, you have got some nerve printing this story after you asked me and god knows how many other cartoonists to contribute free work for this issue-with the stipulation that it would be "good exposure" for me. You can go fuck yourself! You used to pay me decent money back in the 80s to do full-page cartoons for Mary Peacock's V section. The 80s were very very good to me. I had a real career as a full-time cartoonist and illustrator. I stopped for a minute to have children and then when I looked up again, my career had fallen off a cliff. So thanks, Village Voice. Thanks a lot.
-
04/06/2011 4:51:00 PM
I'd be interested to see a statistical comparison of various entertainment industry careers -- screenwriting, acting, cartooning, writing novels, etc. I strongly suspect that in each of these areas there is a steep power curve and a long tail full of aspirants who make next to nothing.
I'm making a comfortable living as a webcartoonist -- I support my wife and four kids, we own a house and two vehicles, and we can afford to eat nice foods and go to doctors when we get sick. I'm not getting rich, but I'm more than scraping by. I'm pretty sure I'm in the "fat tail" of the webcartooning power curve, and I suspect that there is a similar spot for actors, screenwriters, authors, and rock musicians you've never heard of, but who are doing just fine.
-
04/06/2011 4:43:00 PM
I'm impressed to read that Fantagraphics does $6 million in sales per year. I'm curious if that's net or gross, and I'm also curious to hear how much of that trickles down to the cartoonists.
-
04/06/2011 3:13:00 PM
Well Danny, wasn't there some women's mag in the early 2000's where he claimed to have bedded - I forget exactly how many women, but it was a higher number than my Twitter character count. So why not say it about newspapers too?
-
04/06/2011 3:05:00 PM
Despite the fact that a lot of people's first reaction to this article is "How depressing." I'm rather optimistic about it myself. The world is changing and comics along with it. There are a lot of possibilities, a lot of maybes on the table especially for independent creators with the internet and hand held devices. Just because someone hasn't found an outstanding model for earning income yet, doesn't mean that we can't if we keep looking towards innovation.
Plus, I'm already doing what I love and surviving. To me, that's livin the dream.
-
04/06/2011 2:33:00 PM
Are there even 90 papers left in this country? I thought we were down to like, six or seven at the most.
-
04/06/2011 2:10:00 PM
This article seems to confuse the "older" dynamic (where the cartoonist was just one cog in the machine) vs. suddenly putting the cartoonist at the helm of their own destiny for better / worse.
It's not even that the pay is comparable, but in theory, the rewards for a self-managed career should outpace what a cartoonist used to be able to do with a gatekeeper (even if that hides the nasty truth that while the total worth could be much higher, it may take a lot longer in 'poverty' to get there.), or at least that a cartoonist can make just as much on their own as they would with a syndicate, even if they have a fraction of the same audience.
Even if either / both are true... that's suddenly a lot more "non-comic work" that's being put on a cartoonist's head. I don't know if the number of people able to make a living "purely" based on their comics is any bigger than the number of pro basketball players, but it may be that comics are a means to another end -- the medium is not what people are paying for, but the message!
-
Gay Movie Fan 04/06/2011 2:07:00 PM
My favorite part of the Village Voice was always the political comics. When they abruptly stopped featuring them a few years ago, I was really pissed. Still am, in fact.
-
Dave O. 04/06/2011 1:56:00 PM
Print-on-demand is the way to go for self-publishing, though I agree that unit costs could be lower. I don't think they're going down anytime soon. After a so-so experience with Lulu, I re-published my graphic novel through MagCloud. These kinds of p-o-d services were unimaginable even a few years ago when I first started.
Now, if only people were interested... http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/159853/follow
-
CW 04/06/2011 1:29:00 PM
Maybe the business doesn't pay because publications like Village Voice keep firing their artists: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/village-voice-media-drops-all-syndicated-cartoons_b7933
-
Rick Parker Cartoonist 04/06/2011 1:09:00 PM
Thanks for writing this article. Perhaps a few of the people reading this who are in comix "for the money" will go elsewhere. In my experience, "good money" and "good art" are not frequently found together, but it can happen and life is but a dream anyway.
-
Jim Ryan 04/06/2011 12:55:00 PM
Lying about paper count is an old tradition of syndicated cartoonists.
When I was in syndication the rule was, take the number of papers claimed and subtract a third and you have a fair approximation of the actual count.
-
04/06/2011 3:41:00 AM
Ted Rall claims his crap still runs in 90 papers? My BS detector just went up to eleven.
-
James Israel 04/06/2011 12:44:00 AM
Part of the problem, speaking as the publisher of the Humor Times, a monthly compendium of editorial cartoons and humor columns, is that cartoonists are giving away their work free on the internet. Like journalists, editorial (and other) cartoonists face a conundrum: Everyone else is giving it away, so, to stay in the mix and be noticed, they feel they have to do the same. This makes it tough on everyone involved in the industry: the writers, the cartoonists, and the publications. It's hard for us publishers to get the money to pay you to publish your work when our readers have already seen your cartoon free on the internet.
What's the answer? I'm not sure, but somehow, as lovers of good writing, photography, art and cartooning, we've all got to chip in, so the creators of these works can be paid. Otherwise, we may eventually end up with a lot of free crap, as creative types move on to paying work to make a living.
-- James Israel, Humor Times (www.humortimes.com)
