I know back in the 1980s, a bunch of comic book writers and illustrators got fed up with Marvel and DC owning their characters and stories and work - so they started their own company - WildStorm, I think is the name. It was started by two of the biggies - Jim Lee and Chris Claremont, who got sick of the Marvel crap. Somewhere along the way they made their peace with Marvel and DC though and started writing and illustrating for them again.
I also know that back in the 50s or maybe it was the 30s? United Artists was started by a bunch of actors who got sick of being slaves to the studio system. Tom Cruise did much the same thing. Actors became free agents, no longer contracted to one studio. Same deal with writers.
I don't think that conglomerates should own art. Or treat it like a commodity. Because art isn't something that can expand like corn or gold on the market. I think part of the problem is the corporations think they can weild power by controlling the production of it, that they can get rich off of it. I just read a great essay by Ursula Le Quin on this topic.
I remember reading online once an argument that maybe copyright law hurts art. That once it gets published or put in the hands of another it ceases to be the artists, the viewer interacts with it. The mask you make may not be used the way you intend once you give it to another. Should someone tell you not to create a graphic novel of Jane Eyre? Or not to do an icon of Firefly? Or not to put on a Buffy Sing-Along of OMWF? Where do we draw the line?
And when art becomes a business - where the jobs of people like accountants, cooks, makeup artists, production assistants, janitors, security guards, etc - who are not represented by a creative union are at stake - to what degree should the "creatives" who are represented be awarded above those who are not? Should these people lose their jobs? Who do we blame? The corporations who can't pay them and please their shareholders - who by the way are everyone who makes any money off of the stock market. Are you willing to lose money that pays your rent - in order for someone who writes a filmscript to get more money? I don't know the answers to these questions.
Life was easier before Reagan, Carter, Bush, and Clinton started shredding the Anti-trust act to the extent that mergers and acquisitions have become a fact of life. Sony should not have been allowed to take over several film studios. Disney and ABC should not have been allowed to merge. Viacom should not have been permitted to buy Simon and Schuster. I don't think our society was benefited by those mergers, I think we were hurt by them. But what do I know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-01-13 08:35 pm (UTC)I know back in the 1980s, a bunch of comic book writers and illustrators got fed up with Marvel and DC owning their characters and stories and work - so they started their own company - WildStorm, I think is the name. It was started by two of the biggies - Jim Lee and Chris Claremont, who got sick of the Marvel crap. Somewhere along the way they made their peace with Marvel and DC though and started writing and illustrating for them again.
I also know that back in the 50s or maybe it was the 30s? United Artists was started by a bunch of actors who got sick of being slaves to the studio system. Tom Cruise did much the same thing. Actors became free agents, no longer contracted to one studio. Same deal with writers.
I don't think that conglomerates should own art. Or treat it like a commodity. Because art isn't something that can expand like corn or gold on the market. I think part of the problem is the corporations think they can weild power by controlling the production of it, that they can get rich off of it. I just read a great essay by Ursula Le Quin on this topic.
I remember reading online once an argument that maybe copyright law hurts art. That once it gets published or put in the hands of another it ceases to be the artists, the viewer interacts with it. The mask you make may not be used the way you intend once you give it to another. Should someone tell you not to create a graphic novel of Jane Eyre?
Or not to do an icon of Firefly? Or not to put on a Buffy Sing-Along of OMWF? Where do we draw the line?
And when art becomes a business - where the jobs of people like accountants, cooks, makeup artists, production assistants, janitors, security guards, etc - who are not represented by a creative union are at stake - to what degree should the "creatives" who are represented be awarded above those who are not? Should these people lose their jobs? Who do we blame? The corporations who can't pay them and please their shareholders - who by the way are everyone who makes any money off of the stock market. Are you willing to lose money that pays your rent - in order for someone who writes a filmscript to get more money? I don't know the answers to these questions.
Life was easier before Reagan, Carter, Bush, and Clinton started shredding the Anti-trust act to the extent that mergers and acquisitions have become a fact of life. Sony should not have been allowed to take over several film studios. Disney and ABC should not have been allowed to merge. Viacom should not have been permitted to buy Simon and Schuster. I don't think our society was benefited by those mergers, I think we were hurt by them. But what do I know.