

Don Rosa: Why I Quit - Hupo
http://career-end.donrosa.de/

======
praptak
_"But it’s an unfortunate fact that there have never been, and I ultimately
realized there never will be, any royalties paid to the people who write or
draw or otherwise create all the Disney comics you’ve ever read."_

Please remember the above quote next time you hear some corporate puppet bring
up the "starving artist" argument in a copyright policy debate.

~~~
skymt
Don't frame it like that. It's dishonest.

Corporations withholding royalties from artists is _obviously bad_. But it's
entirely consistent to condemn such abuse while still supporting the idea that
artists ought to be repaid for their work.

~~~
tptacek
Corporations withholding royalties from salaried employees with whom no
agreement was made regarding royalties is not "obviously bad".

~~~
skymt
Point taken. My objection was to praptak's generalized false dilemma of
corporations cheating their employees versus weak copyright and widely
accepted file sharing. Don Rosa's case is indeed more complex.

------
adrianonantua
This guy's history speaks volumes about success and being good at something.

People who want to get into Software business because of money and people who
want to learn how to play the guitar because of popularity have one thing in
common: they only envision the outcome. They daydream of sitting on a load of
cash or being surrounded by friends (and girls) when playing a tune.

People who get really successful at something enjoy the freaking process. Most
of the times (if not all) they don't even realize they are heading for
success: they are too busy enjoying the improvement of their craft.

------
zeitg3ist
I grew up reading Don's comics, and my D.U.C.K. book is so worn that it
doesn't have a cover anymore. Hell, in my old room I still have his
(wonderfully and finely detailed, as usual) Duck genealogical tree poster.
Despite all this, I knew nothing about the man himself, which - judging from
this heartfelt article - is as good and intelligent as his comics. It's sad to
see he stopped writing, mostly because there's no one there to fill his gap --
and it's a huge gap, as huge as those left by Floyd Gottfredson and Carl
Barks.

~~~
pimeys
I also own every duck book he ever released. I grew up with his and Carl
Barks' comics. I still enjoy them.

Btw, Don Rosa and Carl Barks are almost like national heroes in Finland where
I grew up. When Carl Barks visited the country, there were people on the
streets celebrating. Don Rosa's visits are also a big thing.

~~~
pimeys
Here's a video from 1994 when Carl Barks had his first visit in Helsinki. The
streets were full of people celebrating. He was kind of a rock star in the
country.

[http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/carl_barks_suomessa_14...](http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/carl_barks_suomessa_14320.html#media=14325)

------
thurn
I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the
software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work.
That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a
salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an
exploitive relationship.

~~~
milfot
The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not
profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or
withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless
your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business.

It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The
fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential
and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if
employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how
much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and
how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much
and box packers paid so little?

The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the
power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We
just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to
worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.

~~~
crazygringo
Not really. Once you get into understanding how investors, investment and VC,
etc. work, the mathematics of risk and payoff become very clear. If you, as an
investor, are throwing millions of dollars into a product that requires
millions of dollars, and has only a 10% chance of success, then you a
commensurate share of the payoff as well, which may even be most of it.

At my last job, I got to choose the balance between salary and equity I wanted
-- and I really had to calculate if I wanted to earn a little less (or a lot
less) in exchange for a greater share of future profits. Or to earn a little
more (or a lot more) in exchange for giving that up. And having gained quite a
bit of knowledge from the investor side of things, at least here in the tech
industry in NYC, I don't think it's accurate at all to say it's "usually an
exploitative relationship". At least, as long as employees bother to figure
out how it all works.

Of course your employer can sack you or withold a raise. But of course _you_
can leave for another company, or tell them _you're_ leaving if they _don't_
give you a raise.

But you've got to have enough skill to be of value, and enough negotiating
skill not to be taken advantage of, as well. Just like a company has to have
enough skill not to hire not to be taken advantage of by _its_ employees --
the employees who don't contribute, the employees who spend more time playing
politics, etc.

~~~
milfot
Absolutely! I agree with your whole post. I was meaning 'usually' in the sense
of usual employer / employee relationships.

Most employee's do not know, nor know how to find out, their net worth to the
company. They definitely do not get offered equity.

Most companies go to some lengths to obfuscate the earnings from their
employees and contractually forbid their employees from speaking about their
own earnings. Most employees, even if armed with such knowledge, do not have
the power to demand their worth as there are a large queue of eager
replacements for their position.

My point was essentially, if someone thinks they are trading off rewards /
equity / ip royalties etc for job security, they probably do not have a good
understanding of their relationship or value to their employer.

Don seems to have known full well what he was trading off, and as he explained
when he drew the line and exercised his right to negotiate "they simply
refused to actually ask permission". They refused to negotiate as they were so
used to being in a position of power.

"But you've got to have enough skill to be of value" I would say, you have to
have enough skill to be of 'great' value.. then you have the power to
negotiate or go elsewhere. If you do.. more power to you!

~~~
Evbn
You don't need great value, you just need two prospective buyers to compete.

------
RexRollman
This article is a good example of why I don't buy non-creator owned comics
(aside from the fact that I view Marvel and DC comics from 1990-on to be pure
shit). I know most comic fans don't give a shit but I do.

------
LefterisJP
Wow I never expected to see an article about Don Rosa in HN. This is a really
sad turn of events which I was not aware of. I grew up with Carl Barks's and
Don Rosa's comics and thoroughly enjoyed each one of their stories, was
inspired and moved by them. He leaves some pretty big shoes to be filled.

Thank you Don, for everything you have done and for being with me through all
my childhood( and beyond) through your stories

------
afterburner
btw, advice to anyone who experiences it, if you think your retina is
detaching, SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. (If that wasn't obvious from
the article.)

------
senorcastro
9 volumes!

------
lifeguard
TL;DR:

Disney sucks to work with.

------
Evbn
> Most Americans retire after 30 – 35 years.

------
kkowalczyk
It seems it all boils down to this: he didn't make as much money as he wanted.

I don't want to trivialize the issue: making money is not easy, but the guy
over-plays the victim card.

He seems to be a successful artist. He quits and it's all a fault of _other_
people, who don't pay him as much as he deserves.

Again, not to trivialize the issue, but an artist with a lot of fans should be
able to find a way to make money.

Did he try to follow the steps of many cartoonists that make decent money
doing daily cartoons on the web, like theotmealguy?

Did he try to create anything outside of work-for-hire arrangement that he
entered (willingly, as a consenting adult) into with Disney?

No evidence of that.

According to him, it's just the system conspires against poor artist.

According to me, he's just a lousy businessman who lacks awareness of his own
shortcomings and oblivious to many ways he could have made money with his art.
Instead he chose a safe route of employment and as an adult he should
understand that it also usually comes with limited upside.

If he wanted a bigger upside, he should have taken more risks.

~~~
zeitg3ist
I don't think you read his article very well. He doesn't give a shit about
making money. He's just pointing out that in the Disney comic system there are
no royalties and artists get exploited.

~~~
pmelendez
I don't think this is particular to the Disney comic. How many game developers
are being paid proportionally with sales? Usually sales and marketing people
are the ones with those benefits, not the content generators. On a flip side,
is not like they invest any money on the final product as they are generally
being paid as a regular job.

~~~
pandaman
Before 7th generation pretty much everyone paid royalties in the games. I
believe one of the major reasons the industry is in shambles now is that, with
the advance of the 7th generation, 3d parties moved to cut off royalties
either by acquiring studios or by rigging contracts. Still, 3d party owned
studios working on profitable titles are paying bonuses that are proportional
to sales more or less. For example, check out Activision vs. Infinity Ward GMs
lawsuit.

~~~
chipsy
I think that with respect to game royalties, that ship set sail a long time
ago. Publishers in the earliest generations would often give creators huge
royalties, and it's just been on a gradual decline since then.

The topsy-turvy situation the industry is in now, though, has countless
factors - it's going to be discussed for years to come, and the signs of
disruption are appearing on all fronts.

