Your Greg comment is not "too strong" for me. It's just out of left field, because I never compared Greg's importance to Topps' in any way. "Goodness in the realm of Wacky Packages" is far too non-specific to compare Topps and Greg. They are not engaged in similar endeavors, so comparing them is pointless.
Of course I'm not implying you are against creators' rights. Based on your other postings I was pretty certain the exact opposite was the case, which is why I found it odd for you to be patting Topps on the back for "giving people work" when their underhanded and exploitative tactics from that period are well known.
And aside from making copious statements over the years in support of creators' rights (specifically in the comic book field), I've done nothing else. You worked in the comic book field during a time when the big names in the industry were slipping in their piles of cash, but I'm sure the lesser talents still had to struggle, and I commend you for going to bat for them.
I appreciat that, Paul.
The thing is, I've seen both sides of it. I've seen creators from the 70's lying about the agreements they signed, and demanding huge sums of money because a character they created was turned into a film, for instance.
Publishers like Topps and Marvel do make millions of dollars, and the rights of creators have been increased. But what Marvel (or Topps for that matter) bring to the table is, in so many ways, as important as what the creators do. So while I'm gratified that creators have become more important, and better compensated, the companies should not be thrown under the bus.
Exploitation and "fair pay" is such a broad topic, especially when you're talking about freelance artists. By their nature, freelance artists can be as mercenary as the companies that pay them, and they typically are. They go where the best deal is. I don't blame companies for "getting the best deal they can". It SUCKS, but it's what we all do as individuals. Companies, like individuals, make mistakes - sometimes we all sacrifice long-term quality for short term price, and it comes back to bite us.
I don't know, Kirby created all of these amazing things for Marvel and DC (and others). Was he compensated fairly? Maybe not by todays standards, but he did jump ship from the companies he worked for and looked for better deals. Did he start his own publishing company? Could he have?
You and I can look to the amazing work that Neal Adams and others did for bringing creators together to press publishers to return original artwork. That's good stuff. It's important.
But like so many great things, it may be the increased salaries for the creative folks that eventually put the nail in the coffin of published comics. Maybe not, but it's been said that freelance salaries are the primary reason for $4 comic books (I'm not sure I believe this - but I've had it told to me).
I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's easy to point a finger at Topps or Marvel and claim wrongdoing, or exploitation, when it's not nearly so cut-and-dry.
