Whoa, really makes you think

>>89609292
it's not high paying work that matters, it's consistent work. remind me who gave kirby that again?

>>89609292
first, it's 'must come great responsibility'.

second, Image is still just a faceless corporation that you are helping to build up

>>89610229
Image doesn't have any assets, there's nothing to build up.

It's just an empty shell that funnels as much money as possible straight to the creators.

>>89610282
Well, there's the people hired to work on pre-existing characters like Spawn, Youngblood, Cyberforce or Tech Jacket.

>>89610312
Those people aren't hired by Image, because Image doesn't own those properties.

Those people are hired by the owners/creators of Spawn, Youngblood, Cyberforce and Tech Jacket.

Image's only job is to make sure that those comics get enough paper, ink, staples, glue, and gas for shipping.

>>89609292
>waaaah how do contracts work?

>>89609292
I guess that's cool- but I don't imagine Graham owns the words he writes for Prophet either. If Prophet somehow became the next X-men or Spiderman, I wonder if he'd be treated any better than those old-timers were by Marvel.

>>89610726
>waaaah how dare these creators own their own properties

>>89610895
>I don't imagine Graham owns the words he writes for Prophet either.
He doesn't, but he does own all his work on Multiple Warheads and 8House and everything else he does through Image.

>If Prophet somehow became the next X-men or Spiderman, I wonder if he'd be treated any better than those old-timers were by Marvel.
His treatment would be up to Rob Liefeld, not Image, because Liefeld owns Prophet, not Image.

>>89610989
>hey I have an idea
>that idea sucks, let's refine it a bit
>okay, but I WANT ALL THE CREDIT! MEEEEEE!

>>89611089

Liefeld seems like he'd give Graham and company proper respect/money

>>89611393
that's probably what Kirby thought about Stan Lee.

>>89612308
No, not really. Stan Lee doesn't own Kirby's work. Marvel does.

Kirby's work was owned by a corporation, Graham's work is owned by a person.

>>89612575
so naive

>>89609921
Why would you defend a faceless corporation anyway
it's not like they'll ever do anything for you

So true

>>89614954

Would an independent publisher do anything for me?

>>89609292
Not really, no. OP you're kinda slow in finding theses things out.

Also is Brandon still a sad sack after his girl friend dumped him for being a sad sack?

>>89609292
Hey remember when they tried to fuck over Gaiman out of the characters he created for Spawn despite the whole point of Image being that the CREATORS own the characters?
Sure chimes well with that propaganda, doesn't it?

>>89617706
>they
He, singular. Just one guy, the guy that owns Spawn. Not Image, because Image doesn't own the characters.

Pay more attention.

>>89617754
I don't care enough to pay attention to your trickery, Secret Jew Corporation!

>>89617754
Let's not forget about Robert Kirkman and his legal shenanigans. Look I love Image comics but come on they have there own issues too that hinders creators. Unless a book is a big hit the creators often lose money on it and fall through the cracks when there is genuine talent there. Also they really have issues with stores and what they sell to get by.

>>89617915
You've been reading too much Marvel and DC propaganda. The amount of sales needed for a comic to be profitable is lower than you think.

>I’ll give you some really basic rule of thumbs for indie comic commentary:

>Anything selling stably over 10k in single issues is a cause for celebration and joy. The creators are almost certainly extremely happy.

>If you’re selling over (ooh) 12k, you’re probably making more than either of the big two would pay you, unless you’re one of the very biggest names.

>If you’re selling anything near 20k, you probably have to buy drinks for your friends.

>>89617963
Yes...comments I've read from people who work on Image books......look I'm just saying Image isn't perfect creator land. There are some issues.....plus as a retailer it's hard to sometimes judge a book and we have to very careful on some books....the only real safe bets are Walking Dead and Saga. As much as I would love to support more Image books it's very much a hassle to keep up with them. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IT SUCKS WHEN THEY GO ON HIATUS!??? AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN A BOOK WILL ACTUALLY BE PUBLISHED?

>>89609292
Yeah
It makes me think what a fucking hack BG is

>>89618036
Image has issues, but I wouldn't say that any of them are caused by Image itself.

When a creator decides to screw over their work-for-hire contractor, that's the creator's fault, not Image.

When a creator decides to go on indefinite hiatus, that's the creator's fault, not Image.

People are blaming Image for problems that Image is helpless to stop, because they really are the land of complete and perfect freedom for creators.

>>89618079
Yeah but I think Image should be able to help creators or give them an environment that fosters them to keep working on there book or at least finish it. Plus Image does need to work on communication because guess what? THAT HELPS WITH CREATORS AND FREEDOM! It's not perfect freedom it's being thrown at the deep end and being eaten by sharks as you spin around. It can be good but I rather not romantise it.

>>89618146
>Yeah but I think Image should be able to help creators or give them an environment that fosters them to keep working on there book or at least finish it.
But that would mean going against everything they stand for. The whole point of Image is that Image is hands-off, they refuse to interfere in any way with the creators.

You want Image creators to work in the Image office from 9-5, have regular checkups with their editors, prepare a minimum number of pages daily or face cancellation? That's not gonna happen.

>>89618187
yes because work ethic really hurt creators......