Losing Money, Keeping Rights

What do you want you cartoonist you? You want money for your cartoons? You want the right to own your cartoons?

You can't have both. At least not with National Lampoon. Not now.

The National Lampoon imprint has been bought and sold over the years. Back in the 1970s when Matty Simmons ran the magazine, the cartoonists retained their rights. Sam Gross, the then-Nat Lamp cartoon editor, has told me this. He made a lot of money off of his "frog legs" cartoon. This is because he controlled it, he owned it.

Having rights to your cartoons is a good thing. Most markets buy one-time rights. That means the magazine, Web site, or whatever media outlet is using your work will pay for using your work once, and if they want to re-use it, then the editors must approach you and negotiate a fresh deal. Most magazines I regularly sell to want what's called first-time rights to cartoons. That means that they want to be the first to publish it.

In spring 2006 when National Lampoon approached a group of pro and amateur freelancers via a Web board with a proposal to send in cartoons, I was dubious. The pay was $50 a cartoon. And there was no mention of being paid again if the book went back for a reprint. But they said they didn't want all rights, just "single use" and "maybe print/web promotional stuff directly related to the marketing of these books, but that's it."

So I sent in a bunch of work, and they held a number of cartoons -- double digits!

Here's the initial pitch from the NL. I've bleeped the editor's name & address:

The project was delayed this summer (but it's back on the front burner now). One of the reasons for the delay: the contracts. Hey, that's OK. These projects can be delayed.

Here's the editor in a mass e-mail message from June 9, 2006:

The contract concerns that some of you had have been sent to the legal-types and will be addressed. I'm pushing hard for a FAIR TO THE ARTIST compromise.

Cartoonists -- my colleagues and friends -- have been e-mailing their hi-res versions of the cartoons without seeing a contract. That's their business.

I put on the breaks. I wanted to read the thing -- the reason for the delays -- before I sent in my work.

I'm glad I waited. The final contract says the Magazine

shall also have the right in perpetuity to utilize the Material in a compilation and/or magazine for a one time payment of $50.00.

So, even though the good ol' editor told us,

terms will be 'single use' with you retaining the rights to your work

that was not the case.

I told the editor that I could not agree. More money was offered. I said more money is nice, but the issue was rights. It was stuff like this that I didn't like:

... NL ... retains the right to use the material online and in other publications at all times.

For $50?! You want to use the cartoon online and in any other publication "at all times?" Like ... uh ... forever?

Nope. No way. I will not be part of the book.

Having rights to your work is a good thing. Ask Siegel and Shuster.

Here's the whole first part of the contract:

1. Use of Material: Author hereby grants to NL the right to use the Material, in whole or in part, in the Book (and republication of said material in digital and wireless media) commencing on delivery of the Material to NL and continuing in perpetuity (“Term”). NL shall also have the right in perpetuity to utilize the Material in a compilation and/or magazine for a one time payment of $50.00. Author agrees not to authorize a third party to utilize the same Material within or in connection with any other book nor grant any rights to the Material which would conflict with or impact the rights granted to NL for a one year period after initial publication of the Book, but retains the right to use the material online and in other publications at all times.

I appreciate the hard work that the editor did in working with a lot of real cartoonists -- instead of going the reprint route or going for a cartoon stock house. I think he has little to do with the terms. He's just in charge of getting a good product out. It's just too bad the people providing the content are being treated like this.