Cartoonist Brian Duffy was, like an alarming number of newspaper cartoonists in the US, laid off from his post recently. Brian worked for the Des Moines Register for over two decades but was let go a few months ago; he also had to leave without his original artwork, he says. Now he’s discovered the paper which let him go is planning to donate his original work to the University of Iowa to be archived and he apparently has no say in this: “The editor felt that I wasn’t important enough, or my work wasn’t important enough to keep me at the newspaper, yet she wants to keep my legacy alive by donating all of my work to the University of Iowa.” Duffy adds that he has no objection in principle to donating some of his work to the university as part of an archive of cartoons in the state, in fact he likes the idea, but he wants it to be his own choice. The Register, meanwhile, states simply that it “paid him for his very excellent work, but we hold the copyright for the work our staff produces” before going on to say that they are performing a public service (how very noble of them).
(a cartoon from 2008 by Brian Duffy for the Des Moines Register, (c) currently in dispute between artist and paper)
I’m not sure how this kind of copyright works, especially in the US, but I thought the original art pieces remained the property of the artist – certainly auctions and sites here often sell the originals of cartoons published in, for example, Private Eye (in fact I recall a programme years ago where celebs were given 500 pounds to buy some art and Eye editor Ian Hislop went looking for originals of cartoons he’d published in the paper). Perhaps some of our readers who work in the industry will know more about this – it certainly seems to be rather rough to me; even if the law is on their side its a pretty shoddy way to treat someone and their work, all the while professing its for the greater good, surely its the sort of decision that, out of simple decency and respect, should have been made jointly? Duffy, who points out when a book of his work came out the copyright was shared between him and the Register, is taking legal advice to contest the Register and reclaim his original works. (via KCCI 8)
February 24th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Joe, freelance cartoonists do indeed retain copyright of their cartoons. But if the cartoonist is a member of staff then the copyright is usually owned by the employer. That would, sadly, appear to be the case here.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Ah, so its different if you are on staff as opposed to selling individual cartoons on a one by one basis freelance – thanks, Royston. Mind you, if the book collection had shared copyright I’m guessing that might set some precedent that his lawyer can use, be interesting to see what happens
February 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Largely it comes down to what kind of contract the cartoonist had with the company, owning the copyright of a piece of work DOES not equate to owning the original work – I own my original artwork that I’ve produced for 2000AD, but they own all the copyright (which means, I can sell my originals but not reproduce them). So simply saying ‘we own the copyright’ doesn’t really cover the right ground. If the cartoonist is on staff, as Royston has pointed out then his contract probably states that all material created while on staff belongs to the organisation (in fact, many employer/employee contracts will have things suggesting that anything created while employed – ideas, inventions, etc – belong to the employer).
So to sum up: what Royston said.
-pj