Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I am okay with kids having control over rights of their parents' work to keep it from being turned into crap, but its a bit tough to justify them being paid for dad's labor.

 

 

August Derleth's work is a lot easier to read and is just as good, especially as at first you kind of get the sense that maybe humanity might be able to win and survive.... never mind.

 

What about the grandkids or great-grandkids?  What if the creator thinks a nephew or close friend would do a better job protecting the legacy?

 

One might also argue that the possibility that humanity might be able to win and survive compromised Lovecraft's vision, beginning a descent into crap.

 

11 hours ago, Spence said:

Absolutely. 

First he was a genius and then he was an evil idiot, all depending on which mob is crying. 

 

But there are many "regular" people that came up with a concept and turned it into a fortune, some even changing the world while they were at it.   Gates and Jobs went from being the "little guy making good" to "mega-corporate evil guy using slave labor". 

 

Writers are just another grouping.  Smart ones are flush with cash while the "not as smart" or "not as lucky" get little or no benefits from their original ideas. 

 

It isn't a matter of whether I agree with a case or not.  They just are. 

 

Bob has a great idea but dies not have any ability to bring it to reality.  So he approaches Sara who has the wealth and resources to bring the idea to life.  

Sara sinks millions of dollars, has the skills and knowledge to hire thousands of specialists required and the infrastructure to support them. 

After the thing takes off and the money rolls in, after all the moneys are re-paid, all the expenses are paid, the taxes and fees and licenses are paid.

After all that the actual remaining profit is determined.

Who gets what?  Who gets the larger portion.

Does Sara who bore all of the real world risk and put in the long hours and work wrangling the thousands of details needed to get something from concept to reality?

Does Bob who had an idea and spent time advising and critiquing the process?

 

I don't know and I definitely know I would not want to have to try and decide that.

 

But one thing I do know is that the "public" is notorious for loving the cheering on the underdog.   Right up till they become successful and they become that evil rich guy.

 

It is even worse for small startup companies.  Successful corporations are the modern equivalent of dark evil gods to be instantly hated by everyone.

 

Too true.  We personify the corporation as though it has its own goals and morals.  Disney is a publicly traded corporation.  How much of its profits go to pension funds?  Those vile, evil pensioners living off slave labour and copyright extensions!

 

On Bob and Sara, how many other projects did Sara back that, perhaps, were less successful, and she lost some or all of her investment?  If she can't recover the losses from these high-risk ventures from the profits on the much less frequent winners, especially the incredibly rare huge winners, why would she invest in any of them? 

 

10 hours ago, Jhamin said:

My take on this is that if a creators makes something that is profitable, they should be able to profit from it but that at some point something crosses over from being a "product" to being "culture" and I don't think someone should be able to own culture.

 

If we could keep copyright forever, then someone would own King Arthur, Gilgamesh, and the Pied Piper.  I don't think that it would be good for us as a society if we had to pay someone a nickel every time we referred to a Shakespeare character by name.  It is *good* that western civilization has a core group of characters that we all can use.

 

If you accept that Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, well, he has been dead for 50+ years.  How long do the people who took over his corporation need to profit from his legacy?  At what point do they need to profit from their own work?  Should Mickey still be owned by a corporation in 2200?  2300?  By that logic there is not "common culture", just the various slices of a pie owned by various people.  Should Bach's descendant's still get royalties because they happened to have a famous ancestor?

 

At some point, for common culture to keep working, Mickey Mouse, Superman, Captain America, and the Ghostbusters need to become public domain.  Opinions vary as to when that should be, but ownership can't be perpetual.

 

We don't actually know who created those "cultural icons", though.  And they predate the birth of Adam Smith, whose works formed the basis for modern capitalism, including "ownership" concepts.  How does the theory that "the creators should just freely give back the fruits of their talents to society" make sense when placed against medical doctors and professional athletes getting paid for their contributions to society?  Why should ownership of wealth be perpetual?  Should land be returned to the general public when the owner dies?  Should it be limited to passing down to only one generation, then return to societal (presumably government) ownership?

 

How does letting other writers use characters such as Mickey Mouse, Superman, Captain America and the Ghostbusters enhance culture, as compared to requiring those writers create new characters to add to our culture?  There is a cost to extending copyright.  The owners of the rights to such icons as Mickey Mouse, Superman, Captain America and the Ghostbusters are paying to extend copyright because there is value there.  That value exists because the characters remain in use, continue to be published and continue to be broadcast.

 

Many less successful properties were allowed  to lapse into the public domain. Those works were not being reprinted, rebroadcast, etc. and were disappearing from culture. As an example, consider "It's a Wonderful Life". It wasn't overly successful, its copyright lapsed and the TV stations realized they could use it for free.  So millions of people who would not otherwise have seen the film were exposed to it, and it became part of the popular culture.  But would the networks have picked it up over other 1946 releases, like the top grossing 1946 films at https://www.the-numbers.com/market/1946/top-grossing-movies? [bad year to pick given the #1 top grossing film, with 20/20 hindsight...], had they all become public domain at once?  [The actual ownership and copyright issues for the film are pretty complex, and the ensuing battles likely would not have happened, absent the rebroadcasts when the relevant rights became more valuable - its status as a derivative work itself muddies the waters further.]

 

 

[Jhamin]

13 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We don't actually know who created those "cultural icons", though.  And they predate the birth of Adam Smith, whose works formed the basis for modern capitalism, including "ownership" concepts.  How does the theory that "the creators should just freely give back the fruits of their talents to society" make sense when placed against medical doctors and professional athletes getting paid for their contributions to society?  Why should ownership of wealth be perpetual?  Should land be returned to the general public when the owner dies?  Should it be limited to passing down to only one generation, then return to societal (presumably government) ownership?

 

Ideas are valuable.  I think it's fair that the creator should profit from their creations, but that after their death that IP wealth should be given over to society.  Being able to collect payment on intellectual property you didn't create but own the rights too does you some good but does nothing for anyone else.  Right now anyone can put on a production of Hamlet without asking permission and I don't think we would be better off if Sony got 5%. The fact that King Arthur and the works of Shakespeare predate modern concepts of ownership is most of the reason we even have a public domain.

 

In the same way I am all for Kirby and Lee, and maybe even their immediate descendants from getting paid for a Captain America movie, but both men have now passed on.  As the laws currently work in 100 years Disney will still be getting a % of every Captain America thing and no one else will be able to play in that sandbox without giving them money. If someone creates something that outlives them by decades I believe that work has crept into our common culture and we as a society need to detach it from owners who did nothing to create it but somehow still own it.

 

As for land?  I believe that an inheritance tax is a public good which works against ossifying an elite that gradually accumulate everything.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

13 minutes ago, slikmar said:

It was mentioned that do we not give credit to writers who really elevated a character. Do we give Thor's creator credit or Williamson who really brought the character popularity. What about Burns, who seemed to breathe new life into so many characters and redefined them in ways still used today.

 

We don't know who Thor's creator was.  Pretty sure it was a Scandanavian.

 

Lee/Kirby interpreted him for Marvel Comics.  Lots of creators have touched him over the years.  Walt Simonson was a big one. Thor, the Norse God, can't be copywritten, but the Marvel interpretation can, I believe.

[Ternaugh]

A few notes concerning the above discussion:

 

Mickey Mouse will become public domain on January 1, 2024, in the "Steamboat Willie" version. Later versions of the character will still be under copyright, and Disney will retain trademark rights. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/

 

"It's a Wonderful Life" is in public domain due to an error renewing the copyright on the film, but royalties are still required to show it because the copyright on the original story, "The Greatest Gift" by Philip Van Doren had been renewed in 1971. The movie is considered a derivative work, and therefore requires compensation to the original author.

[zslane]

Current IP laws are rigged to make sure that "ownership" never expires so long as there is a corporate entity that can claim that ownership. As Jhamin points out, this keeps corporate profits elevated but hurts common culture in the long run. As an artist myself, I am thoroughly against the current structure of IP law and would love to see it completely dismantled and rebuilt in such a way that companies can not own original artistic works. They must assign ownership to those employees who did the actual creative work, the way Image Comics arranged things. Companies would then effectively license those creations in order to productize them, but would not have any control over those creations unless granted some measure of control via contract with the artist/employee. Benefitting from creative works that are made into products that make lots of money should be a two-way street, and then after a decade or two, should turn into a highway that the entire culture owns, free and clear.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Right, I am an author and I want full control and payment for my books, but after I'm gone?  They're free to the world.  It matters when the creators is alive because they should be properly compensated and their work protected against unauthorized use, but after that, its difficult to justify ownership.  Like I said I can live with their kids getting some for a little while but this endless "we own this idea forever" thing has got to stop.

[Bazza]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:53 AM, Bazza said:

Generalisation:

 

Pop culture is corporate & involves money.

 

Folk culture is the people’s culture & is public domain. 

What others are calling “common culture” IS folk culture, eg folk music. 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Right, I am an author and I want full control and payment for my books, but after I'm gone?  They're free to the world.  It matters when the creators is alive because they should be properly compensated and their work protected against unauthorized use, but after that, its difficult to justify ownership.  Like I said I can live with their kids getting some for a little while but this endless "we own this idea forever" thing has got to stop.

 

I'll let the copyright continue for a while, for the author's heirs.  And, is it so much the creator's lifetime, or simply a time span since release?  Two examples:  Purple Haze and Stairway to Heaven.  Saying that Hendrix' catalog should have reverted to the public domain on his death is unfair.  Flip side, saying that Stairway to Heaven is NOT in the public domain after a gazillion radio plays and *50* years is absurd.

 

The other aspect is that copyright is intended to allow a creator to profit from his efforts.  A social aspect of this is to encourage the good creator to continue to produce...but when "copyright is eternal" (^trademark applied for) and the creator continues to get paid, that becomes something of a deterrent to continue.  Granted, it takes quite a bit of time to get to that point, where one can live on one's royalties, but it's poor design.

 

To Hugh's point:  NONE of Disney's profits goes to their pension obligations.  Those are built into their overhead percentage.  For every $1000 paid to the active creators at Disney, the billed amount is more like $2000...if not more.  $150 for Social Security and Medicare employer contributions.  Health and life insurance.  Leave and holidays if they're salaried...the hourly rate is figured on a 2000 hour work year, but the actual billable hours probably dips below 1800.  So there's another $100 or so.  Facilities support.  Supervision.  Administrative support.  Human services.  Pension obligations...one motivation for me to retire when I did was that employee and employer pension deductions were going to rise a good bit...IIRC that was another 10%.

 

And ALL of these are factored in before you ever get to profit percentages.  What the corp wants is an ancillary, ongoing revenue stream that incurs 0 cost to them.  Keeping the royalties forever is PURE profit;  the only cut is the residuals.  

[Spence]

6 hours ago, Jhamin said:

As for land?  I believe that an inheritance tax is a public good which works against ossifying an elite that gradually accumulate everything.

That may have even been the intent.  But the reality is that the inheritance tax doesn't really effect any of the truly wealthy since they have long since reclassified their wealth and will distribute it into the family under various methods long before their deaths. 

 

But the regular US farmer, rancher and so on that dies and wills the Family Farm to their sons and daughters usually results in the property being sold off.  Since very few family working properties have actual cash flow anywhere near the governments calculated market value meaning the sudden inheritance tax bill will usually bankrupt them.   So they sell. 

[Greywind]

When was the last time Disney honestly produced something? Everything seems to be coming out of subsidiaries that they swallowed up.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

To Hugh's point:  NONE of Disney's profits goes to their pension obligations.  Those are built into their overhead percentage.  For every $1000 paid to the active creators at Disney, the billed amount is more like $2000...if not more.  $150 for Social Security and Medicare employer contributions.  Health and life insurance.  Leave and holidays if they're salaried...the hourly rate is figured on a 2000 hour work year, but the actual billable hours probably dips below 1800.  So there's another $100 or so.  Facilities support.  Supervision.  Administrative support.  Human services.  Pension obligations...one motivation for me to retire when I did was that employee and employer pension deductions were going to rise a good bit...IIRC that was another 10%. 

I wasn't discussing Disney's pension obligations to their employees.  I was discussing the shareholders, to whom profits flow as dividends. Pension funds acquire shares of public corporations to generate a return to fund their beneficiaries' retirement income.  IRAs and 401(k)s invest in publicly traded securities. Individuals invest outside these plans as well.

 

Every corporation has owners. The income is not retained in perpetuity by a corporation, perched atop its hoard like some mythical dragon.  The income ultimately flows to the shareholders of the corporation, typically including a lot of pension funds, as well as individual investors.

[archer]

So let's say I'm an author.

 

If I'm understanding the stance of some people here, the only way to stop whatever I write from going into the public domain, regardless of my personal wishes or how many contracts I sign, should be to burn the manuscript immediately after writing it.

 

Because otherwise, I should have no permanent control over my own creation other than completely destroying it before anyone reads it.

 

That seems so wrong on so many levels (place the emphasis on whichever word or words seems most appropriate).

[zslane]

Why would you want to stop what you write from ever going into the public domain? The normal course of (American) copyright is supposed to be that your work goes into the public domain 70 years after you pass away. That would be, by current laws anyway, the "natural life cycle" of an authored work. Bear in mind that this 70-year window is the result of changes to the law to benefit large entertainment companies like Disney, and certainly isn't in the spirit of the original law (IMO). The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. The first 14-year interval was extended to 28 years sometime later, but the idea was to prevent large wealthy interests from stealing works from private individuals who had not the means to protect themselves otherwise. It wasn't intended as a means for a creator to succeed at their craft once and then live off it forever.

[Christopher R Taylor]

art is a bit different than other products someone can make.  If I make you a meal, its gone when you've eaten it, and you're the only one who could have it.  But a book, for example, is new to each person and can be re-read and enjoyed for generations.  Why shouldn't a creator be paid for that work each new time it sells?  Once they die its no longer their work to be paid for, so I can see copyright fading but until then, they reasonably ought to be paid for their labor.

[Bazza]

Statements regarding law, personal intellectual property:
- any intellectual property you create is your personal property by natural right. 
- this form of personal property is acknowledged by positive law and given the commercial benefit for a duration. 
- this is to encourage original ideas that can be henceforth tested in the marketplace for the benefit & betterment of society, ie the common good. 
- at the end of the commercial benefit given by positive law, the property transfers to the common good. Also, the natural right to the personal property is not diminished by this. What is diminished is it’s commercial value. 

[Greywind]

Obadiah Stane: You really think that just because you have an idea, it belongs to you?

[Bazza]

Yes. If it is an original idea. Double yes. If it is theft of another’s idea then that violates natural justice. 

[zslane]

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Why shouldn't a creator be paid for that work each new time it sells?

 

They should. Those are called royalties. The author is being paid a portion of the sales of a physical object (or digital representation in the era of the Kindle).

 

But royalty contracts and copyrights are not the same thing. Copyright is intended to make sure that others can not use a work they didn't create without consent from the creator. It is about control, not (just) money. In any event, once a work goes into the public domain, who is going to pay for it anymore? It won't really be selling anymore so there is no revenue to be excluded from. Of course, an enterprising writer could find ways to continue selling their works even after having passed into the public domain, and they would not need exclusive control over it to do so. But I feel the control over it should (more quickly) pass into the common culture so that it can be transformed and re-utilized in new ways without hindrance, giving it renewed and continued life within that culture.

[Ternaugh]

11 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

They should. Those are called royalties. The author is being paid a portion of the sales of a physical object (or digital representation in the era of the Kindle).

 

But royalty contracts and copyrights are not the same thing. Copyright is intended to make sure that others can not use a work they didn't create without consent from the creator. It is about control, not (just) money. In any event, once a work goes into the public domain, who is going to pay for it anymore? It won't really be selling anymore so there is no revenue to be excluded from. Of course, an enterprising writer could find ways to continue selling their works even after having passed into the public domain, and they would not need exclusive control over it to do so. But I feel the control over it should (more quickly) pass into the common culture so that it can be transformed and re-utilized in new ways without hindrance, giving it renewed and continued life within that culture.

 

Paramount released "It's a Wonderful Life" on 4K UHD a year or two ago. It's listing for about $17 on Amazon right now. I'm assuming that the 5.1 sound mix and HDR video transfer are probably considered a transformative work, and eligible for copyright protections, even if the original movie isn't.

 

The Great Gatsby entered the public domain on January 1, 2021, and there are still multiple versions for sale. I'd expect more adaptations in the future, though. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/29/the-great-gatsby-out-of-copyright-prequel-nick-michael-farris-smith

[Hugh Neilson]

19 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Why shouldn't a creator be paid for that work each new time it sells? 

 

6 hours ago, zslane said:

They should. Those are called royalties. The author is being paid a portion of the sales of a physical object (or digital representation in the era of the Kindle).

 

I believe royalties are paid for the use of a copywritten work.  No copyright, no royalties.  Are you suggesting that, when the work passes into public domain, each use of the work continue to generate royalties for the creator?

 

Now, let's take this one step further.  The owner of real estate can receive rent, or sell the property (that is, the right to collect those rents) to someone else.  Would your model permit the creator of the work to sell their right to future royalties to a third party, realizing all of the capital now instead of receiving a bit of income every year?

[unclevlad]

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I believe royalties are paid for the use of a copywritten work.  No copyright, no royalties.  Are you suggesting that, when the work passes into public domain, each use of the work continue to generate royalties for the creator?

 

Now, let's take this one step further.  The owner of real estate can receive rent, or sell the property (that is, the right to collect those rents) to someone else.  Would your model permit the creator of the work to sell their right to future royalties to a third party, realizing all of the capital now instead of receiving a bit of income every year?

 

Royalties are contractual payments made to the owner of a product for someone else to use that product.  This doesn't *imply* copyright or patent per se, but in the real world it generally does.  A royalty implies an obligation to pay the creator to use it.  If it's public domain, then there would be no reason to do so, if the end user can readily duplicate it.  But as zslane states, a creator can certainly solicit for donations while making his creations public...OR copyrighted, with the intent of protecting them.  The notions are separate.  As he points out, the copyright is about control of the IP.

 

However, note that royalties are contractual, and for the use of the property.  The copyright is ON THE PROPERTY.  Royalties ARE rent payments, in this context.  The "actual property" is the work itself.  So I can copyright the novel.  This itself has several aspects.  I can license a publisher to sell copies of the book, OR i can sell him the rights to the novel.  I have NOT sold him the work, as there are other rights (audio rights, or adapt it to a play, TV, or movie for example) that I retain even if I've sold the right to the textual form.

 

Intellectual property is also fundamentally different from real property or material goods.  There is no one-size-fits-all model that covers both.  The notion of a copyright or patent is to allow the creator to receive value for the effort...but NOT to lock up the concept expressed in the idea forever.  But that's not what's happening with the *extremely* long periods covered by copyrights now.  

20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

art is a bit different than other products someone can make.  If I make you a meal, its gone when you've eaten it, and you're the only one who could have it.  But a book, for example, is new to each person and can be re-read and enjoyed for generations.  Why shouldn't a creator be paid for that work each new time it sells?  Once they die its no longer their work to be paid for, so I can see copyright fading but until then, they reasonably ought to be paid for their labor.

 

They are...mostly.  In traditional publishing, an author may well NOT get any royalties until X units are sold.  But that's contract terms.

 

Also, by "paid for that work each new time it sells"...if I buy a book, read it, then sell it to a buddy...should I then be required to pay a royalty to the author?  Even if the ethical answer is yes, the practical answer is that it can't be enforced.

 

I would prefer slightly more flexible terms...NOT necessarily the lifetime of the creator, automatically.  Something like 50 years from the date of publication gives the creator plenty of time to capitalize on the work.  

 

ALSO:  remember that copyrights are transferable.  How long should a copyright last when it's owned by a *company*?  Disney's not disappearing any time soon.  Nor are the publishing houses...who quite often own the most important rights.  (Traditional publishing has always been grossly slanted in favor of the publishers.)  So this position might sound good, but it doesn't reflect reality.  

 

 

[slikmar]

I was wondering how this equates to people who work for places like Apple or IBM etc (I use these as my wife was a design engineer before retiring). Anything she designed was property of who she worked for, not her, even if was a "new" design. I believe doctors/scientists work the same way, their work belongs to who they work for, not themselves. Not knowing copywrite laws, I wondered how these fit into this. Also, most of those we have been talking about, or maybe, more recently, who is filing the copywrite, the corporation or the artist/writer?

[unclevlad]

In general when you work for a corporation, all rights belong to the corporation.  That's in the employment contract.  This may or may not be the case in academia;  there are many variables.  In government, I believe there are some wrinkles.  I believe the government owns the rights, but the products are typically free for public use.  (So you can't copy them and claim them as yours.)  In consulting work, the rights will almost certainly belong to the person hiring the consultant;  the legal situation is pretty much the same as any employment contract in that regard.  

 

As far as who files the copyright?  In a corporate situation, it's the corporation.  No one person "authored" Windows 3.1, it was several thousand people.  In traditional publishing, it varied.  With most writers, it was the publishing house.  Same with musicians and record labels.  Those rights may or may not devolve back to the creators after a period of time...again, that's going back to the contracts.  But if you're not Stephen King or George RR Martin or JK Rowling, the power's all in the hands of the publishers.  But there are variations ad infinitum.  A sci fi mag like Analog or the Mag of F&SF often pays for first publication rights only...the author maintains the copyright, the publication pays for the right to be first to market with it.  It can later appear in an anthology, for example.  That anthology may or may not allow further publication...Lackey's been doing Valdemar story collections for quite some time now, and I wouldn't be surprised that the rights there are exclusive...because it's part of the larger universe.  

 

Indie publishing is different.  With ebooks, the rights all belong to the author, who cuts a deal with Amazon.  They submit their work in Amazon's required format, they set the price.  Amazon gets a cut.  They're providing a service, they aren't acting as the publisher.  Paperbacks are separate.  The actual paperback rights are distinguished from the electronic rights.  I *believe* the common arrangement is that the paperback publisher gets distribution rights for a period.  If they got the copyright, they could stop the ebook publication.  Also note that the prices are set differently.  The ebook price is set by the author;  the paperback price by the publisher.  That said, there *may be* contract language that says the ebook price must be at least X;  if it drops below X for any extended period, the paperback publisher will likely demand reduced royalty payments, as the ebook is then undercutting him.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 They are...mostly.  In traditional publishing, an author may well NOT get any royalties until X units are sold.  But that's contract terms.

You get all the royalties its just that they give you an "advance" meaning "here's some of your royalties to start with".  Until that is equalled in sales, you get nothing more.  But its a crap deal, you end up with around 15% of the cover price after agent and the publisher's cut, etc.  Side issue, sorry to digress.

 

Quote

 

The actual paperback rights are distinguished from the electronic rights.  I *believe* the common arrangement is that the paperback publisher gets distribution rights for a period.

 

 

Nah, with Amazon and other online POD publishers, they take a cut and you get the rest.  Its a bigger cut than ebooks because they have larger expenses, but - and this is the important part - its still bigger than you get from a traditional publisher.  Amazon runs both as part of the same service.  There's a minimum you have to charge for both (more for books) but you set the price and set your cut.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

I was wondering how this equates to people who work for places like Apple or IBM etc (I use these as my wife was a design engineer before retiring). Anything she designed was property of who she worked for, not her, even if was a "new" design. I believe doctors/scientists work the same way, their work belongs to who they work for, not themselves. Not knowing copywrite laws, I wondered how these fit into this. Also, most of those we have been talking about, or maybe, more recently, who is filing the copywrite, the corporation or the artist/writer?

 

That concept is often referred to as "work for hire".  Let's say DC Comics hires me to write a new series, and I create a brand-new Superhero.  I'm working for them.  They own the fruits of my creativity.  And I get paid whatever we agreed that I get paid for writing that series.

 

Who got the better deal?

 

Well, if I created, say, Cyborg, the I'd say they got the better deal.  But if I created Brother Power, the Geek?  Not so much.  I have chosen the low-risk approach, trading away the potential benefits if I create a real winner to still get paid if my work does not sell.

 

Maybe I really think my creation has potential.  I can always self-publish and reap all the rewards.  But I also pay all the costs, and take all the risks.  If it doesn't sell, I may be writing for DC for a long time after to pay off my creditors.  And don't think DC Comics will be promoting my indie creation with their house ads!