Tom King’s assertion that influential contributors get co-creator credits is important — one that may mark a new chapter in the ongoing story of “creators rights.”
And regardless of how the matter plays out in the high-stakes world of intellectual property owned by multinational conglomerates, there is an intrinsic value giving credit where credit is due simply among those of us who simply value the characters and the compelling storytelling they bring about.
King calls attention to the fact that comics is an inherently iterative and additive endeavor. While latter-day writers and artists may “stand on the shoulders of giants,” it is entirely possible that they may grow taller than the giant below them.
But let’s talk lingo…
But if we want to debate semantics, we need a more nuanced vocabulary. Given that the term “creator” tends to imply “originator,” we run the risk of accidental misinterpretation and unintentional confusion. It’s telling that the King uses the word “contributions” in his proposal, which encompasses those that created the character (Bob Kane, Bill Finger) and those who “developed” it (Denny O’Neil, Frank Miller et al).
That said, “contributor” sounds a little too “participation trophy” for some tastes. Instead, I nominate “defined by” as a suitably reverent and all-inclusive term. Thus in Tom King’s example…
Batman defined by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Steve Englehart, Marshall Rogers, and Frank Miller.
This may seem like a long credit line to grace the page of every Batman issue, but when you consider that comics found a way to evolve from a single “Bob Kane” credit to include writer, penciller, colorist, letterer, editor, cover artist, and more; I think we can manage.
What do we mean when we say “influential contributions”?
But whereas the traditional method of identifying authorship is fairly straightforward — whoever’s names are on the credits page of a character’s first appearance — King asks for a more nuanced evaluation of credit. But this can get complicated and subjective. It calls into question what constitutes a character in the first place?
I LOVE this question — it’s one I’ve given lots of thought to.
Just as these characters are rendered on the page by combining four specific ink colors (cyan, magenta, yellow and black), so too are these characters formed by combining four specific identifying traits:
Entity: Both perfunctory yet integral, this refers to the character’s individual “self.” It is the basic element that makes Jack Kirby’s and Joe Simon’s Bucky the same character as Ed Brubaker’s and Steve Epting’s Winter Soldier. Whereas each of the other three traits can change dramatically, the continuity of consciousness creates an indelible link to its previous incarnations.
Design: The fundamental visual appearance of a character. It’s the property that allows people who look nothing alike (Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, and Ben Affleck) to disappear into the iconic entity we recognize as Batman.
Characterization: The personality and attitude of a character defines the choices they make and the way they respond to the world around them. Though possessing identical power sets, the contrast between Plastic Man’s lighthearted frivolity and Mister Fantastic’s intellectual seriousness illustrates why character relies on characterization.
Worldbuilding: Transformative events (exposure to chemical waste, loss of loved one, etc.) and individual elements (Hell’s Kitchen, a Batmobile, Kryptonite, etc.) can become so tightly integrated with a character that they become associated with and an extension of that character.
Okay, so let’s try… Wolverine
Wolverine is an excellent example of a character that has been developed significantly since he showed up as an antagonist in Incredible Hulk #181-182. He stemmed from a concept by editor-in-chief, designed by Marvel’s art director, fleshed out by a writer who had just a few issues with the character, developed dramatically over decades by another writer, with a selection of other artists and writers contributing here and there.
Here is just one guy’s take on who defined Wolverine, with totally arbitrary percentages, because I have a OCD urge to quantify everything…
Chris Claremont (~40%)
“Logan” name
claws as part of body
Adamantium reinforced bones
healing factor
mysterious backstory
character development
Len Wein (~10%)
mutant animal senses
ferocious attitude
Government agent
John Romita (~10%)
original costume, claws
John Byrne (~10%)
brown & tan costume variant
advanced age, war veteran, Alpha Flight
Dave Cockrum (~5%)
distinctive hairstyle
Gil Kane (~5%)
iconic cowl
Barry Windsor Smith (~5%)
Weapon X background
Paul Jenkins / Joe Quesada / Bill Jemas (~5%)
“James Howlett” name
youth background
Roy Thomas (~5%)
“Wolverine” name
Canadian
Frank Miller (~4%)
Japanese samurai background
Bob Harras* (~1%)
bone claws
* Wolverine #75 writer Larry Hama has reported that he was against the idea of bone claws, so I’m guessing it was X-Men editor Harras that conceived it?
https://www.cbr.com/batma... " title="Batman: Tom King Suggests Influential Contributors Get Co-Creator Credits"