Posted in: Comics, Comics Publishers, Current News, Dynamite | Tagged: garbage pail kids, Nat Jones, nick barrucci

A Dynamite Atom Bomb- Garbage Pail Kids, Nat Jones & Nick Barrucci

Garbage Pail Kids... for a property based on a parody, there seems to seem to be a lot of claims and counterclaims over the years.

Published Sun, 10 Sep 2023 08:57:07 -0500

by Rich Johnston

Comments

Garbage Pail Kids... for a property based on a parody of another property, there seems to seem to be a lot of claims and counterclaims over the years. Dynamite Entertainment currently publish the Garbage Pail Kids comic book series. And artist Nat Jones is best known for the Vietnam zombie series '68, but also for Spawn, Frank Frazetta's Death Dealer, Wulf, Broken Moon, 30 Days Of Night, The Nail, The Haunted, and more. Last month he posted on Facebook,

"So this is pretty messed up. I did a retailer-exclusive cover with Gotham City Comics for Garbage Pail Kids Origins issue one featuring my Adam Bomb artwork, now I am seeing that Dynamite is offering Hardcover collections and trading cards featuring my art without contacting me or paying me. I tried reaching out to them but they haven't responded."

He later followed that up with a post that was a little more forceful. And things really kicked off. He wrote.

"Attention everyone! Watch out for Dynamite Comics! This is my art that Dynamite Comics is attempting to steal. I have no contract with Dynamite and they have no rights to my art, but they are printing a hardcover book using my art as the cover. This piece was not created for them, it was created well before they started producing GPK comics. My art has been well known in the GPK collector community for YEARS. I have attempted to contact Dynamite to resolve the issue, but they did not reply. Instead, they are attempting to fabricate paperwork where a third party is granting them and Topps exclusive ownership of my art. THIS IS THEFT."

Nat Jones posted the image on Tumblr in 2016 and as a print for sale in 2020. It is a parody of the Atom Bomb Garbage Pail Kids character, with the flesh ripped from his face. So how did it end up on a Dynamite Garbage Pail Kids cover? And it was used by a retailer as a retailer exclusive cover to Garbage Pail Kids: Origins for Gotham City Comics and Collectibles. And that was with Nat Jones participation. It was then solicited as the cover for that collection and for trading cards from Dynamite.

Nick Barrucci, CEO, President and owner of Dynamite Entertainment responded on Facebook.

"Nat, I am responding to this, because I do not believe you are being fully up front. Having seen this, I've asked, and no one at Dynamite has heard from you. If you attempted to contact anyone or myself, then please show that you did. You are also not laying out all of the facts correctly. We do not steal art. Now either you or your retailer are not being fully upfront. Your retailer submitted the below sketch for approval that you supplied on August 9^th 2022. So either (a) you supplied a sketch of something that was already created and never told the retailer or us, or (b) you actually did the sketch, got it approved, and then drew the art. Do you have an answer? Did you submit the sketch before it was drawn or did you draw the sketch after the fact and not tell anyone? Someone is not being honest if there was a sketch provided for approval before a final cover was submitted.

"Again, you are not being fully upfront with the facts. You were a publisher, and you know how it works. As a licensee, it has to be work made for hire. If this was existing art, then your retailer never told us that it was existing art. You never told us it was existing art. We would not have used it if we knew it was existing art. But then how did he get a sketch that looks like one to be approved for the cover you finished? Did you supply the sketch and then draw it or did you supply the sketch after the fact? Because the retailer was to hire you under standard work made for hire, as I'm certain you've done in the past when you published comics. You were a licensee on some titles when you published, and any work you produced would be assigned to the rights holder."

"Now that we know that the retailer may not have been upfront with us, or perhaps he didn't know, or something else, it's too convoluted and we are not using your cover nor working with the retailer on future covers. We were not attempting to fabricate anything. The retailer was to have a new cover commissioned, and the artist sign the paperwork. When we spoke with him, we asked him to confirm that he was not claiming to own the art. Again, thank you for pointing out that someone was not upfront about this. To be clear, we are not using your cover again. We will be taking this off of our website on Monday. I appreciate your bringing this to our attention, and wish you the best."

Nat replied, saying, "I did reach out to Alan Payne on August 1st." Adam Payne is Dynamite's VP Sales and Marketing. I received no contact from Dynamite and have no contract with you regarding my art. How am I misrepresenting things? because of a sketch? I had an agreement to allow a retailer to use my art for an exclusive limited run cover, that is all. If you had contacted me and wanted to use my art then we could have talked about that, but that was not the case. Seems you are having retailers think they are paying for an exclusive then taking ownership for yourself, this diminishes the value of the retailer exclusive. If you want a contract of ownership you need a CONTRACT with the creator and owner of the art."

Nick replied back, "Alan stated he had not heard from you. I checked with him, Vince and Joe. No one heard from you. And, the way the covers work, is that they are used for the retailers exclusively and cannot be used for a cover to a periodical again. They are to have the assignments signed. Why did you provide a sketch to the retailer to go to Vince if you had the art already created? What is the answer?"

Nat Jones replied, "So That was my understanding, So how were you using the cover again?"

Nick Barrucci replied, "Because before we knew about this, the retailers was to have had the paperwork filled out. You did provide a sketch before finishing the cover, right? It seems like you lied to get more out of this."

Nat Jones replied, "So now you are saying that I lied? All I was told was that the retailer needed a quick sketch. What am I getting out of this? Seems you guys were planning to use my art and had no plans of paying me or even letting me know." It may be that the image can't be used as a periodical again – but this is a graphic novel and a trading card.

Nick Barrucci replied, "I am saying that you are not being fully honest. If this was already drawn, why did you provide a sketch? Is it because you knew that we wouldn't use it if we knew it was pre-drawn? So it seems you were planning on setting something up from the get go. and I can show that you are not being honest, and committing libel, and responsible for anyone and everyone sharing this." It seems Nat was asked to provide a sketch of the cover by the retailer, but the purposes and the reasons for said sketch may not have been explained. But it was kicking off further.

Nat Jones replied, "So, now you are threatening me and saying that I planned to have you use my art without permission?" and Nick Barrucci answered, "No, I'm replying to your comments and saying that you had something in mind. I can't read your mind. I'm trying to figure out why you're saying that the art was pre-existing, but then handed in a sketch as if it was new art. So which is it Nat? Was it pre-existing? or was it new art and that's why you did a sketch? Please answer the question. I'm also saying that there are ramifications to not being honest and spreading libel."

Artist Vikki Vassar joined in, addressing Nick Barrucci and saying "you seem to be using legalese here to try to strong-arm your position. Nothing against Nat, but I doubt it would be worth your time to sue Nat over this and I'm sure we all can see that, as you have time to come in via Facebook and repost your response MANY times." Because, yes, Nick Barrucci had replied individually to the many supportive comments made towards Nat Jones over his earlier complaint, including Al Davison.

Nick replied, "I'm using the truth and logic. Nat was trying to "strong arm his position" by making unsubstantiated claims. And I am showing that they are not accurate. And let's ask a few questions. Why would Nat not reach out to me? We've known each other since he was publishing. Why did he submit a sketch for approval so that he could draw the cover, but then claim the cover was already drawn? Why is he stating that we were doing anything he stated when they are not the truth? I am responsible for 30 employees and 80 freelancers. I am doing the responsible thing protecting everyone."

Nat Jones replied, "If you wanted to use my art for the collection you could have contacted me, you didn't. I tried to contact Alan when I did find out about it, but I received no reply. An artist should be paid for their work when you use it. We may have even been able to work a deal for just some copies of the book. Artists struggle to make a living in this industry, and I understand that publishers do too. This was not a personal attack, this is me taking care of my family. You could have contacted me after seeing this post, we could have talked it out and moved on. But it seems that your stance is that I have no right to be paid for my work, and that all responsibility is on me."

Nick Barrucci replied, "You're wrong here Nat. Things are tight in this market, and we could have worked something out. I like to work with creators, as I've been in this business for 42 years. But you are trying to position this now as if I did something wrong responding to what you laid out. Look at what you wrote, and if you need it, I snapshot it. You started this, for lack of a better word, mudslinging. I can't read your mind, but perhaps you thought we wouldn't respond. We give all artists comps on books we publish. You would have gotten comps. But everyone needs to be compensated, including rights holders. Let me ask you this, were you planning on paying Topps to create T-Shirts using their characters?" Nick Barrucci then started posting copies of the image as prints on Nat Jones' Etsy store.

Nat Jones replied, "Most artists sell prints, I'm sure that the vast majority of artists working with Dynamite sell prints, generally in very small numbers, just trying to keep food on the table. You keep escalating this. In simple terms, you say you always take care of artists, I do not feel that I was taken care of in this situation."

And Nick Barrucci brought things to a crescendo, saying "It's still stealing if you're not getting permission or paying a fee. What you're saying is it's ok for you to steal because you are an artist. And you can accuse anyone of theft, as you wrote up there, "THIS IS THEFT!" But you can't be called out? And here's the thing Nat, you can ask artists, we give them permissions to sell prints if they are in good standing. We allow them to create a limited number of prints. I'm not escalating this. I'm defending my employees and my freelancers. This is something you started and you caused people to share this without all of the information, and you caused the responses. Please take responsibility for what you started. You could have reached out to me. You did not. You wrote what you wrote and then ended it with "THIS IS THEFT."

At which point, comic creator Mark Waid turned up. He began posting in defence of Barrucci, saying "I appreciate that temperatures are running hot here, but for those who are eager to pile on without bothering to read the other side of the story, I will say that I have never seen Nick be anything other than honest, and have always known him to be a man with integrity. Without taking sides, which I cannot, because I do not have all the facts, I do suspect there is more going on here then may have been presented."

For comic creator Tom Feister to follow with "I'll second that, Mark. I haven't worked for Nick in years, but in any dealing I had with him, he was always stand up, and got back to me very quickly with answers and solutions. I hope you guys might consider taking this conversation private to work it out."

That was yesterday, and nothing since… might cooler Garbage Pail Kids heads have prevailed? And what does Gotham City Comics have to say about all this?

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!