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

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

Garbage Pail Kids… for a property primarily based on a parody, there appears to appear to be plenty of claims and counterclaims through the years.

Garbage Pail Kids... for a property primarily based on a parody of one other property, there appears to appear to be plenty of claims and counterclaims through the years. Dynamite Entertainment presently publish the Garbage Pail Kids comedian e-book collection. And artist Nat Jones is finest recognized for the Vietnam zombie collection ’68, but in addition for Spawn, Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer, Wulf, Broken Moon, 30 Days Of Night, The Nail, The Haunted, and extra. 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 adopted that up with a publish that was a bit extra forceful. And issues actually 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 picture on Tumblr in 2016 and as a print on the market 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 find yourself on a Dynamite Garbage Pail Kids cowl? And it was utilized by a retailer as a retailer unique cowl to Garbage Pail Kids: Origins for Gotham City Comics and Collectibles. And that was with Nat Jones participation. It was then solicited as the duvet for that assortment and for buying and selling playing cards from Dynamite.

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

“Nat, I’m responding to this, as a result of I don’t consider you’re being absolutely up entrance.  Having seen this, I’ve requested, and nobody at Dynamite has heard from you.  If you tried to contact anybody or myself, then please present that you just did.  You are additionally not laying out all the details appropriately.  We don’t steal artwork. Now both you or your retailer should not being absolutely upfront.  Your retailer submitted the under sketch for approval that you equipped on August 9^th 2022.  So both (a) you equipped a sketch of one thing that was already created and by no means advised the retailer or us, or (b) you truly did the sketch, obtained it accepted, after which drew the artwork. Do you will have a solution?  Did you submit the sketch earlier than it was drawn or did you draw the sketch after the very fact and never inform anybody? Someone is just not being trustworthy if there was a sketch offered for approval earlier than a ultimate cowl 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 obtained no contact from Dynamite and don’t have any contract with you relating to my artwork. How am I misrepresenting issues? due to a sketch? I had an settlement to permit a retailer to make use of my artwork for an unique restricted run cowl, that’s all. If you had contacted me and wished to make use of my artwork then we might have talked about that, however that was not the case. Seems you’re having retailers suppose they’re paying for an unique then taking possession for your self, this diminishes the worth of the retailer unique. If you need a contract of possession you want a CONTRACT with the creator and proprietor of the artwork.”

Nick replied again, “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 could also be that the picture cannot be used as a periodical once more – however it is a graphic novel and a buying and selling 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 appears Nat was requested to supply a sketch of the duvet by the retailer, however the functions and the explanations for mentioned sketch could not have been defined. But it was kicking off additional.

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, sure, Nick Barrucci had replied individually to the various supportive feedback made in the direction of Nat Jones over his earlier criticism, together with Al Davison.

Nick replied, “I’m using the truth and logic. Nat was trying to “robust arm his place” 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 began posting copies of the picture as prints on Nat Jones’ Etsy retailer.

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 introduced issues 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 level, comedian creator Mark Waid turned up. He started 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 comedian creator Tom Feister to observe 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… would possibly cooler Garbage Pail Kids heads have prevailed? And what does Gotham City Comics need to say about all this?

Stay up-to-date and help the location by following Bleeding Cool on Google News in the present day!