Back when we interviewed Jeffrey Brown about his movie at Sundance, he mentioned an upcoming humor book called Darth Vader and Son that features gentle humor on the topic of Darth as dad to Luke.

Well, he’s now posted some cover sketches on his blog.

And here’s the final cover.

The book is out from Chronicle in May.

This is what Jerry Siegel did when he wasn’t getting paid for co-creating Superman.

Via scans_daily

Has Bruce Wayne been making a little extra dosh on the side? This urban culture found on the sidewalk shows times are tough for everyone.

[h/t Brady Russell.]

Well, here is a very worthy subject for an art book: Ramona Fradon, legendary Silver Age artist. Co-creator of Metamorpho and one of the defining artists on Aquaman, Fradon’s career covers everything from Super Friends to Brenda Starr. Now she’s the subject of a comprehensive art book from Dynamite that includes an interview conducted by Howard Chaykin. As you can see from the sample pages, it’s a treasure trove of archival material. Click for larger images.

Fradon is an icon to many, simply for being one of the few women creators of her era to forge a career in comics that lasted beyond a few years. As anyone who knows her and her work is aware, however, far from being a token or a novelty, she was just a hard-working freelancer. A very, very talented hard-working freelancer.

Long time fans of Metamorpho, Aquaman, Aqualad, Plastic Man, The Fantastic Four and Super Friends are quite familiar with the work of legendary artist, Ramona Fradon, but not until now will they know the whole story of Ramona’s incredible career in comics, as Dynamite Entertainment is pleased to announce the upcoming The Art of Ramona Fradon in stores on April 2012!

For the first time ever! The DEFINITIVE retrospective of Ramona Fradon’s career will be presented in The Art of Ramona Fradon. The Art of Ramona Fradon will be a hardcover book that highlights the magnificent career of the artistic legend, plus never-before-seen sketches.

Interviewed by legendary creator Howard Chaykin and featuring a forward by Walt Simonson, Fradon talks about her artistic career, accomplishments and creations from her early days at DC in the 1950’s to her later work on Marvel’s The Cat and Fantastic Four and DC’s Plastic Man, Freedom Fighters, Super Friends and more!

“I’ve never liked to see my work in print, but the way it’s presented in this book makes me feel proud,” says legendary artist Ramona Fradon. “The drawings are arranged so attractively on the pages that the not-so-good ones look good and the good ones look really good. It covers so much of my career that there are things I barely remember doing, starting with an unpublished story strip I practiced on before I got into comics. It’s nice to see I’ve improved since then.”

“In an era when 99.99 % of American comic books were produced by a male talent pool, and very few women worked in the field–mostly as writers, and mostly producing work of no particular interest or engagement,” says Howard Chaykin.  “The truest exception to this reality is Ramona Fradon, an original, not to say eccentric talent, whose approach to comics was so idiosyncratic as to make her stand out from her peers, men and women alike–and it should be noted that her work, as influential as it’s been over these many years, remains personal, individual and inimitable.”

“I have known Ramona and loved her work forever. I started with Aquaman in the 1950s when I was a kid,” says Walt Simonson. “Ramona’s art wasn’t like anybody else’s work back then.  Her design of the human figure, her slightly abstract and expressive faces, her crisp line, and her clear storytelling stamped her work with an individuality that was instantly recognizable.”

“It is an honor that we are able to present the life and art of Ramona Fradon in The Art of Ramona Fradon,” adds Dynamite Entertainment President and Publisher Nick Barrucci.  “Ramona Fradon’s work has touched many creators, and I personally am a huge fan of her art.  Ramona’s conversation with Howard Chaykin about her life’s-work makes this book a must-read for any Ramona Fradon fan and any fan of comics history!”

Ramona Fradon is an American comic book and comic strip artist.  Her career began in 1950, when it was even more unusual for women to illustrate superhero comics.  Fradon entered cartooning just after graduating from the Art Students’ League. Comic-book letterer George Ward, a friend of her husband (New Yorker cartoonist Dana Fradon), asked her for samples of her artwork to pitch for job openings. She landed her first assignment on the DC Comics feature Shining Knight. Her first regular assignment was illustrating an Adventure Comics backup feature starring Aquaman, for which she co-created the sidekick Aqualad.

Following her time with Aquaman, and taking a break to raise her daughter, Fradon returned to co-create Metamorpho, drawing four issues of the series. Her other work includes Super Friends, Freedom Fighters, Plastic Man,  a variety of mystery stories, and an issue of The Fantastic Four!

In 1980, Dale Messick retired from drawing the newspaper strip Brenda Starr, and Fradon became the artist for it, until her own retirement in 1995. Fradon was inducted into the Comic Book Hall of Fame in 2006.

Join the conversation on Twitter with  #RamonaFradon and on Dynamite Entertainment’s twitter page at http://twitter.com/DynamiteComics

Of late we’ve been much focused on the economics of creating comics as a career, and the challenges of such an undertaking. Animation is often viewed as the “money spout” for comics types—more competition, more exposure, more money. But an investigation by animation writer Amid Amidi reveals a disquieting story about East Coast animators getting paid much less than their West Coast analogs, even when employed by two branches of the same company, Titmouse Animation. In fact, in the NY office, animators are being paid $400 a week to work on Disney’s Motorcity cartoon. In LA, a similar job for the same company pays a union-scale $1,055 a week.

Amidi talks to lots of people and gets lots of explanations—and we haven’t even begun to wade through more than 300 comments—but it’s an unwelcome downward trend from 10 years ago, when animation was getting established in New York:

The question remains, however, about why there is a nearly $700 weekly gap between starting wages for Los Angeles and New York artists working on the same show. New York has the highest cost of living in the United States (Los Angeles, by comparison, is ranked ninth), yet the studio’s starting salary for workers in New York is only $20,800. That figure ranks below New York’s average starting wages for unskilled laborers like doormen ($25,680) and sanitation workers ($27,842).

It is a fact of life that New York animation artists will make less than unionized workers in Los Angeles. However, wages haven’t always been this low. Speaking with New York animation veterans, Cartoon Brew learned that a fresh out-of-school starting salary for an animation artist in 2001 at Nickelodeon was $900 and included health insurance and 401k. In 2006, a starting salary out-of-school on a cable TV series at an independent production company was $800.

Yikes. We can confirm that in NYC $20K a year will barely pay for a closet-sized berth on the Upper East Side and a few cans of cat food. Apparently, animation wages are similarly low in Canada and the Pacific Northwest, other animation centers.

Granted, this would be a lordly sum for an indie cartoonist.

PS: Commenters, please, no value judgement on why doormen should make more than animators. We’re talking the economics of one industry, not trying to prove who’s best.

Video game concept artist, Nate Simpson’s, Image Comics miniseries, Nonplayer, is being adapted for the big screen by X-Men First Class co-scribe, Jane Goldman. Nonplayer is a sci fi online game immersion drama. The series netted Simpson the 2011 Eisner Award for Best Newcomer (via Sciencefiction.com)

While The Hunger Games isn’t out in comic book format yet, all you Twihard haters and lovers out there can be damned sure it will be. To that end, a new trailer for the highly anticipated Lionsgate film will be shown during some football game over the weekend but you can also watch it over at Yahoo Movies now. IGN also put up an interview yesterday with hottie Josh Hutcherson whose been cast in the role of Peeta Mark.

Listen up, people! John Hawkes, The dude who plays Kenny Powers’ brother on Eastbound and Down (and who was also Miranda July’s weirdo love interest in You, Me and Everyone We Know), WILL NOT, I repeat WILL NOT be playing The Governor on The Walking Dead. In spite of numerous nerd titters to the contrary from all over the interwebs, Hawkes’ “publicist states quite plainly that “John is NOT appearing on The Walking Dead.” I think that’s too bad. Hawkes could’ve been an interesting choice to play the rapist megalomaniacal fiend everyone’s been itching to see The Walking Dead showrunners cast (via MTV Splashpage)

Director Denis Villeneuve, who most recently released the acclaimed independent film Incendies, is developing an adaptation of Joe Sacco’s Footnotes in Gaza. It’s nice to see a comics work with real world gravitas, important historical implications and political intrigue adapted alongside the more usual superhero and sci fi fare. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter (good gracious me, no!). It is, however, encouraging to see a live action adaptation of one of the premiere works in the pioneering field of comics journalism in the making. Especially when talented cartoonists like Josh Neufeld, Sarah Glidden, and Susie Cagle are regularly covering serious topics like Hurricaine Katrina and The Occupy Movement in their journo-comics and graphic novels. Here’s hoping they’ll be going Hollywood sometime soon as well.

GAME OF THRONES SEASON TWO SPOILERS!!!! In case you forgot: Winter is coming in April, bitches!!! Are you ready for the second season of Game of Thrones? To aid you in your anticipation, here’s an interview with Ian Cunningham, who’s been cast as the brave ranger of the Night’s Watch, Quorin Halfhand, and here’s another one with my boyfriend, Kit Harington, who hints that while his character, Jon Snow, won’t be hanging out with Tyrion Lannister this season, it looks like he’s going to be getting some play beyond The Wall… (via Access Hollywood and MTV Splashpage)

Aaandd that’s it for this week – enjoy your weekend!

Cheryl Lynn has the scoop:

In a stellar move that has stunned the comics community and has quieted critics who have claimed that DC isn’t making proper strides in regards to ethnic and racial diversity, DC has released information concerning the final prequel project in the powerful Before Watchmen arsenal. Newsstand Boy by creators Eric Wallace and Scott McDaniel was announced this morning by DC’s co-publisher Dan Didio.

[Thanks, Martha Cornog]

By Jeff Trexler

DC Comics recently prevailed in arguing that the Batmobile is subject to copyright. But was the issue ever really in doubt? Below the jump, we’ll take a closer look at how copyright protects comic book designs — and how Time Warner almost put all of DC’s superheroes in the public domain.

The case that has received so much attention is DC Comics v. Mark Towle, in which DC is suing to stop Towle’s Gotham Garage from selling unlicensed replicas of the 1966 Batmobile. According to the Hollywood Reporter and any number of media outlets that have followed in its wake, the copyrightability of the Batmobile and other comic book designs is an unresolved and highly controverted question.

Could the Batman uniform, the Batcave and other designs based on comic books actually be in the public domain?

The Batmobile Case

The short answer is no. Far from being an unprecedented milestone, the recent ruling in the Towle case was a slam dunk—-that is to say, the defendant’s argument was easy to dismiss because the legal principles at stake are so well established.

DC’s copyright claim on the Batmobile – like the typical comic book design case – primarily rests on the issue of derivative works. DC owns the copyright in the Batman character and related Batman material, thus giving it the exclusive right to license works based on the Batman universe.

The general rule governing a case such as this is that copyright protection of two-dimensional material extends to a three-dimensional adaptation. Thus, a court found artist Jeff Koons liable for infringing the copyright on a photograph of puppies when he made a sculpture expressly based on this picture.

However, there is an exception to this general rule. The existence of a two-dimensional copyrighted image does not automatically provide protection for a three-dimensional expression when the material in question is merely a useful article, such as clothing or the standard profile of a car.

That said, as the judge in the Towle case notes, the law has long recognized copyright protection for physically or conceptually separable of protectable design elements part of a useful article, including a car. Even if the essential car-ness is unprotected, distinct non-utilitarian features such as those found on the Batmobile are clearly copyrightable. As the contract authorizing the design and construction of the 1966 Batmobile indicates, the TV version incorporated distinctive design elements derived from copyrighted Batman material owned by DC Comics.

The Bat-costume and the Batcave

Similar principles apply to the copyrightability of Batman’s costume, designs based on equipment in the Batcave, and other adaptations of copyrighted superhero material. Attempting to sell an unlicensed Batman costume or a playset with copyrighted drawings or identifiable three-dimensional Batman elements would be a slam dunk case of infringement.

Consider, for instance, the copyrightable elements of the Batman costume that are physically or conceptually separable from the utilitarian body covering — the Bat graphic, the glove adornment, the cowl, the bat-wing cape, arguably even a non-functioning expression of the utility belt (functional only in the imagination) are copyrightable elements that should strike fear in the hearts of anyone selling an unauthorized copy.

But what about cases that some say show the copyrightability of such designs to be be unresolved? A closer look reveals that these cases are not substantially problematic. One federal appeals case, involving a dispute over costumes with animal heads, did not involve derivative material; moreover, the court found a legal basis for extending copyright protection to the distinct design elements separable from the underlying utilitarian garment. A similar conclusion was reached in a recent federal appeals decision in another circuit, finding that costumes based on branded cartoon characters were owned by the corporate holders of the copyrights.

Another case — settled in favor of the copyright holder— involved knockoffs of the Power Rangers costumes. This too was a clear call for the copyright owner. Even if we set aside trademark issues, the derivative works doctrine and the separability of certain aspects of the helmet design, courts have also recognized the copyrightability of two-dimensional textile prints on otherwise utilitarian garments. While a basic jumpsuit may not be protectable, the distinct pattern imprinted on a Power Rangers jumpsuit is arguably protected against unauthorized copying.

The furniture case cited to raise questions about the Batcave copyright is likewise distinguishable. The question presented was whether the unauthorized use of images of furniture to help sell an apartment on TV constitutes copyright infringement. The court in this case recognized that furniture, like cars, can have separable design elements protected by copyright, but found that the furniture in question was purely utilitarian.

While this finding may seem a bit harsh given the custom design, it makes sense in the broader context of the case. A finding in favor of the designer would forced the court to address a controversial issue in design copyright, with the potential for giving furniture designers a piece of any TV show, play, movie or real estate sale that includes unlicensed furniture. The easiest way for the court to avoid addressing this issue was to punt – by ruling that the furniture in question was not copyrightable, the judge circumvented the more far-reaching implications of the case.

Stormtroopers and Mike Tyson’s Tattoo

Although they ultimately do not undermine the copyrightability of 3-D works derived from 2-D superhero material, there are a couple of interesting cases on pop culture copyright that are relevant to the discussion at hand. One is the controversial and surprising UK Supreme Court ruling that the Star Wars stoomtrooper helmet is an unprotected utilitarian design. Legal analysts have spun circles trying to make sense of this case within established legal doctrine supporting a far different conclusion, but at base, this decision is an exception that proves the rule.

The real driver in this ruling was not copyright law but national favoritism. A U.S. Court had previously found in favor of Lucasfilm and the Stormtrooper helmet copyright, awarding Lucas substantial damages and prohibiting distribution of the unauthorized Stormtrooper helmets in question. However, the maker of these particular helmets was a British engineer who had helped design the original. By ruling that the helmet was unprotected by copyright, the UK court freed this entrepreneurial Brit to sell his work without having to pay a multi-million-dollar judgment by an American court in favor of a wealthy American company.

Ironically, there was one American mega-corporation that made an unsuccessful attempt to get a court to rule that any 3-dimensional object based on a 2-D design should be in public domain. Time Warner, the corporate parent of DC Comics, was recently sued by the original designer of the Mike Tyson tattoo for its unauthorized use in The Hangover II, in which the Tyson tattoo was placed on the face of Ed Helms.

Time Warner raised several defenses for its unauthorized exploitation of an independent creator’s intellectual property. First, it argued that tattoos are not subject to copyright protection–because the tattoo was placed on the face, and the head, like all of the human body, is a useful object, this tattoo — and any tattoo— was not protected by copyright. Moreover, Time Warner argued that the use of this tattoo in a multimillion dollar blockbuster constituted fair use. In particular, Time Warner that its use of the tattoo was a parody–whereas the tattoo is warrior imagery, the film is a comedy that uses the image outside its Maori context and Tyson’s warrior persona. Finally, because the designer had not filed suit over the first Hangover film or other photos of the Tyson tattoo, the designer had waived any copyright claim, thereby ensuring that the tattoo design was free to exploit.

Yes, you read that right − Time Warner lawyers wrote a legal brief that would have put all of its DC Comics superhero material in the public domain.

At its narrowest scope, the argument Time Warner made in regard to the inherent uncopyrightability of tattoos and anything placed on any useful medium (a head, skin, paper) could equally apply to superhero tattoos and costumes – just as a three-dimensional dress based on a copyrighted drawing is considered to be a useful article not protected by copyright, a Batman tattoo or costume would be uncopyrightable and thus free to produce without a license. If adopted by a court, Time Warner’s parody argument would be a gift to any writer or filmmaker wanting to use DC characters in humorous works distinct from their normal comic book context, with the most immediate benefit being the legal legitimation of superhero pornography. More broadly, a longstanding failure to enforce copyright among, say, cosplayers, artist alleys, porn films and bit-torrent sites could be cited as grounds for ruling that Time Warner had waived the copyright in all of this material, thereby placing all of DC Comics’ intellectual property in the public domain.

Fortunately for Time Warner and DC, the judge in The Hangover II tattoo case found the lawyers’ potentially revolutionary arguments to be “just silly.” A settlement in favor of the tattoo designer resolved the case.

Closing thoughts

While it’s tempting to see copyright as an open field ripe for exploitation, the law regarding the production of unauthorized designs based on copyrighted superhero material is not as unresolved as some may think. Yes, courts sometimes make surprising decisions, and in certain circumstances comic copyright holders have given unauthorized use a pass. But making outliers and distinguishable cases the basis of one’s business model could lead to a cliffhanger that your unlicensed hero will not survive.

[Jeff Trexler is a lawyer and consultant and a comics fan who writes frequently about how legal matters pertain to comics.]