Comics industry doesn't look very healthy

Attached: 7317236331.jpg (1512x1101, 330.65K)

Regarding Image, the Union's just pissed the partners didn't want them to unionize considering how retarded demand number 9 is
Who the fuck is Action Lab?

Only license they have that I know of is 'Miraculous Ladybug', but they must have more stuff given that they are being sued by 39 creators

Attached: 8475873785.jpg (600x910, 107.47K)

The Action Lab stuff sounds like valid complaints but I don't wanna hear nothin from those pink haired CBWU crybabies
A smaller indie, they are best known for Zombie Tramp and also publish Miraculous Ladybug comics.

>image
>action labs
Sucks to be them.

Attached: batgod.png (576x592, 345.05K)

Please harm Image enough that they don't get to follow through with getting the Transformers license.

>please more gay robots

Doesn't demand #9 just mean that if the workers don't want to work with someone they'll have to do their own editing, printing etc? They can't actually box someone out of Image.

No, they demanded veto by vote as to which creators Image is allowed to publish.

I didn't see the word veto used, I think that's just the most extreme interpretation of what's written.

No. See the Chakyin debacle. It could be bait to try to get the rest of their shit passed, but I think they're serious, and have no idea what the fuck "creator owned" means.

The people in the union have made their feelings previously known about which things that image publishes that they think it shouldn't.

That's still not a veto.

This dude gets it. Women love dem gay robots.

LOL. They're claiming that the books are killing people. They've demanded the books be pulled. They're demanding control via the union. What the fuck more do you need?

You realize statements like these don't make your case more believable. It looks like you're just reciting talking points instead of presenting actual evidence, especially when every industrial negotiation in history starts with parties taking maximalist positions to bargain down from.

Okay I actually looked it up and they did say "cancel publication" based on a vote. I don't agree with that policy personally.

I don't agree with it either in principle, as publication decisions are basically always at the discretion of management, though it's not at all unprecedented for staff consultation to be a factor (on the grounds that making your staff really mad might be harmful, or that they might point out a risk in publishing something). A vote might be workable, if unusual, depending on how a company is structured and how critical retaining staff is.
Regardless of that matter, if Image is really interfering with legal industrial activities just because they don't want to have to follow the rules, they should be taken to court over it.

Stop mincing words, this is what they wrote:

>renewed commitment to company values through the addition of a collective voting option to immediately cancel publication of any title whose creator(s) have been found to have engaged in abuse, sexual assault, racism and xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, ableism, etc

For emphasis:
>a collective voting option to immediately cancel publication of any title

Yes, this is a veto on what Image comics can publish, stop being a lying cunt.

According to this I can murder and still write for image as long as I'm murdering the right kind of people.

No, that's putting publication to a vote of the company. The entire point of a veto is that it gives a minority or individual the power to override the majority opinion. A veto cannot be a general vote.

Aren't you currently being sold for less than call of duty and overwatch?