We received this morning this note attached, it is the justification of those responsible for Aker Art Studios on the Russell case. Well, they themselves reveal their names, that we save. Under the note, our opinion.
Hello!
After the self-styled "Case Russell" and seen the alleged malicious ruses in which Russell has been involved I think we have "at least" the right of reply.
First and foremost, Russell has been at all times informed of the negotiations with LP3 and have the emails that verify this. The person insisted that the project was sent, and no one else, to be published from AkerArtStudio is asked to draw one or more stories sent in almost two years only sent us samples that received or unfinished or poor quality .
the end we told them of your interest but they should lay out the comic in Castilian, they said they had no time and that would send it blank or label the editor was published as such. To try "colarlo" and elsewhere. And so they tried!
Russell argued two years ago to join the agency that it was better to act like him Peter L. López by language difficulties, and every one of the messages and transactions were reported on time (I repeat that we have their e-mails and responses), Mr. Russell may have forgotten.
also have signed permission for collection transactions, which are made in the first instance on account of the agency or representative who, after deducting the percentage len is provided to them by entering Pay pal, Xoom or bank transfer as stipulated in the contract they signed. So no wonder that the bank account of Mr. Russell was not because this is not the primary procedure for recovery. In no time the agency has set any kind of deception, nor the editorial, and we followed indications, nor with the author as he was informed at all times. Perhaps to be found Russell in his little interest in negotiating this comic or down payment amount has lashed out against us to cover its current artistic apathy.
we repeat that we have clear evidence of argument that was aware of everything. And we repeat that the usual method of payment is indicated by all authors. And all have taken time after deducting the percentages and amounts always agreed with the editorial. You can check on authors such as Jaime Calderon, Santiago Espina, Marco Roblin and so on.
The absurdity of the situation and the fact speculate without hearing the other part is what has hurt us most. Given that we have never any transaction WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE of our authors, either economically or contract, nor what we will.
The most regrettable part is that the author himself has shown as well as the editorial by not contrasting. If they had contacted us in the same way they have done with Russell, we opened them supplied all the information needed to realize who was doing good and who evil.
Thanks for posting this letter and give us the right of reply in a case which concerns us and this may lead to error.
We only comment on certain points:
- As an agency you are, there has been no negotiation or representation. You yourselves who speak of "trying to sneak" a comic. A comic book also had no head or tail and was 4 pages ask.
- Excuse or not, represent a person is not impersonating him, or do a little theater assuming a role. In the mail is signed and talks like the author himself, things like "I've drawn ... " I have a story ... "or" I'm all is a case ... . " Over a year has been cheating, was it necessary to publish this on the blog for everyone to reveal his identity? From this new point of view everything takes on a shade more ridiculous and surreal.
Some of our artists work with representatives know very well how things are usually done and certainly not the case. Of course without ovid Russell did not say the same.
- A curious case is being accused of not verify the information. But, gentlemen, are we journalists? Do we have to investigate behind each person you send us an email, or doubt that everyone is who they say they? At the moment we leave the topic journalism in other hands, we only know that we are not interested in this type of foreign relations.
Our intention has been to settle the matter, do not find a version of the facts. Moreover, we have a very subjective view of the fact that our editorial is that is at stake. We do not care too much how little you entendáis artist and agency. At the end of the day is your problem and your word against yours. We are not judges or mediators, we only have our experience.
- Finally, we have given this right to reply because it is part of our way of being. But this is not an open debate in which both parties try to convince a jury invisible. Is a closed issue. Do not want to work with your agency and thus with the artists who come recommended by you. In fact, if from the outset hubieséis been as sincere as in this note, I had we had the opportunity to get here. We could have negotiated another possible issue, but in "The Stall" no. In the philosophy of the magazine does not reflect the promotion of already established foreign authors. Not to mention that the space reserved for Russell could have been used for author names that he deserves the opportunity.
have been overcome.
We Go From Here we leave this page and next topic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment