Editorial cartooning Legal Newspaper industry Original Art

Lee Enterprises Nixes David Fitzsimmons Donation

For reasons unexplained (greed?) Lee Enterrprises is insisting on unheard of compensation from any library that will accept David Fitzsimmons’ editorial cartoons archive.

From David Fitzsimmons Substack comes the details:

For years, Lee Publishing, owner of The Arizona Daily Star, has been blocking me from donating my professional life’s work to my hometown Alma mater, the University of Arizona, specifically the University of Arizona Library’s Special Collections Archive.

In the University’s state-of-the-art climate controlled archive my art would safely reside next to distinguished items such as the journals of Ed Abbey, Mo Udall’s joke file, artifacts from Governor Raul Castro’s and Governor Rose Mofford’s Administration and the works of other Arizonans of note.

What could be better?

But there was an unforeseen and unprecedented problem.

In 2019 Lee’s lawyers decided the University would have to sign a licensing agreement or my donation could never proceed.

A multi-page licensing agreement describing fees the University Library must agree to pay Lee if it ever reproduced any of my originals.

A fee. For a gift given freely. Was the meaning of the word “donation” incomprehensible to Lee? Such gifts are customarily given to such institutions with no strings attached.

The University rejected this financial entanglement.

Lee Enterprises is willing put Fitz’s life work of originals in their storage for safe keeping and and their use. Fitz would rather burn his files.

It is an outrageous situation how Lee is treating a man who has given them decades of service.

Read Fitz’s full Substack post for many more, legal and otherwise, details.

At the moment Fitz is hanging his hopes on David Hoffman, the new billionaire investor who has acquired a majority stake in Lee Enterprises.

images by and © David Fitzsimmons

Previous Post
Pat Oliphant – A Eulogy (Part 3)

Comments 2

  1. It sounds like Lee is asserting “work for hire” rights.

    1. This is the question. If it was work for hire, the it’s Lee’s IP. If the artist retained the rights, granting only first publication to the paper, then it’s his and Lee can go pound sand. If it’s something Lee is treating like WFH even though it wasn’t, that’s a whole ‘nother can of rats.

Leave a Reply

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.