CBR: Steve Ditko Estate Attempts to Reclaim Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Copyright

[Ichijinijisanji]

Can someone say what this would mean in practical terms for the character(s) as well? And what the extent of this would be if dikto estate somehow won? Would it include the entire spider-man universe including all characters like spider-gwen, miles morales etc?

Would it mean that marvel comics would struggle to publish comics with spider-man after that because of licensing issues?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If anything, Spider-Man's popularity increased under Stan Lee & John Romita Sr. There were many other successful runs too...Todd McFarlane, JMS & JRjr. Comic book characters that have been around as long as Spider-Man have many contributors. If Sony decided to do a movie version of One More Day (don't throw rocks!), the credit and one would think some compensation would have to go to Joe Q and JMS.

The fact is Marvel comics are strictly serialized, stemming from AF#15 and editorially multiple writers, editors, EIC have all claimed that they are honoring "Stan and Steve" and base themselves on ideas, stories, motifs, subplots from Ditko's original run. They use Ditko to justify and promote their stories. Any reference to Uncle Ben, the night Ben died, and Spider-Man not stopping the Burglar, which recurs time and time again are them inhabiting Ditko's stories. Then you have the fact that the Green Goblin mystery and Mary Jane Watson were two character and subplots that originated in the Ditko run and built-up in that time and it was in Lee-Romita's early issues those stories got payoffs.

So many changes and ideas across Spider-Man are based or justified on Argumentum Ad Ditkonium:
-- Peter got married, well in AF#15, the first issue when MJ is mentioned Aunt May says that she would make a great wife for Peter. Jim Shooter cited this and reprised this moment in the Wedding Annual to drive home that this was set up way back then.
-- Tom Brevoort in his manifesto contradictorily, justified OMD on the grounds that Ditko (allegedly based on rumors) objected to Peter aging out of high school or aging up. He has less textual evidence than Jim Shooter does but he did say those words publicly.

As for the success of Lee-Romita run, its true that it sold better and became more popular and much of that is absolutely due to Romita Sr's art and his work with Lee. At the same time, Romita Sr. came in after Ditko sustained and built word-of-mouth for a solo hero that was originally published bi-monthly before becoming a monthly. In serialization, sales ought to be measured on sustenance and maintenance. So when Romita Sr. came in he had higher sales than Ditko's first issues solely because Ditko had to establish that entire world. Likewise, Romita Sr. got to resolve two subplots Ditko had built up in his very early issues and obviously providing a satisfying payoff to that (and all props to JRSR for sticking the landing) wouldn't have been possible without Ditko's set-up. And while it's not essential and not substantial in and of itself, we cannot forget that some 10-11 months after Romita Sr. started you had the 1967 Spider-Man cartoon hit the airwaves with its iconic theme song. So maybe that helped a bit.

Now of course let me add that I fully think that ultimately all freelancers should have share and royalties for the stories they write. What I mean is Jonathan Hickman writing Fantastic Four, characters he didn't create, should be entitled ownership of his stories and issues of FF, all the dialogues, concepts, and ideas (like the Council of Reeds, Death of Johnny, Valeria Richards' personality) in those stories. The slogan "Solve Everything" by Reed, should be Hickman's. By that token, I believe that John Romita Sr. should get ownership of his plot of intellectual real estate of Spider-Man i.e. Mary Jane Watson's design, the Peter/Gwen/MJ love triangle, Kingpin, and so on. Gerry Conway should get ownership for the Peter/MJ love story that he essentially invented and shoehorned. He obviously built on what Ditko did and set-up (and admitted in interviews) but the main romance of Spider-Man across media was his contribution and he should get ownership of that, as well as Harry Osborn becoming a villain, The Night Gwen Stacy Died, the Spider-Mobile, and The Punisher, and the "clones".

So to me, the solution to Ditko getting rights is all creators getting rights and asserting ownership. That might make it hard for Disney/Marvel and that might lead the company to pick favorites and decide which rights they want to pay most to keep something in continuity, starting a bidding war between creative runs and so on. That might be interesting and create a new approach to continuity, potentially.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I tend to agree with this. As someone else pointed out, when he was working at Marvel all the artists knew it was work for hire. It was printed on the back of the check and they had to endorse the check right under it. I haven't come across an interview yet where Ditko complains about this but then he didn't give out many.

Ultimately the people who knew Steve Ditko best are his family, i.e. the Ditko Estate. Nobody else is in a position to claim "Ditko wouldn't have wanted this". His family knew the real guy, the one behind all the letters he wrote and so on. There is nobody in comics who can claim to know Steve Ditko very well on a personal level compared to his family. People who worked with him were on the level of acquaintances or workplace conversation guy. The letters he sent to fans or so on are stuff written for them. Unlike Stan Lee who had a public falling out with his daughter, there are multiple records of Ditko being close to his family published before and after he died. No records of falling out or disinheritance.

So to me the argument of bringing Ditko's beliefs and ideas and using that as scripture is irrelevant. Ditko was no saint or prophet, and even then...If in history, Jesus died and his Mother and surviving brothers sued Saint Paul for his faulty redaction of the Bible, nobody could argue that seriously that Saint Paul knew Jesus better than his family did.

Can someone say what this would mean in practical terms for the character(s) as well? And what the extent of this would be if dikto estate somehow won? Would it include the entire spider-man universe including all characters like spider-gwen, miles morales etc?

Would it mean that marvel comics would struggle to publish comics with spider-man after that because of licensing issues?

Assuming that the court results decisively in favor of the Ditko Estate, which is a big hurdle.

But let's take the "worst case"(for some: best case) scenario. Let's say that Marvel loses rights to Amazing Spider-Man #15, that means they cannot publish a comic with Peter Parker as Spider-Man, allude to Aunt May or Uncle Ben...not without paying a substantial sum to the Ditko estate but let's assume that Disney/Marvel don't pay in this thought-experiment. They also cannot use the costume and gadgets of Spider-Man which originated in AF#15.

Marvel would still own the trademark of Spider-Man, so that means they can do Spider-Man costumes but it will have to be say the Black Costume (not designed by Ditko), or any of the other alternate costumes that have shown up over the years. Marvel has Ben Reilly and they can pass him as the real Peter.

They have Miles Morales. However, if the Ditko Estate rules in his favor, you can bet the farm that Brian Michael Bendis sues for Miles Morales and several other lawsuits will be launched by this. In the case of Ben Reilly there will be a debate as to who can be considered his creator since Gerry Conway created the clone but the name Ben Reilly and the blonde hair came decades later so that one is split enough that Marvel can claim Ben theoretically.

So Marvel will have "a" Spider-Man, just not the Spider-Man and perhaps not the most popular legacy of Spider-Man (Miles).

[timrollpickering]

I tend to agree with this. As someone else pointed out, when he was working at Marvel all the artists knew it was work for hire. It was printed on the back of the check and they had to endorse the check right under it. I haven't come across an interview yet where Ditko complains about this but then he didn't give out many.

Has anyone ever actually produced the back of one of these early 1960s cheques? For that matter was a contract on the back of a cheque even legally binding?

It's from a decade later but one of Steve Gerber's has:

By endorsement of this check, I, the payee, acknowledge full payment for my employment by Magazine Management Company, Inc. [Marvel's parent company in the 1960s and early 1970s] and for my assignment to it of any copyright, trademark, and any other rights in or related to the material, and including my assignment of any rights to renewal copyright.

Picture at:
http://rsmwriter.blogspot.com/2016/0...-to-steve.html

Article including transcript at:
http://rsmwriter.blogspot.com/2016/0...er-marvel.html

The article argues:

Disgruntled cartoonists and scriptwriters have often portrayed such legends as transfer agreements. But according to the prevailing judicial precedents, the rights belonged to the publisher due to their commissioning the material. In practice, the legend was a redundancy. At most, it ensured the freelancer had been notified as to the publisher’s policy, and that the policy covered the work at hand.

Whatever the legal standing of this as a contract or the actual legal position of the rights, the way that statement is worded suggests that whoever drafted it did not know the difference between a transfer of copyright and a work made for hire.

Now maybe that example is irrelevant because it's from a decade later and in the interim Marvel and the Magazine Management Company, Inc. had been purchased by Cadence but if nothing else it doesn't support the idea that the concept of work for hire was in creators' faces every time they accepted their pay.

[JudicatorPrime]

So Marvel will have "a" Spider-Man, just not the Spider-Man and perhaps not the most popular legacy of Spider-Man (Miles).

In some ways, that almost sounds like a "win" for Disney either way.

I think of all of the Golden Age heroes that were retired and reimagined. Many, like the Black Widow and the Vision, devoid of any common elements of their predecessor. I guess it's a good thing that mantle changes happen so often in comics these days. We just might see more of that happening in the future.

[Digifiend]

Ultimately the people who knew Steve Ditko best are his family, i.e. the Ditko Estate. Nobody else is in a position to claim "Ditko wouldn't have wanted this". His family knew the real guy, the one behind all the letters he wrote and so on. There is nobody in comics who can claim to know Steve Ditko very well on a personal level compared to his family. People who worked with him were on the level of acquaintances or workplace conversation guy. The letters he sent to fans or so on are stuff written for them. Unlike Stan Lee who had a public falling out with his daughter, there are multiple records of Ditko being close to his family published before and after he died. No records of falling out or disinheritance.

So to me the argument of bringing Ditko's beliefs and ideas and using that as scripture is irrelevant. Ditko was no saint or prophet, and even then...If in history, Jesus died and his Mother and surviving brothers sued Saint Paul for his faulty redaction of the Bible, nobody could argue that seriously that Saint Paul knew Jesus better than his family did.



Assuming that the court results decisively in favor of the Ditko Estate, which is a big hurdle.

But let's take the "worst case"(for some: best case) scenario. Let's say that Marvel loses rights to Amazing Spider-Man #15, that means they cannot publish a comic with Peter Parker as Spider-Man, allude to Aunt May or Uncle Ben...not without paying a substantial sum to the Ditko estate but let's assume that Disney/Marvel don't pay in this thought-experiment. They also cannot use the costume and gadgets of Spider-Man which originated in AF#15.

Marvel would still own the trademark of Spider-Man, so that means they can do Spider-Man costumes but it will have to be say the Black Costume (not designed by Ditko), or any of the other alternate costumes that have shown up over the years. Marvel has Ben Reilly and they can pass him as the real Peter.

They have Miles Morales. However, if the Ditko Estate rules in his favor, you can bet the farm that Brian Michael Bendis sues for Miles Morales and several other lawsuits will be launched by this. In the case of Ben Reilly there will be a debate as to who can be considered his creator since Gerry Conway created the clone but the name Ben Reilly and the blonde hair came decades later so that one is split enough that Marvel can claim Ben theoretically.

So Marvel will have "a" Spider-Man, just not the Spider-Man and perhaps not the most popular legacy of Spider-Man (Miles).

They wouldn't be able to use web shooters either. That pretty much wipes out the Spider family, except for Jessica Drew who doesn't have webs, and Anya Corazon who can be reverted to her Arana powers (carapace armor and a set of bolas - completely different to the standard spider powers she has as Spider-Girl).

[JudicatorPrime]

They wouldn't be able to use web shooters either. That pretty much wipes out the Spider family, except for Jessica Drew who doesn't have webs, and Anya Corazon who can be reverted to her Arana powers (carapace armor and a set of bolas - completely different to the standard spider powers she has as Spider-Girl).

But that's limited to just the gadgets, right? I mean Silk would be fine, since she naturally generates webs and isn't reliant on web shooters. Presumably symbiotes, which also generate webbing but aren't technically web shooters, would be ok.

Honestly, losing the web shooters really wouldn't be that big of a deal. Given that we're talking about a fantasy universe, I can think of a dozen work-arounds for those devices.

For example, imagine Miles with the ability to generate hairline thin electrostatic discharges like the kind that you see in static electricity balls, instead of webs. The writers could establish that it's a residual manifestation of the same bio-electric/bio-kinetic energy that he uses for his venom strike. Maybe add in that Miles constantly generates this energy as he ages and releasing the energy through these electrostatic "webs" actually helps keep him from reaching critical mass. I'm pretty sure artists would have fun drawing Miles swinging through the city on tiny lightning bolts.

And who knows, maybe the hidden blessing in all of this is that Marvel would finally get rid of the bazillion iterations of Spider-Man. Keep 2-3, mothball the rest. No matter how this shakes out, I see an upside.

[mugiwara]

They wouldn't be able to use web shooters either. That pretty much wipes out the Spider family, except for Jessica Drew who doesn't have webs, and Anya Corazon who can be reverted to her Arana powers (carapace armor and a set of bolas - completely different to the standard spider powers she has as Spider-Girl).

Back when Disney wasn't allowed to use Fake Mil... I mean Peter in their movies, I wanted them to have Arana as their resident spider teenage hero.
Still pissed it didn't go that way.

[CTTT]

Well, if the estates win, then goodbye MCU...but I think before it gets to court, both parties are going to settle. I think that's what will happen

[mace11]

Here is a some other recent talk about this.
BREAKING Disney facing FULL LOSS of Marvel Characters & Rights over Lawsuits

[mace11]

BREAKING Marvel's Spider-Man Rights set to Expire Soon

[JudicatorPrime]

Well, if the estates win, then goodbye MCU...but I think before it gets to court, both parties are going to settle. I think that's what will happen

Even if the estates win, it's not "goodbye MCU." Disney will still own some elements of those characters. Not only that, but if I understand this correctly, the US copyright laws wouldn't necessarily limit Disney's options when it comes to foreign markets. Not that Disney would go that route.

Frankly, based on everything that I've read, Disney has a very good chance of coming out on top, if a settlement isn't reached and this goes in front of the courts. And should this test reach as high as the USSC, I don't like the estates' chances. It's one thing to have Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- God rest her soul -- interested in hearing the case, but we're talking about a different animal with a more conservative leaning pro-business Court installed.

[mace11]

Spider-Man Steve Ditko Lawsuit against Marvel & Delay Spider-Man No Way Home & Multiverse of Madness

[mugiwara]

Well, if the estates win, then goodbye MCU...but I think before it gets to court, both parties are going to settle. I think that's what will happen

Not necessarily.
Best thing that ever happened to the MCU is that they didn't have the rights for Spider-Man and X-Men, and so picked Litterally Who (for 95% of the population), AKA Iron Man instead for their first movie.

[DrewHLMW]

The Ditko estate deserve the royalties for Steve's creation but I dont wanna Lose Peter in comics so if they win they better license him back out to Marvel or some other publisher.

and don't give me any crap like the family didnt create spider-man so they dont deserve anything. you go to work to provide for your family and make sure they can lead a good life, marvel have screwed almost all their creators out of their rightful royalties while making millions at the box office and DC too with Superman especially.

Give the families what they are owed.