Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 101
  1. #61
    Cosmic Curmudgeon JudicatorPrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewHLMW View Post
    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.
    Would you seriously be willing to buy Peter Parker stories if he was moved to DC, Valiant, Image, IDW, etc.?

  2. #62
    Mighty Member Maestro 216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewHLMW View Post
    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.
    Inb4 they sell Spider Man to DC.

  3. #63
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JudicatorPrime View Post
    Would you seriously be willing to buy Peter Parker stories if he was moved to DC, Valiant, Image, IDW, etc.?
    I suppose it depends.
    If Spencer undoes OMD in issue 74 and marvel actually look like they're going to let Peter progress forward in his life then I would like him to stay with Marvel and see his life progress forward to the spider family he should have had 20 years ago.
    If not then at least if he's with another publisher it's still him with the same costume, same powers, same aunt may & uncle ben, and everything else from Amazing Fantasy #15, we just get a new supporting cast and new life. it's really no different to OMD or even ultimate spider-man but with his whole future now ready to be told anew so yes I'd take that if its my only option. it worked great for Ultimate Spider-Man.

  4. #64
    Cosmic Curmudgeon JudicatorPrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewHLMW View Post
    I suppose it depends.
    If Spencer undoes OMD in issue 74 and marvel actually look like they're going to let Peter progress forward in his life then I would like him to stay with Marvel and see his life progress forward to the spider family he should have had 20 years ago.
    If not then at least if he's with another publisher it's still him with the same costume, same powers, same aunt may & uncle ben, and everything else from Amazing Fantasy #15, we just get a new supporting cast and new life. it's really no different to OMD or even ultimate spider-man but with his whole future now ready to be told anew so yes I'd take that if its my only option. it worked great for Ultimate Spider-Man.
    So much has happened since AF #15 in terms of Peter's personality and character development, though. I wonder if a new company would be up to the challenge of making him distinctly their own version of Spider-Man.

    Too bad we don't have a way of visiting that alternate universe where Peter gets sold to another publisher from basically inception as a pretty bare cupboard. It's not that I can't imagine him in, say, Gotham bumping into Batman, but so much of my imagination is colored by what we know of Peter now, not immediately after his advent. The way DC works, Peter is likely to become the next Batman sidekick as opposed to his own man and his own hero who figured it out without the overwhelming presence of two great capes (i.e., Superman and Batman) setting the example and the tone for all heroes. Makes for a pretty intriguing "What If?"

    Screw it, I do want to see that happen. Let the estates prevail sans settlement. Let them lease the rights to DC/Warner and let's see how it goes.
    “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”
    ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “If I love you, I have to make you conscious of what you don’t see.”
    ~James Baldwin

  5. #65
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JudicatorPrime View Post
    So much has happened since AF #15 in terms of Peter's personality and character development, though. I wonder if a new company would be up to the challenge of making him distinctly their own version of Spider-Man.

    Too bad we don't have a way of visiting that alternate universe where Peter gets sold to another publisher from basically inception as a pretty bare cupboard. It's not that I can't imagine him in, say, Gotham bumping into Batman, but so much of my imagination is colored by what we know of Peter now, not immediately after his advent. The way DC works, Peter is likely to become the next Batman sidekick as opposed to his own man and his own hero who figured it out without the overwhelming presence of two great capes (i.e., Superman and Batman) setting the example and the tone for all heroes. Makes for a pretty intriguing "What If?"

    Screw it, I do want to see that happen. Let the estates prevail sans settlement. Let them lease the rights to DC/Warner and let's see how it goes.
    DC doesn't have a good track record with acquisitions (Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, The Question among others) thriving or doing better than they were before they got bought out.

    Spider-Man is different but even then Billy Batson/Captain Marvel was the #1 Superhero for the 40s and he's never had it so good since then.

    So I don't know if DC is the best alternative.

    The ideal scenario is for Spider-Man to be treated the way BD albums are in Europe where its owned by the family of creators and treated with respect. A good recent example is Pete Morisi's THUNDERBOLT where the rights returned to the family's estate and they leased the title to Kieron Gillen who did a cool series for it for Dynamite. That could be a way to do it right.

  6. #66
    Cosmic Curmudgeon JudicatorPrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    DC doesn't have a good track record with acquisitions (Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, The Question among others) thriving or doing better than they were before they got bought out.
    True, but if we're being honest, Marvel isn't much better at that. For all of the initial push, the Ultraverse is pretty much dormant. Marvelman is nowhere to be found. And the company has a bunch of other acquisitions which it bought apparently just to bury in lockers, the keys thrown away for good measure.

    More to the point, though, it's one thing to obtain the full rights and lore to a character, as opposed to getting just the inchoate starter kit and not much else. In many ways getting Spider-Man as he existed then at Amazing Fantasy #15 opens up broader vistas for the new creative team. Peter is just a few scribbles and text short of a blank slate at that point. But obtaining a fully fleshed and wholly realized character and all of their history (and maybe even most of their supporting cast) is a different thing entirely, especially as it relates to getting those characters to mesh well within your ecosystem.

    At the end of the day, some characters just don't work. Shazam/Captain Marvel was always going to be problematic as a DC property. Redundancy can sell, but rarely when there's already an extremely popular native alpha. Or several existing variants, again, all native, that can fill in when the alpha is away. I think to some extent Marvel is finding that out with Angela.

  7. #67
    Astonishing Member ARkadelphia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    4,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewHLMW View Post
    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.
    They got what they were owed whenever Steve cashed his checks as a work-for-hire employee
    “The Avengers have been the one point of stability in my entire life. And if The Avengers call… then The Scarlet Witch will always answer.”

  8. #68
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ARkadelphia View Post
    They got what they were owed whenever Steve cashed his checks as a work-for-hire employee
    It is not that simple at all, not least because Ditko was never an employee.

    Based on the reporting of people like Sean Howe, and others, it is highly unlikely there were any written contracts between the early ‘60s Marvel artists and writers, and Marvel. The checks forcing artists and writers to sacrifice their rights if they endorsed the check didn’t start until after Cadence Industries/Perfect Film bought Marvel, which was in ‘68. Those checks were highly coercive anyway. But it’s highly doubtful Ditko signed such a thing back when those characters were created, or any contract at all.

    Kirby only relinquished possible claims of ownership, specifically to Captain America, but likely affecting claims on other characters, to get a loan from Marvel to move to California. He always claimed Martin Goodman promised him more than Marvel delivered in terms of royalties, etc., which really doesn’t sound like Work For Hire or “standard practices,” as Marvel has relied on for decades to keep questions of ownership at bay. Disney-Marvel settled with Kirby’s estate in nearly the exact same scenario—Kirby estate files copyright terminations and Marvel sues—rather than risk it all in the Supreme Court. While that may appear to be just a cost-benefit calculation on Disney’s part over the risk of losing, keep in mind Disney had at least a 5-4 business-friendly vote at the time, maybe even 6-3. Marvel’s archives may contain discoverable evidence that shows Kirby’s copyright claims were much more substantial than Marvel ever admitted.

    This new set of cases will almost certainly hinge on Work For Hire definitions and whether conditions were met to establish the characters and stories as having been created on the basis of Work For Hire.

    I think Stan Lee’s estate will have a hard time proving what he did was not Work For Hire. Stan was an employee, the editor. It’d be tough to prove it was not Work For Hire, IMO.

    The others were freelancers at the time of their creations for Marvel. For a long time, Marvel could rely on the testimony of Stan himself that he created everything, and he directed the freelancers to draw or write everything. An employer directing an employee or a freelancer to create something, rather than the creator coming up with the idea, is one of the conditions in creating a Work For Hire. With Stan’s death and without Stan’s estate’s cooperation in the matter, it will get harder for Marvel to prove Stan directed creation of characters like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Dr. Strange, etc.

    I think some of the circumstances around Spidey’s creation—the rejected work Kirby did on Spider-Man—might bolster Marvel’s claims that particular work was directed. I’m not sure Marvel will want to open up that can of worms, though, because the Kirby Spidey could be interpreted a different way, that it was a rejected work on spec, since it seems to pre-date Marvel supposedly directing the creation of Spidey through their employee Stan Lee. That would not be Work For Hire if Marvel didn’t direct it.

    On the other hand, I don’t see how the Ditko estate could possibly lose on Dr. Strange. There is a known letter from Stan Lee to a fan, contemporaneous to the creation of Dr. Strange, in which Stan gives WHOLE credit to Ditko for creating the character. Creating a character apparently on spec would be a strike against Marvel directing Ditko to create Dr. Strange. And that letter is out there, admitting Strange was ALL Ditko.

    There’s an Instance and Expense test that is part of determining if something is Work For Hire in the absence of a physical contract. Ditko creating the character by himself would pretty much demolish any argument Marvel directed the creation of Dr. Strange.

    Marvel would likely lose the other half of that legal test, the Expense part, as there’s not a lot of evidence of Marvel paying for rejected work.

    Marvel’s going to face this in varying degrees for every revocation of copyright any of the creators involved sent to Disney, not just Ditko.

    Lieber probably has as solid a case as anyone.

    I actually think Marvel is vulnerable on these termination of copyrights. I think they’ll have to settle.
    Last edited by Brian B; 09-27-2021 at 10:44 PM.

  9. #69

    Default

    As has been previously stated the real benefit in this is for a settlement where both parties have future stake in the characters. Also great post timrollpickering, it helped me gain a real understanding of the situation.

    I do have to wonder if found in Ditko family favor or settlement reached if that could be used to them go after the fact that sony has rights to spiderman in movies etc and would such a ruling vacate that deal.
    Don't let anyone else hold the candle that lights the way to your future because only you can sustain the flame.
    Number of People on my ignore list: 0
    #conceptualthinking ^_^
    #ByeMarvEN

    Into the breach.
    https://www.instagram.com/jartist27/

  10. #70
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,571

    Default

    As much as Marvel has abused and misused these IP's throughout the years (Spider-Man especially), I still trust them more than I trust DC/WB. I wouldn't want any of these characters to go over to DC.

  11. #71
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    Disney-Marvel settled with Kirby’s estate in nearly the exact same scenario—Kirby estate files copyright terminations and Marvel sues—rather than risk it all in the Supreme Court. While that may appear to be just a cost-benefit calculation on Disney’s part over the risk of losing, keep in mind Disney had at least a 5-4 business-friendly vote at the time, maybe even 6-3. Marvel’s archives may contain discoverable evidence that shows Kirby’s copyright claims were much more substantial than Marvel ever admitted.
    However that case went through multiple courts in the Second Circuit which all ruled in Marvel's favour so they certainly took the risk. We'll never know for sure why they settled but I suspect once the talent unions starting filing submissions that Disney (as opposed to Marvel) started worrying about the wider political consequences rather than the possibility the case itself would go against the flow on copyright jurisprudence.

    I think Stan Lee’s estate will have a hard time proving what he did was not Work For Hire. Stan was an employee, the editor. It’d be tough to prove it was not Work For Hire, IMO.
    It is possible for an employee to do freelance work for the same company that has nothing to do with the day job - e.g. Peter David was working in the sales department when he started writing although that was in an era of clearer contracts (and let's just ignore jokes about sales dictating to editorial). It's a bit harder with the writer-editor concept though. However IIUC Lee signed multiple things over the years affirming that he and others had been doing work for hire including his testimony in the Kirby case.

    I'm not sure that Lee's estate is actually filing though - the reports on this are confused and I suspect it's lazy journalists not realising that Larry Lieber isn't filing because he's Stan's brother but because he's a writer and artist in his own right and about the last surviving creator from Marvel's early Silver Age.

    I think some of the circumstances around Spidey’s creation—the rejected work Kirby did on Spider-Man—might bolster Marvel’s claims that particular work was directed. I’m not sure Marvel will want to open up that can of worms, though, because the Kirby Spidey could be interpreted a different way, that it was a rejected work on spec, since it seems to pre-date Marvel supposedly directing the creation of Spidey through their employee Stan Lee. That would not be Work For Hire if Marvel didn’t direct it.
    Though that isn't the most relevant to whether the Ditko Estate has a termination right in the original story which is what the case is ruling on not who actually created Spider-Man or was the first person to suggest Marvel do a spider based superhero. I assume the settlement between the Kirby heirs and Marvel will have affirmed the legal position at the time which is that Kirby did work for hire as found by the courts.

    On the other hand, I don’t see how the Ditko estate could possibly lose on Dr. Strange. There is a known letter from Stan Lee to a fan, contemporaneous to the creation of Dr. Strange, in which Stan gives WHOLE credit to Ditko for creating the character. Creating a character apparently on spec would be a strike against Marvel directing Ditko to create Dr. Strange. And that letter is out there, admitting Strange was ALL Ditko.

    There’s an Instance and Expense test that is part of determining if something is Work For Hire in the absence of a physical contract. Ditko creating the character by himself would pretty much demolish any argument Marvel directed the creation of Dr. Strange.
    A court once found the first Superman story was a work for hire on the basis of supervision by DC. That holding was reversed on appeal but it shows not always as obvious.

    You can't copyright an idea. The copyright is in the expression of the idea and in this case it's the original 5 page story from Strange Tales #110. Ditko in this period was drawing exclusively for Marvel - from 1956 until the end of 1965 all his work was published there apart from one 1961 story at Prize that may have been inventory from his brief earlier period there. The Marvel Method of writer and artist discussing and ideas coming out of these discussions points towards instance. That the artist had suggested the magician is a very different thing from his coming up with the whole first story and submitting it on spec. There's a good case for work for hire there even though the writer/editor did give credit to the artist for the idea at the time and later on a Marvel Masterworks introduction printed that letter. Obviously Marvel's lawyers would now rather that hadn't happened but I don't see it as being so clear an open goal for the Ditko Estate.

    Marvel would likely lose the other half of that legal test, the Expense part, as there’s not a lot of evidence of Marvel paying for rejected work.
    The expense test seems to be on who bore the burden and risk for the whole project rather than on whether turn down fees were paid for individual pages that were redrawn. This was one of the court findings with the Kirby case. As with a lot it seems the laws and tests were not designed with the comics industry in mind. I think this assumption is based on the idea of a short story author who regularly submits a whole story to their usual magazine and if the editor turns the story down the author is then free to sell it to another.

    Lieber probably has as solid a case as anyone.
    Didn't Lieber supply statements and testimony in favour of Marvel's position that work for hire was standard in the industry back then?

    I actually think Marvel is vulnerable on these termination of copyrights. I think they’ll have to settle.
    I'm not so sure. I think the real vulnerability is commercial and industrial. If the estates can whip up a public image of Marvel/Disney leaving the creators in the lurch then they may be moved for PR reasons much as DC were for Siegel & Shuster in the 1970s despite having just won another round of court battles with them. There's also the wider question of whether what was and is supposedly the standard practice in the comics industry is actually the standard across the broader creative industry.
    Last edited by timrollpickering; 09-28-2021 at 07:21 AM.

  12. #72
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ARkadelphia View Post
    They got what they were owed whenever Steve cashed his checks as a work-for-hire employee
    It occurs to me a circumstance in which this might be true, and that is if Ditko took money decades after the fact. It also depends on whatever agreements could have accompanied such money.

    I was reminded here and elsewhere about something that to my mind is barely more than a rumor, a report by Abraham Riesman, author of the True Believer bio of Stan Lee. Years ago he reported in Vulture on his quixotic quest to interview Steve Ditko. An anonymous neighbor in the office building Ditko leased space in claimed to have seen a check with a lot of zeroes with Ditko’s name on it from a movie studio.

    Of course, it doesn’t mean Ditko cashed it. It doesn’t mean there was any agreement between Marvel and Ditko, or a movie studio and Ditko. I believe the few people who actually knew Ditko claimed he never received enumeration on Spidey or other Marvel creations beyond the initial payment for completing the books as a freelancer. There just isn’t information in the public record about what Ditko and Marvel agreed on, if anything.

    Here’s a link to the story:

    https://www.vulture.com/2016/11/stev...nge-c-v-r.html

    If the story about the check is real, it could indicate—COULD, not definitive—that Ditko has already made some decisions in writing on rights. Or it might not mean that at all.

    As Sean Howe wrote on his Twitter account a week ago, “Please let this reach discovery...”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/seanhowe/...57366989279232

    A lot of the early work at Marvel and the arrangements behind it are hidden, for various reasons. This includes, possibly, things being lost in the sands of time. Also, it maybe that more than a few of Marvel’s owners had an interest in maintaining the apparent fiction that Stan Lee created everything and thus, Marvel owns all of the Marvel characters.

    Actually reaching discovery on this would open up a lot of things to public scrutiny, which is at the very least important to comics historians and fans.

  13. #73
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    I think all your points are quite salient, Timrollpickering, though I would quibble with a couple points.

    Quote Originally Posted by timrollpickering View Post
    ...Though that isn't the most relevant to whether the Ditko Estate has a termination right in the original story which is what the case is ruling on not who actually created Spider-Man or was the first person to suggest Marvel do a spider based superhero. I assume the settlement between the Kirby heirs and Marvel will have affirmed the legal position at the time which is that Kirby did work for hire as found by the courts.
    I am 110% certain that the settlement with the Kirby heirs included the stipulation that they drop all copyright and IP claims against Marvel and its characters, including affirming that it was all Work For Hire. I totally agree with you on that particular point, timrollpickering.

    But I don’t think the specifics around that settlement will come up in court. Opening up that settlement in court to prove Work For Hire policies for people like Ditko would surely open the whole thing up to the public, which Marvel does not want. It would give all creators an idea at the prices at which Marvel will settle, as well as reveal the weaknesses in Marvel’s claims of ownership. I don’t think the Kirby settlement will enter this thing at all, except maybe as a legal and business strategy on Disney’s side to bury all these copyright claims once and for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by timrollpickering View Post
    The expense test seems to be on who bore the burden and risk for the whole project rather than on whether turn down fees were paid for individual pages that were redrawn.
    This is exactly what the expense test is, but if Ditko offered up Dr. Strange on spec, with no direction from Marvel, which would have been Stan Lee, then the only risk was Ditko’s material costs and time. It can be said with great certainty that Marvel practically never bore the freelance artists’ art supply expenses, especially back in the ‘60s. That is not the exact expense that the test refers to, but it shows Marvel wasn’t even willing to risk the cost of pencil and Bristol board on it, let alone ink. We also know Marvel didn’t pay for pages it did not buy. In this case, Marvel paid Ditko something for the Dr. Strange stories, starting with the first one, so that isn’t going to show that the “Instance” part of the test was met or not met, unless there’s a contract somewhere. But whether or not Ditko was willing to risk his art supplies on a possibly futile pitch to Marvel could show who bore the financial risk, or “Expense” part of the test. It would have been Ditko’s risk, not Marvel’s. Of course, all of this is fodder for the legal cases, not settled matters at all.

    That brings up to my mind a point about Ditko’s “exclusivity” to Marvel. Unless Marvel has a contract somewhere showing he was exclusive, Marvel’s entire case will rest on “industry practices” dictating the terms of Ditko’s Work For Hire. In the end, that’s what these legal fights will come down to — what constitutes Work For Hire. Unless Marvel can produce a contract, they’re going to have to rely on the “industry practices” argument to prove it was Work For Hire, and I think that’s weaker than it seems. If Marvel and Ditko really had the same understanding and were following “industry practices,” what did exclusivity mean without a written contract? What was the understanding? How could Ditko just walk out Marvel’s doors in ‘66 and go work for Charlton if he were “exclusive,” as well as doing Work For Hire? If he could just quit and go elsewhere, doesn’t that show “industry practices,” such as exclusivity, were not so standard at all, and as such throw up for questioning whether something was truly Work For Hire, like Marvel-Disney want it to be? I am 110% certain Ditko’s heirs do not agree that his freelance work and alleged exclusivity meant the job was Work For Hire. I don’t think the exclusivity proves anything except it is another point for the parties to contest.

    Quote Originally Posted by timrollpickering View Post
    Didn't Lieber supply statements and testimony in favour of Marvel's position that work for hire was standard in the industry back then?
    No idea. I’m aware of Stan’s deposition in the Kirby matter, I don’t know about what others may have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by timrollpickering View Post
    I'm not so sure. I think the real vulnerability is commercial and industrial. If the estates can whip up a public image of Marvel/Disney leaving the creators in the lurch then they may be moved for PR reasons much as DC for for Siegel & Shuster despite having just won another round of court battles with them. There's also the wider question of whether what was and is supposedly the standard practice in the comics industry is actually the standard across the broader creative industry.
    Well, Marvel has always been vulnerable on that score. Any fan who digs for the story behind the stories finds out pretty quick that Marvel treated its creators like crap, with exception to Stan. Of course, it goes without saying Marvel had a vested interest in Stan being the sole creator of the Marvel Universe, which we all pretty much know is bunk.

    I hope these creators get some paydays out of this.
    Last edited by Brian B; 09-28-2021 at 09:23 AM.

  14. #74
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    As much as Marvel has abused and misused these IP's throughout the years (Spider-Man especially), I still trust them more than I trust DC/WB. I wouldn't want any of these characters to go over to DC.
    Trust DC how? For a long time, the Kirbys said they got paid more for New Gods’ royalties from DC and they got nothing from Marvel. DC can be trusted to only do as they say they will do, no more or less. In the end, that’s all you can really expect from a business.

    I think the chance of these characters leaving Marvel-Disney’s stable are basically zero.

    Even if Marvel lost, they’d settle during the appeals process all the way up to the time they are getting on the Supreme Court’s docket, if necessary. DC won’t be publishing or releasing anything with a Marvel character in it, now or ever. Marvel-Disney will pay a bit more for rights if needed. That will be the most extreme result in these cases, and we will be surprised at it, just like we were surprised they settled with the Kirbys. The odds are stacked against the little guy getting even a small piece of the action. The pro-predatory capitalist bent of the federal bench ensures the odds are not in Ditko’s, Lieber’s or any of these artists’ favor.

  15. #75
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    It occurs to me a circumstance in which this might be true, and that is if Ditko took money decades after the fact. It also depends on whatever agreements could have accompanied such money.

    I was reminded here and elsewhere about something that to my mind is barely more than a rumor, a report by Abraham Riesman, author of the True Believer bio of Stan Lee. Years ago he reported in Vulture on his quixotic quest to interview Steve Ditko. An anonymous neighbor in the office building Ditko leased space in claimed to have seen a check with a lot of zeroes with Ditko’s name on it from a movie studio.

    Of course, it doesn’t mean Ditko cashed it. It doesn’t mean there was any agreement between Marvel and Ditko, or a movie studio and Ditko. I believe the few people who actually knew Ditko claimed he never received enumeration on Spidey or other Marvel creations beyond the initial payment for completing the books as a freelancer. There just isn’t information in the public record about what Ditko and Marvel agreed on, if anything.

    Here’s a link to the story:

    https://www.vulture.com/2016/11/stev...nge-c-v-r.html

    If the story about the check is real, it could indicate—COULD, not definitive—that Ditko has already made some decisions in writing on rights. Or it might not mean that at all.

    As Sean Howe wrote on his Twitter account a week ago, “Please let this reach discovery...”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/seanhowe/...57366989279232

    A lot of the early work at Marvel and the arrangements behind it are hidden, for various reasons. This includes, possibly, things being lost in the sands of time. Also, it maybe that more than a few of Marvel’s owners had an interest in maintaining the apparent fiction that Stan Lee created everything and thus, Marvel owns all of the Marvel characters.

    Actually reaching discovery on this would open up a lot of things to public scrutiny, which is at the very least important to comics historians and fans.

    I quoted and linked this article already in a post on the first page of this discussion
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 09-28-2021 at 09:51 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •