quote:Originally posted by dershocka: So does that mean you won't be buying any "Savage Dragon" in the future?
Yes.
But I never bought SAVAGE DRAGON in the first place. I hear good things about it, so I'm sure it's good; but it's just one of those comics that I never got around to. And now it's so far along, I doubt I'd be able to catch up.
I've got nothing against Erik Larsen. I think his Image Comics is great. Lots of variety in genres and talent.
Posts: 6237 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dershocka: So does that mean you won't be buying any "Savage Dragon" in the future?
Yes.
But I never bought SAVAGE DRAGON in the first place. I hear good things about it, so I'm sure it's good; but it's just one of those comics that I never got around to. And now it's so far along, I doubt I'd be able to catch up.
quote:Originally posted by shjonescrk: DC routinely destroyed the artwork which they apparently didn't own. I mean if, for argument's sake, Curt Swan drew 5,000 pages for DC during his career and each page would on average sell in today's markert for a 100 dollars, making them worth in total 500,000 dollars, not an insubstantial amount. Surely his family could sue DC for damages as they had no right to destroy something they didn't own.
I would think that they could. I'm surprised nobody's gone after them.
I'm also a bit shocked that EC Comics could get away with keeping art and then selling it years later and only give the artists a fraction of the money. How is THAT fair?
quote:Originally posted by dershocka: So does that mean you won't be buying any "Savage Dragon" in the future?
Yes.
But I never bought SAVAGE DRAGON in the first place. I hear good things about it, so I'm sure it's good; but it's just one of those comics that I never got around to. And now it's so far along, I doubt I'd be able to catch up.
Do you feel the same way about Batman?
Yeah, essentially.
All the long-running titles at Marvel and DC are so deep into continuity, I learned years ago that I couldn't pick up a random issue of THE UNHAPPY X-MEN or BATMAN and follow along. Not only was that issue part 3 of 8 in a given arc, but the arc was based on a plot development from four years earlier.
So if I'm not with a comic from the start -- or it isn't easily accessible when I get curious -- I'm unlikely to try it.
This is one reason a back-to-basics comic like ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is so popular. All you need to know is "Clark Kent is Superman, he likes Lois Lane" and you're good to go. You don't need to know what happened in ACTION COMICS no. 578-582 and how it changed Lex Luthor forever.
Posts: 6237 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bring Back Zot: And for those of you still enjoying this thread, I have a trivia question for you.
Last night, I read a 32 page comic that contained art by Steve Ditko, Erik Larsen, and Steve Bissette, and a story by Bob Haney. What is it?
I'm guessing an issue of Marvel Comics Presents but off the top of my head--I don't know.
or could it be one of Robin Snyder's comics from Renegade Press?
I dunno.
Your second guess is on the money, Mr. Larsen. Robin Snyder's Revolver, issue 4 (Fantastic Fables), published by Renegade press in February 1986. Contents include:
1. A wonderful Ditko cover and story, "The Hand of Ages", very reminiscent of his Charlton work.
2. "Attack of the 50 foot joggers", a 3 page horror short drawn by Steve Bissette and written by RL Stine of Goosebumps fame.
3. "The Bridge", a nice short fantasy story drawn by Bob Haney, illustrated by Adolfo Buylla (I'm guessing he is a Spanish or Filipino artist, and he did a beautiful job with this story).
4. Little Ha-Ha, a Henry Boltinoff 1 pager (from the creator of Cap's Hobby hints).
5. Your own contribution is a frontispiece showing a couple of monster hands holding Robin's "Under the Gun" text comments. If you hadn't signed it, I wouldn't have known it was you.
I purchased this at Sotheby's, in their quarter box. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are some nifty black and white collections coming out of Greg Theakston's Pure Imaginations company. Most of the stuff there is in public domain. Nobody owns the copyright. I don’t know if Ditko sees a dime from those publications. I know Ditko is a good friend of Robin Snyder and that Snyder’s publications are authorized.
I love Ditko’s stuff--but I feel weird buying books from Marvel that reprint his work. I know that the Kirby estate didn’t get anything from the recent massive Kirby Visionaries books and I’d imagine Ditko was similarly shafted.
I haven’t heard anybody mention the Fly yet. Ditko drew a few issues of that superhero book over at Archie Comics some years back. It’s pretty nice later-Ditko superhero fare and worth digging for. [/QB]
As far as I'm aware (and I'll check if you want) Greg Theakson does pay royalities. Marvel also pay royalties, as you well know. In fact the royalties that Marvel and DC both pay on reprint material comes in very handy for some of the older artists who no longer work in the industry (I know that those payments are very appreciated by the likes of Mike Esposito and Jim Mooney amongst others).
At the risk of sounding highly cruel and unpopular, I'm not sure if the Kirby estate should get paid. I mean, when do the payments stop? Once his children pass away? Grandkids? You pay one estate then they're all going to line up around the block and if there is no estate, like Ross Andru, then you can bet that someone will be putting in a claim.
As for the stolen art debate. I've spoken on that many, many times. The art that was stolen was just that - stolen. None of this 'liberated' crap that a lot of dealers and collectors start saying to justify their collections - it was lifted. Much of it was stolen from the storerooms at Marvel and equally a lot of early DC art was lifted from the DC offices.
I know of one writer/editor who used to go into Marvel in the 1970s with pages/covers by Romita, Kirby, Buscema, Andru, Perez and whoever he was working with at the time and ask whoever was on staff to fix a small error. He'd then ask that the art be lightboxed so that he (the editor) could then point out the error in the original art to the artist. Once he had the lightboxed art (usually by someone like Esposito, Giacoia, Trimpe, Wilson etc) he'd submit that as the final product and keep the original un-used art. Sneaky eh?
Still, happened all the time.
A lot of artists didn't ask for the art back because, to them, it had no worth and they were led to believe that the publishers owned it. Doesn't make what happened any better though. Still some, like Gene Colan, used to walk into the offices (especially at Marvel) and just ask for it back and they'd get it. Others, such as John Buscema, used to tell Marvel to just throw it all out and not waste his time by returning it. Work that out.
WHen I was a teenager I concluded, circa 1968, that Ditko had gone through four distinct stylistic phases.
His 1950s work was more angular, and detailed.
His Atlas monster stuff, and first ten Spider-Man (and Doctor Strange) were rounder, still detailed.
By the time he left Spider-Man, his brush inking had become less detailed, probably an accomodation to the smaller Bristol board dimensions that publishers were beginning to require artists conform to.
I counted this broader style's beginning and peak as two stylistic periods. The beginning was his stride on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.
After he left Marvel, his Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, and The Question pushed his broader style even further. His T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents work, too. This style reached its peak with Hawk and Dove, and Creeper.
[Some artists work better small. Some artists work better big.]
His work for Witzend included some gag pages, and, of course, Mr A.
Then, his '70s work. Shade the Changing Man. Starman. The return to Marvel. Machine Man. Captain Universe. Fill-in work on various series: Hulk, F.F., etc.
I think it was in the '80s, when Charlton reprinted some of Ditko's 1950s series, Mysterious Stranger. That was excellent work. Snyder has reprinted some of the Charlton Konga stuff. Konga was earlier reprinted, along with Gorgo, in the Fantastic Giants one-shot, 1966. I have not seen his pre- Spider-Man Captain Atom for Charlton.
Then there were all those little stories he did for ACG in the '60s, usually inked by whatsizname.
The Warren stuff we already talked about, amazing work.
Let's not forget his work for Archie's Red Circle in the '80s. The Fly, and his own character, that Snyder has reprinted.
quote:Originally posted by Erik Larsen: I'm also a bit shocked that EC Comics could get away with keeping art and then selling it years later and only give the artists a fraction of the money. How is THAT fair?
As far as I know the original art was purchased at the time of submission to EC, as spelled out in the contract to produce it, and for which the artists received a higher than industry standard page rate.
Frazetta accepted a lower rate for some of his covers in return for being able to keep the originals. A very smart long term decision, as it turns out.
Whether you think the share they received was fair -- and I have no idea what percent of the sale price the artists got -- is a matter of opinion. My understanding is that EC owed the artists exactly 0% of the proceeds. At least legally. So when they sent the artists some of those sale proceeds, that speaks to a desire to make things not just legal, but fair.
Getting back to Marvel artwork, this has been discussed at length, and repeatedly among art collectors I know. To summarize (and admittedly gloss over some nuance)...
Ditko art: Almost certainly stolen from Marvel warehouses, as was art drawn by many other artists.
Status of ownership of the pages at the time it was stolen: Ambiguous. Good arguments are made for them being the artists' property, but even though I find those arguments compelling, it's mostly 20/20 hindsight. Most artists and companies seemed to believe that the companies owned the originals, at least at the time the pages were drawn, and also at the time they were stolen.
Marvel's concern about this: Almost none. As far as anyone knows no police reports got filed, and nobody was pursued for owning or purchasing stolen goods.
Ditko's concern about this: Exactly none. 15 years ago -- after purchasing a page before I knew it was likely stolen -- I wrote him and specifically asked what he wanted me to do with it. Though it would have been (financially) painful I was willing to give it to him or send him money...whatever he wanted. And he wrote back. He doesn't want the art back, and doesn't care if you own it or sell it or use it as a cutting board the next time you slice tomatoes for a sandwich. (Context exaggerated for humorous effect, but that's basically what he does with the originals that are returned to him.)
[Edited to correct a typo that made a sentence unclear.]
-------------------- Jim Ottaviani :: http://www.gt-labs.com Comics about scientists? What a dangerous experiment! Posts: 95 | From: Ann Arbor, MI USA | Registered: Dec 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim wrote: "Ditko art: Almost certainly stolen from Marvel warehouses, as was art drawn by many other artists."
Unless it was thrown away as ronfrantz's anecdote attests. Granted, it is simply an anecdote that ronfrantz has passed along without representing it as anything more than that, but we have as much hard evidence for its occurence as we do for the art's being pilfered by employees. I imagine that both probably took place over the years, and that's one of the circumstances that makes it hard to label a Ditko purchase "stolen."
Posts: 5910 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if there was even the slightest chance, (and this looks like it may have easily been more than slightly), wouldn't you want to know, if it was you who bought it????
Posts: 5260 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ronfrantz: It seems odd that only the Ditko or Jack Kirby Marvel art pages have become objects of controversy. For example, when was the last time you heard of anyone kicking up a fuss over the ownership of a Al Hartley "Millie the Model" or a Jack Keller cowboy page. No one seems to care. Much of the same seems to apply to pages by Don Heck, Dick Ayers or a dozen others I could name. It shouldn't make a lick of difference, but it does.
I know this is a Ditko thread (and he is a genius) but don't forget each artist has his/her rabid fans who do care about their work. I would kill for some original art by Don Heck.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ronfrantz: It seems odd that only the Ditko or Jack Kirby Marvel art pages have become objects of controversy. For example, when was the last time you heard of anyone kicking up a fuss over the ownership of a Al Hartley "Millie the Model" or a Jack Keller cowboy page. No one seems to care. Much of the same seems to apply to pages by Don Heck, Dick Ayers or a dozen others I could name. It shouldn't make a lick of difference, but it does.
I know this is a Ditko thread (and he is a genius) but don't forget each artist has his/her rabid fans who do care about their work. I would kill for some original art by Don Heck.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it SHOULDN'T make a "lick of difference." I do think Ditko is a much more accomplished artist, though there's nothing that automatically says that Reader A is a dope if he likes Hartley or Heck or Ayers better. But whether one likes Ditko or not, it seems to me demonstrable that the greater fannish interest in his work stems from his ability to make his fictive world unique. Even John Romita Sr. noted that he didn't think his own work, when he followed Ditko on SPIDEY, posssessed that hard-to-isolate quality.
Posts: 5910 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: [QUOTE]Incredible Hulk #6. I own two pages of art from that.
Since Ditko doesn't sell his artwork and that artwork was likely stolen--you might not want to advertise that.
I don't see why not. This wasn't obtained at a convention from a dealer named Shifty who had it stashed under his table. It was part of a major art auction that was held at Sotheby's (or Christie's; one of those big auction houses.) I couldn't have bought it under more public circumstances.
PAD
So...you're saying it's perfectly legal and ethical to knowingly buy stolen goods as long as there are enough people witnessing the transaction?
Interesting.
I'm not convinced that's how the law works.
If I stole your car and sold it in front of a huge crowd of people--I'm pretty sure it would be within your rights to have me arrested. I'm pretty sure it would be within your rights to get your car back. Just because Sotheby's (or Christie's) neglected to check and see that the artwork in question was purchased from its rightful owner in the first place doesn't make the transaction legal or fair.
You may feel fine about purchasing and possessing stolen goods. It may be that you think that the ends justify the means. Having been a guy that has had art stolen (or simply never returned) I don't think that what you've done is something laudable--or something to crow about. You clearly feel otherwise.
The fact that you're attributing intonation and tone to flat out statements indicates you're far less interested in morality than you are about sniping at me, Erik...which is, let's face it, par for the course when it comes to you.
I mean, to use your tactics of distortion, I could cite your first comment about how I shouldn't "advertise" that I own the artwork by saying, "Oh, so you're saying that obtaining artwork that you claim is stolen is acceptable as long as you keep it to yourself."
You're attributing the most negative, scurrilous actions and motivations to something that was perfectly neutral: People were discussing favorite Ditko stories, I cited my favorite and mentioned in passing that I had two pages of art...art that was sold years ago through a reputable auction house via a major auction. I had no reason to think that the artwork was obtained through anything other than legit means. I still don't. I should take whose word? Yours? Considering your track record of being far more interested in trying to paint me in the worst possible light, I don't think I'll be doing that.
You insinuated I had obtained them through shady means (rather than, say, asking neutrally how I'd come by them.) I replied that I obtained them in a public and above-board manner through a public auction. Your response? To make more snide and snotty insinuations.
So please don't act as if you're interested in anything other than trying to smear me. I really thought you'd outgrown that. Obviously not.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to the rest of you, I want you to consider something: Here I didn't respond to Erik beyond my initial comments because I didn't feel like getting into yet another pissing match with him. Why give him more grist for his mill? So what was the response? People expressed disappointment in my silence and used it to launch condemnation.
In the world of the internet, stay and slug it out for ten rounds and fans feast on the spectacle while making snarky comments and acting in a superior fashion. Decide not to feed the fan appetite for such things and somehow you've surrendered the moral high ground.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: In the world of the internet, stay and slug it out for ten rounds and fans feast on the spectacle while making snarky comments and acting in a superior fashion. Decide not to feed the fan appetite for such things and somehow you've surrendered the moral high ground.
.
And that is the world of the internet. Fascinating. Write about it.
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: And to the rest of you, I want you to consider something: Here I didn't respond to Erik beyond my initial comments because I didn't feel like getting into yet another pissing match with him. Why give him more grist for his mill? So what was the response? People expressed disappointment in my silence and used it to launch condemnation.
Quoted from my post of 1/12/07 on this thread.
quote:The fact of the matter is that it would be nice if Peter responded with a full accounting of his thoughts and intentions. I'm with you there. But his not doing so isn't a just cause for making the leap to presume that he's being immoral, which it seems that you're doing. I don't agree with all of his opinions, and at times I think that he's both too defensive and too prickly, but I also think that he has a clear record of acting with integrity. I've never seen any indication that he's willing to lie, cheat or be in any way morally ambiguous.
This isn't defense?
Posts: 2178 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to the rest of you, I want you to consider something: Here I didn't respond to Erik beyond my initial comments because I didn't feel like getting into yet another pissing match with him. Why give him more grist for his mill? So what was the response? People expressed disappointment in my silence and used it to launch condemnation.
In the world of the internet, stay and slug it out for ten rounds and fans feast on the spectacle while making snarky comments and acting in a superior fashion. Decide not to feed the fan appetite for such things and somehow you've surrendered the moral high ground.
Maybe you should've read more of this thread. Many (most, in fact) of us did no such thing. You're too inclined to play the creator victim in this ongoing mental struggle with "fans" (a term which encourages the sort of dialogue you seem to find yourself in). It was one of your fellow "pros" who started this stuff, yet you still go on about "fans." As best I remember, only one of your fans decided to condemn you based on your ignoring Eric's comments and other fans and nonfans either withheld any reprobation or defended you against that one (former?) fan. Clearly, your "fans" are some lower species of reasoning needing your constant lecturing on civility or whatever else, so if that's whom you choose to talk with online and how you view them, what do you expect?
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 7110 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: In the world of the internet, stay and slug it out for ten rounds and fans feast on the spectacle while making snarky comments and acting in a superior fashion. Decide not to feed the fan appetite for such things and somehow you've surrendered the moral high ground.
.
And that is the world of the internet. Fascinating. Write about it.
.
Oh, I have...most recently in FNSM #5, a story that many on the internet absolutely despised (although there were indeed enough self-aware internet denizens who found such indignation to be both telling and amusing.)
What's fascinating is that people love to comment on this supposed reputation I have for getting into feuds and fights. Consider: All I did was contribute a posting to a thread about Steve Ditko . I wasn't looking for any problems, wasn't seeking out a fight. Next thing I know I'm the subject of three pages of discussion (being judged both for my words and lack of words) and two (and probably more) internet columns from Erik. All of which will naturally be boiled down in the retelling to "Did'ja hear Peter David got into another squabble with Erik Larsen?" "Jeez, what the hell is David's PROBLEM? Shouldn't he be off writing comic books instead of fighting with people?"
Next time fans wonder why John Byrne decided to bag the internet and retreat to a single cyberrealm where he could control everything, they might want to consider that maybe he just didn't feel like dealing with situations such as this anymore. I don't know that I'd follow suit...but I can certainly see the logic.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: And to the rest of you, I want you to consider something: Here I didn't respond to Erik beyond my initial comments because I didn't feel like getting into yet another pissing match with him. Why give him more grist for his mill? So what was the response? People expressed disappointment in my silence and used it to launch condemnation.
Quoted from my post of 1/12/07 on this thread.
quote:The fact of the matter is that it would be nice if Peter responded with a full accounting of his thoughts and intentions. I'm with you there. But his not doing so isn't a just cause for making the leap to presume that he's being immoral, which it seems that you're doing. I don't agree with all of his opinions, and at times I think that he's both too defensive and too prickly, but I also think that he has a clear record of acting with integrity. I've never seen any indication that he's willing to lie, cheat or be in any way morally ambiguous.
This isn't defense?
Yes, it is, and a very spirited one, and much appreciated. Which is why I said "people" rather than "everybody."
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I'd rather hear about Steve Ditko. Now THERE is one fascinating fellow, if his work is any indication. I wonder what kind of person he is.
.
I saw him exactly one time, back when I was working at the Marvel offices. Word was spreading like wildfire that Ditko was in the house, and I saw him go past me at one point. But I was too nervous to go up and say anything, and he seemed pretty fixed on getting to whatever his destination was.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to the rest of you, I want you to consider something: Here I didn't respond to Erik beyond my initial comments because I didn't feel like getting into yet another pissing match with him. Why give him more grist for his mill? So what was the response? People expressed disappointment in my silence and used it to launch condemnation.
In the world of the internet, stay and slug it out for ten rounds and fans feast on the spectacle while making snarky comments and acting in a superior fashion. Decide not to feed the fan appetite for such things and somehow you've surrendered the moral high ground.
Maybe you should've read more of this thread. Many (most, in fact) of us did no such thing. You're too inclined to play the creator victim in this ongoing mental struggle with "fans" (a term which encourages the sort of dialogue you seem to find yourself in). It was one of your fellow "pros" who started this stuff, yet you still go on about "fans." As best I remember, only one of your fans decided to condemn you based on your ignoring Eric's comments and other fans and nonfans either withheld any reprobation or defended you against that one (former?) fan. Clearly, your "fans" are some lower species of reasoning needing your constant lecturing on civility or whatever else, so if that's whom you choose to talk with online and how you view them, what do you expect?
You know what?
You're absolutely right.
I've reread the entire thread with a cooler eye and realize that your assessment is far more accurate and fair than mine. I let my annoyance with Erik color my reading of the whole thing, and I should not have done so.
My posting on the matter was unfair to the vast majority of commenters on this thread, and I apologize.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I never really cared. It was interesting to see two opinionated pros open fire at each other; and I was curious to see if Erik Larsen would back off his fairly serious accusation with a little poking, which he did, finally admitting that he wasn't sure Peter David "knowingly" did anything wrong. Larsen even sounded halfway sympathetic to David for a while there in his responses.
I was actually rather impressed that Peter David dropped the squabble and turned his attention to other things.
Now I'm curious what brought him back to this thread one full week after anyone mentioned him.
And PAD, I'd think twice before pulling a John Byrne and withdrawing to cult-leader isolation on a bizarre, angry Web site. I can't say it's done wonders for JB's career, that Web site.
Posts: 6237 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
