quote:But I question you sidestepping the moral question to focus on my alleged "sniping." I think that the moral question is a legitimate one and I would have raised the same points to anybody that had posted here crowing about trafficking stolen goods
I still don't get your moral conclusion - If an artist blows snot into a rag is that intellectual property or in the case when a work for hire blows snot on to someone else's rags whose property is it? All of your moral deductions derive from 'it is what the artist says it is' and in this case the artist has spoken it isn't art to him. If anything 'what the artist says' sounds pretty Nazi-like in its dictates simply because not every exchange is either a price paid or theft as much as an artists may wish such a morality were so. I guess it burns anyone to realize after the fact to find out that something that one no longer has if now worth money. It’s a legitimate wish but a wish all the same.
-------------------- "The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us." (Paul Valery) Posts: 3478 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the person who started this thread, I am thrilled that two top creators, Peter David and Erik Larsen, have weighed in on their favorite Ditko art and stories. I'm also glad they are both regulars on this board - they have enlivened many discussions, including this one.
I also think the question of what happened with Silver Age art, and who really owns it, is an interesting question worthy of discussion on this board. I doubt this art was "stolen" in the true sense of the word. Most likely, it was given away at one point, because it was perceived to have no value. Does it rightfully belong to the artist who drew it and gave it away, or to the fan who bought it? Steranko's current comments in The PULSE highlight this important issue.
However, it's a little depressing to see two creators whose work I so admire going at it. I buy both Savage Dragon AND almost all Peter David's books. One day, I'd even like to see a story written by PAD and drawn by Erik.
Posts: 1561 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter David on Savage Dragon? that would be cooler than when Neil Gaiman wrote Spawn...
Posts: 5002 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To quote Josiah Bartlett, Erik, your indignation would be a lot more interesting to me if it weren't quite so covered in crap.
What if Maggie Thompson or Carol Kalish had said something to me about it? Well, first of all, they wouldn't have taken a simple comment on my part about owning two pages of artwork, characterized it in the most negative manner possible ("bragging, boasting, crowing",) and turned it into fodder for not one, but two internet columns. At most, they would have contacted me privately and spoken to me about it because they don't have any sort of agenda. Your claims that you're not flogging this issue in an attempt to characterize me in the worst possible manner don't exactly ring true.
I find it staggering that you seem to have grown such an impressive set of moral cajones. Now me...I personally feel far more indignation over creators who offer other creators lucrative deals, then turn around and screw them and--when called on it--challenge said creators to sue them in order to get what was promised. I feel far more indignation over creators who step over the bodies of friends in order to get gigs. But that might just be me. No need to take that personally, of course. It's just a moral question I thought was legitimate and should be brought up.
Moral questions. Please. Where's the moral indignation over the simple fact that artists make thousands upon thousands of dollars selling artwork based on the intellectual property of writers? When all the Marvel pages were returned to the artists, I didn't see any being sent to the writers. The writers produced the stories. Created the characters. Wrote the dialogue. Their intellectual property is throughout the work. And their words and characters and concepts are making up a lucrative ancillary market from which the pencillers benefit and the inkers benefit and the writers get zip. Perhaps the reason I'm not getting all that worked up about the moral ramifications vis a vis artists' rights is that artists, for the most part, don't even acknowledge that writers *should* have rights. In the twenty years that I've been writing comics, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of artists who have taken it upon themselves to regularly give me pages from our collaborations. I don't see anyone stating that Stan Lee should get pages of artwork; does anyone claim that Stan Lee was any less instrumental in the success of Marvel Comics than the artists with whom he worked? I sure don't.
I simply refuse to feel guilty over my ownership of two pages of art that I bought in good faith in a public auction and that no one in the previous chain of ownership has expressed the slightest interest in. If Steve Ditko came to me and said he wanted them, that's a different story. Hell, if Stan came to me, that would also be a different story. But you, Erik? No. No, not so much.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bring Back Zot: However, it's a little depressing to see two creators whose work I so admire going at it. I buy both Savage Dragon AND almost all Peter David's books.
Bring Back Zot, the First Amendment guarantees Erik Larsen and Peter David the right to engage in battle on the bloody field of Comicon!
How dare you, sir!
That tears it, I'm dropping ZOT! from my pull list.
Posts: 5957 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I'm done with this subject. I've said all that I can reasonably say on it, and see no reason to provide Erik Larsen more grist for distorted commentary.
PAD
Posts: 855 | From: NY, NY | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall Stan selling an entire issue of Ditko Spider-Man for a pretty hefty figure, so he is probably a poor example in this case. Furthermore, Ditko surely did as much "writing" on a lot, perhaps most of the Spidey's.
And autographed scripts surely have some value - part of which is due to the work of the artist.
Contrary to statements here, there are precious few facts in evidence regarding this subject. Until some court settles the question, which no court has, the questions remain, no matter how poorly they might be asked.
There are no legal facts in evidence regarding the provinence of most artwork from the era under "discussion" here. I hope this will be settled. I hope that reasonable discussion will continue and the various points will be examined.
As much as I love a good spat, I don't think this spat between Erik and Peter is a "good" one. I hope y'all can chill out a little and stick to the questions/views.
I repeat, this issue is not settled morally, let alone legally. And it never will be if the discussions go the way this one has went. Which is a shame.
Posts: 1114 | From: Las Vegas Nevada USA | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter, I really think Erik's point stemmed much more from asking rhetorically about how Steve Ditko artwork could have gotten into someone's hands when Ditko was almost certainly not the legitimate source of the transaction. If this were a Kirby thread and you had posted about two pages of Kirby's "Hulk" you had, I doubt Erik would have said anything, because Kirby did care for his art, and sold a lot of pages, even though many others were stolen from Marvel's warehouse as well.
I know, you're done with the subject, I just wanted to say that.
quote:Originally posted by Erik Larsen: yet somewhere a thief got away with stealing and has profited from that and that doesn't seem to bother anybody. That strikes me as strange.
Don't worry, I've called Batman. He'll set things right.
"I think ChrisW is the funniest man in entertainment still alive..." -- the perceptive Tom Spurgeon Posts: 8573 | From: Lincoln, Nebraska USA | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: Where's the moral indignation over the simple fact that artists make thousands upon thousands of dollars selling artwork based on the intellectual property of writers? PAD
Ha! This statement might have some bite if it weren't coming from someone with a comic career based overwhelmingly on working with other writers' "intellectual property". You're no Dave Sim, Mr. David.
Mike
Posts: 1589 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"rhetorically about how Steve Ditko artwork could have gotten into someone's hands when Ditko was almost certainly not the legitimate source of the transaction."
That's the thing with rhetorical questions, they can be as off base to the point of being absurd YET we are asked to take them seriously.
For example: A certain artist chases down eBay offerings of convention drawings and refuses to do anymore sketches does that make him a tight-ass over his work because he isn't seeing the money for it? What are the personal ethics of such? What are fans to think of artists that insist on "personalizing" signed work in a ploy to limit resale? It would seem that such artists should be boycotted because they are acting like bookies insisting on the Vig.
-------------------- "The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us." (Paul Valery) Posts: 3478 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-height: That's the thing with rhetorical questions, they can be as off base to the point of being absurd YET we are asked to take them seriously.
Actually, I think the dispute between PAD (it's not theft if the original owner/creator doesn't care about it) and Erik Larsen (it's theft whether anyone cares about it or not) is sort of interesting as message board urination matches go.
Mike
Posts: 1589 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: To quote Josiah Bartlett...your indignation would be a lot more interesting to me if it weren't quite so covered in crap.
West Wing, A Few Good Men, Studio 60, The American President, and Sports Night (in order).
Oops. Sorry, thought this was the "Aaron Sorkin Question" thread. My bad. Carry on...
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: I personally feel far more indignation over creators who offer other creators lucrative deals, then turn around and screw them and--when called on it--challenge said creators to sue them in order to get what was promised. I feel far more indignation over creators who step over the bodies of friends in order to get gigs. But that might just be me. No need to take that personally, of course. It's just a moral question I thought was legitimate and should be brought up.
PAD
So Peter David is saying that Erik Larsen offered other creators lucrative deals and then turned around and screwed them, etc.? Does anybody know the facts behind that?
I've met and chatted with exactly one creator at Larsen's Image Comics -- writer Robert Kirman -- and he thought Larsen was great.
So who has Larsen screwed?
Posts: 5957 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter David: I personally feel far more indignation over creators who offer other creators lucrative deals, then turn around and screw them and--when called on it--challenge said creators to sue them in order to get what was promised. I feel far more indignation over creators who step over the bodies of friends in order to get gigs. But that might just be me. No need to take that personally, of course. It's just a moral question I thought was legitimate and should be brought up.
PAD
So Peter David is saying that Erik Larsen offered other creators lucrative deals and then turned around and screwed them, etc.? Does anybody know the facts behind that?
I've met and chatted with exactly one creator at Larsen's Image Comics -- writer Robert Kirman -- and he thought Larsen was great.
So who has Larsen screwed?
I must say I'm disappointed that Peter David hasn't returned to explain his tasteless accusation. That's it, I'm dropping Ultimate Spiderman 2099 from my pull list.
Posts: 5002 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: I must say I'm disappointed that Peter David hasn't returned to explain his tasteless accusation. That's it, I'm dropping Ultimate Spiderman 2099 from my pull list.
I must say I find such an attitude closeminded. Hey, look! My latest issue of MICHAEL JACKSON'S COMICS FOR KIDS just came in the mail! This is the big crossover with MARK FOLEY'S JUVENILE ADVENTURES!
Mike
Posts: 1589 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Peter David is saying that Erik Larsen offered other creators lucrative deals and then turned around and screwed them, etc.? Does anybody know the facts behind that?
I believe Peter referred to McFarlane's shitty treatment of other creators (in particular, Gaiman) and the lack of moral outrage on Larsen's part.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6945 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like both creators' work, but exchanges like this reduce my enjoyment.
On this issue, I'd have to say that my sympathy is more with Larsen. PAD's bringing up other injustices reminds me of my mom telling me that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that there are other moral issues means that this one gets a pass? I don't think so.
And it's a good point that the issue of stolen art is not a recent issue, and is one that PAD should be acutely aware of given his work with Marvel when the Kirby art issue arose.
But I am interested in the issues PAD brings up,even so.
In a legal sense, the companies now realize that they purchase only reproduction rights, and return the materials to the creators. It seems inappropriate for the company to insist on the power to determine how to split those materials when they are returned*.
For what it's worth, I think that it is only right that the writer and artists share in what they have created together - but how that sharing is determined should be between them. In the absence of an agreement otherwise, it seems reasonable that each party should retain the raw material they themselves worked on - the writer keeps the script, the artist keeps the art, and the colorist keeps the colors.
Posts: 414 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the absence of an agreement otherwise, it seems reasonable that each party should retain the raw material they themselves worked on - the writer keeps the script, the artist keeps the art, and the colorist keeps the colors.
But, in most cases, the artist's work is based entirely on the contribution of the writer. (Yes, there are exceptions where the plot is the work of the artist or is a co-creation, but overwhelmingly, the story the artist tells in pictures was told first by the writer in words.)
And the art, being a one-of-a-kind thing, has far more value than the script, which--in these days of computers--can be reproduced ad infinitum so that there is no particular value to such an item, except if it is marked up by the artist or editor, thus indicating it is the "working copy," so to speak.
This would not be an issue, of course, if there were no "after-market" for art (there's really not much of one for scripts, honestly), and if the artist were not already paid at a much higher page rate (again, in general) than the writer.
-------------------- Best, Pat Posts: 3023 | From: PA, USA | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pat ONeill: But, in most cases, the artist's work is based entirely on the contribution of the writer.
And for the overwhelming majority of work-for-hire, super-hero comics, the writer's work is largely based on the contributions of other writers and artists. When Peter David killed off Jim Wilson in his Hulk "Aids issue", did he throw a couple of bucks Roy Thomas' way?
Mike
Posts: 1589 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And for the overwhelming majority of work-for-hire, super-hero comics, the writer's work is largely based on the contributions of other writers and artists. When Peter David killed off Jim Wilson in his Hulk "Aids issue", did he throw a couple of bucks Roy Thomas' way?
Since the copyright and trademark of Hulk and related characters belongs to Marvel, not to any writer or artist, and Marvel may assign whom it pleases to produce stories about those characters, the question is beside the point.
We're talking here about physical property not intellectual property. And the physical property of the art pages for a comic book could not (most of the time) exist if it were not for the contribution--descriptions of scenes and characters--of the writer.
-------------------- Best, Pat Posts: 3023 | From: PA, USA | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pat ONeill: Since the copyright and trademark of Hulk and related characters belongs to Marvel, not to any writer or artist, and Marvel may assign whom it pleases to produce stories about those characters, the question is beside the point.
We're talking here about physical property not intellectual property. And the physical property of the art pages for a comic book could not (most of the time) exist if it were not for the contribution--descriptions of scenes and characters--of the writer.
But in the case of work-for-hire books, the writer's contribution to that physical property is intellectual property that is owned by the publisher. Saying the writer is morally or ethically entitled to any money when the artist sells the original artwork would be like saying the publisher deserved some money when the writer sold the original script (notwithstanding the lack of a market for said script).
In the world of creator-owned books, where the writer hires the artist and the artist does not share in any ownership of the book, there may be a legitimate issue there. But the writer would need to spell out contractually what if any claim he would make to the original artwork and the artist would have to agree.
Mike
Posts: 1589 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PAD's bringing up other injustices reminds me of my mom telling me that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that there are other moral issues means that this one gets a pass?
What exactly Albertson is that injustice? For all the wordy innuendo that Mr. Larson has thrown around about theft and being responsible his facts blow apart like wet tissue. The only item that we get that stands up is that pages disappeared for Marvel offices and the sage advice of 'if found please return to owner.'
Legal owner or some even vaguer notion of moral owner? We only know from his opinions about the sacred qualities of veneration toward every drop of sweat poured into every artist's scribble upon the page. So our crusader for justice and demi-truth has taken to this battle to protect what? The Marvel patrimony and collection? The absolute right of the artist to the re-sale of work as original art?
-------------------- "The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us." (Paul Valery) Posts: 3478 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't torch the comics Lawson. Do what I did. Sell the comics and cut checks for a large part of the money to Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby (I sold my FF's too). I suggest you keep half and send them half.
I figure, the reason the comics went up in value is because of their genius. Unlike Marvel, who wouldn't adequately compensate Jack and Steve for their creations beyond their initial agreement, I am glad that I have, and without pressure from Gary Groth or anyone else.
It's the right thing to do, and we all know it. I am glad Lee sued Marvel's butts off, successfully, and I am glad that he is a millionaire many times over. But that doesn't mean that I, who live in a tenament with pimps and pushers, won't give him just compensation for his creations.
-------------------- Jeez, granfalloon, that longer post above might be one of the most thoughtful, best written things I've ever read on Comicon. --Lawson Posts: 483 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lawson is showing a complete lack of character and morality by not burning issues 25-38 of his AMAZING SPIDER-MAN collection. In protest I think that we all should burn any computer screens where his work has been viewed.
Posts: 2103 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-height: PAD's bringing up other injustices reminds me of my mom telling me that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that there are other moral issues means that this one gets a pass?
What exactly Albertson is that injustice? For all the wordy innuendo that Mr. Larson has thrown around about theft and being responsible his facts blow apart like wet tissue. The only item that we get that stands up is that pages disappeared for Marvel offices and the sage advice of 'if found please return to owner.'
Legal owner or some even vaguer notion of moral owner? We only know from his opinions about the sacred qualities of veneration toward every drop of sweat poured into every artist's scribble upon the page. So our crusader for justice and demi-truth has taken to this battle to protect what? The Marvel patrimony and collection? The absolute right of the artist to the re-sale of work as original art?
The injustice is that Steve Ditko did not receivbe his property back.
I don't particularly care why Larsen may be pursuing this. The question is a good one, no matter who brought it up. And I suspect if someone that PAD doesn't have a pre-existing dislike for had brought it up his reaction would have been a bit less knee-jerk.
There was a general recognition in the 1980's after the Kirby art issue (which is well documented) that indeed, the original art belongs to the artist unless specific provisions were made . There was also a recognition that a lot of art had been stolen from the Marvel warehouse. There is a strong possibility that the art in question is among those pieces, given that no one knows of any instance in which Steve Ditko has given away or sold his original art.
So yes, I do see an injustice in that Ditko never got his art back. And bringing up other issues, like whether writers should get a share of the art back or not, although a position that I in general agree with, doesn't change that injustice.
Posts: 414 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-height: For all the wordy innuendo that Mr. Larson has thrown around about theft and being responsible his facts blow apart like wet tissue.
I don't think "innuendo" is the word you want here. You might try "supposition" as I think there was no indirect intimation or even of a disparaging or a derogatory comment. Hell it wasn't even insinuation, imputation, or a direct intimation. It was pretty much a direct supposition. If Mr. Ditko never sells his art, then any Ditko art in a private collection, would be suspect of having at one point being stolen. Anecdotal evidence regarding people stealing unguarded pages just tends to lend credence to any supposition of this kind.
quote:Originally posted by X-height: We only know from his opinions about the sacred qualities of veneration toward every drop of sweat poured into every artist's scribble upon the page.
Are you opposed to the veneration of Steve Ditko or artists in general, or just the sweat?
This makes you sound as if you have very little respect for artists, plus it makes you sound like a pompous fop.
quote:Originally posted by X-height: So our crusader for justice and demi-truth has taken to this battle to protect what? The Marvel patrimony and collection? The absolute right of the artist to the re-sale of work as original art?
Artists shouldn't have a right to sell work AS original art?
And what is the "Marvel Patrimony and collection," the historic "absolute right" of Marvel office staff to steal art from the archives?
Posts: 5002 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by X-height: For all the wordy innuendo that Mr. Larson has thrown around about theft and being responsible his facts blow apart like wet tissue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think "innuendo" is the word you want here. You might try "supposition" as I think there was no indirect intimation or even of a disparaging or a derogatory comment. Hell it wasn't even insinuation, imputation, or a direct intimation. It was pretty much a direct supposition. If Mr. Ditko never sells his art, then any Ditko art in a private collection, would be suspect of having at one point being stolen. Anecdotal evidence regarding people stealing unguarded pages just tends to lend credence to any supposition of this kind.
The wet tissue being the assumption that all art created by Ditko belongs to Ditko. Not so. To even call them unguarded pages in the Marvel office is to deal in "innuendo" as though they were considered some treasure trove which would be attribution after the fact.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by X-height: We only know from his opinions about the sacred qualities of veneration toward every drop of sweat poured into every artist's scribble upon the page. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you opposed to the veneration of Steve Ditko or artists in general, or just the sweat?
This makes you sound as if you have very little respect for artists, plus it makes you sound like a pompous fop.
The foppishness is direct proportion to the disproportiate indignation over the issue. Respect for the artist or artists ends at being concerned about the resale value of their work for hire.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by X-height: So our crusader for justice and demi-truth has taken to this battle to protect what? The Marvel patrimony and collection? The absolute right of the artist to the re-sale of work as original art? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artists shouldn't have a right to sell work AS original art?
And what is the "Marvel Patrimony and collection," the historic "absolute right" of Marvel office staff to steal art from the archives?
Art sold once then sold again is generally called resold. I don’t hear any cries about Marvel's loss
-------------------- "The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us." (Paul Valery) Posts: 3478 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IvanJim: Lawson is showing a complete lack of character and morality by not burning issues 25-38 of his AMAZING SPIDER-MAN collection. In protest I think that we all should burn any computer screens where his work has been viewed.
How dare you!
Just for that, I'm going to dig up, set fire to and melt all the fiber optic cables around the world that have carried signals to and from this Web site.
...
Christ, it's going to be a long weekend.
Posts: 5957 | From: Lexington, Ky. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
