quote:Originally posted by MBunge: Oh, I wouldn't argue he's not trying to get under PAD's skin now. I'm just not sure that was his initial intention. Once he and PAD started going back and forth, that's one thing. But did Erik Larsen chime in on the legal status of Ditko's art in the first place only or primarily to take a shot at PAD? I don't think so. As an artist, he's probably sensitive to the stolen art thing and didn't like to see a writer trying to diminish the issue.
Once two or more folks start going at it, it's not fair to single one side out unless they were clearly just trolling for an argument. I'm not sure that's true of Larsen in this case, but I could be wrong.
Mike
When Eric changed the tenor of the thread to point out Peter's moral failings and to give him "friendly" advice, it seemed clear to me that this was a "gotcha" moment and not friendly advice.
That may be true, but that chance in tenor came AFTER Peter David tried to completely avoid the moral or ethical questions regarding possibly stolen art. If PAD had responded with "I don't care if the art was stolen 40 years ago or not", that would be one thing. But he tried to deny that the whole stolen art thing was something he should think about at all. I believe his response was that since he didn't buy the art out of the back of a guy's van, there's nothing to worry about. That's not the same as stating that you don't care about whether the art was stolen, that's more like saying it's not your responsibility to care if the art was stolen.
Which isn't to try and twist this around to try and blame PAD. I'm not sure he really should have to worry if those Ditko pages were stolen from Marvel 30 years ago. But I can understand how Erik Larsen might find that attitude objectionable and want to make the argument a little more pointed.
Mike
Posts: 1654 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Confusing? Simply to those with a rigid concept of ownership placed upon materials which have been stated time and again to be nebulous. Not every exchange is a sale. Impute as much as you like with laundering and rights but let's stay with the specific here and not the blunderbuss shots at other practices.
Disrespect? I think it quite respectful that artists be aware at all times of the downside of work for hire and who owns your work. We regard such past light approaches to the legacy of work as tragic but legal.
No one seems to question either that such 'resale' also constitutes trade in trademarked materials. Does anyone doubt that between two pages of Ditko art that one featuring a Marvel character commands more money? In the process of buying 'original' art we consider the artist in question only, are we NOT neglecting that such value ALSO derives form the content?
What the hell is a blunderbuss in this? It sounds like your implying that artists ownership of art, in itself, is stealing from the company.
I’m not and I don’t think any one other that you have issues with LEGAL sales. The only likely crime here is someone at Marvel possibly turning a blind eye to what was considered petty office theft?
The question at hand is regarding legally purchasing art at auction which may or may not have been originally stolen before the artist was able to take possesion, and if that should or should not matter to a current owner.
And so what if a page with a known and popular character has a higher value than one that doesn’t feature one? Are you suggesting Marvel should get a piece of EVERY page EVERY time it changes hand? Well in the open marketplace, when a page of art is being sold, it’s value depends on many things including the characters, that’s just the way it is.
quote:Originally posted by X-height: You don't have to be some sort of default Randian to a grasp the fairness of that comes from working on material you don't own. Many are familiar in the course of their own lives with working for someone else.
No one should ever try to negotaite better deals within the workplace, because it’s disrespectfull to your boss? People who work for someone else never get raises, acknowledgment royalties, or any sort of compensation or perks?
So how do you feel about the potentially sizable portion of profits from the Smallville TV program the Siegels are likely to receive? Not to mention The Legion cartoon featuring "a young Superman" to avoid any potential payments to the Siegels. Pesky people using the law to revisit existing agreements, how dare they!
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't have to be some sort of default Randian to a grasp the fairness of that comes from working on material you don't own. Many are familiar in the course of their own lives with working for someone else.
We're not arguing about whether Ditko owns Spider-man, but whether he owns the original art whence the comic was produced. Unless Marvel's ownership of those pages was explicitly stated in his agreement with the company, then the pages were his for the asking.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 7113 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charles Reece: We're not arguing about whether Ditko owns Spider-man, but whether he owns the original art whence the comic was produced. Unless Marvel's ownership of those pages was explicitly stated in his agreement with the company, then the pages were his for the asking.
Is that the default status in a work-for-hire relationship like that? If I hired a guy to paint a portrait of me, my girlfriend or my dog, I own that portrait. If a publisher hires an artist to create pages of art, why doesn't that original art belong to the publisher? I'm not sure I quite grasp the idea of publishers just buying the right to reproduce that art. I'm not saying artists don't deserve their original art, I'm just not sure I understand how publishers pay an artist to create pages of art but then not own those actual pages.
Mike
Posts: 1654 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MBunge: Is that the default status in a work-for-hire relationship like that? If I hired a guy to paint a portrait of me, my girlfriend or my dog, I own that portrait. If a publisher hires an artist to create pages of art, why doesn't that original art belong to the publisher?
Actually, it's been my experience that it's the default. If (my) client wants the original art (past the *first time* publishing rights), that's an additional arrangement. As far as your portrait goes, it's apples and oranges: Publishers aren't paying for something to hang on their walls, they're paying for something they can print a bunch of copies of, and then sell.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ownership of a copyright in a work is not the same as ownership of the work itself. You can sell your original work of art, while keeping the copyright which gives you the exclusive right to to copy, publically distribute or perform the work or prepare derivative works based upon the original. These rights come in existence upon the creation of the work.
If the work is a "work for hire," it is the property of the client or employer and the creator or artist shall have no rights whatsoever in the work. Even if some third person reproduced the work without the consent of the copyright owner, the artist would have no right to prevent such use if he created a work for hire, since that right belongs only to the client or employer.
just the reverse Tuck your contract must have that proviso. "No work prepared by Artist for Client, pursuant to this or any other agreement, shall be considered a work for hire as defined by sections 101 and 201(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976."
-------------------- "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: 3535 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't have to be some sort of default Randian to a grasp the fairness of that comes from working on material you don't own. Many are familiar in the course of their own lives with working for someone else.
We're not arguing about whether Ditko owns Spider-man, but whether he owns the original art whence the comic was produced. Unless Marvel's ownership of those pages was explicitly stated in his agreement with the company, then the pages were his for the asking.
I don't know that any of these guys were signing much of anything in regard to a voucher loaded with legal mumbo jumbo.
quote:Originally posted by MBunge: Is that the default status in a work-for-hire relationship like that? If I hired a guy to paint a portrait of me, my girlfriend or my dog, I own that portrait. If a publisher hires an artist to create pages of art, why doesn't that original art belong to the publisher?
Actually, it's been my experience that it's the default. If (my) client wants the original art (past the *first time* publishing rights), that's an additional arrangement. As far as your portrait goes, it's apples and oranges: Publishers aren't paying for something to hang on their walls, they're paying for something they can print a bunch of copies of, and then sell.
Exactly. When you get a portait painted--it's not yours to pop onto t-shirts--you own the physical art. these guys are paying for publication rights NOT the physical art.
quote:You don't have to be some sort of default Randian to a grasp the fairness of that comes from working on material you don't own. Many are familiar in the course of their own lives with working for someone else.
We're not arguing about whether Ditko owns Spider-man, but whether he owns the original art whence the comic was produced. Unless Marvel's ownership of those pages was explicitly stated in his agreement with the company, then the pages were his for the asking.
Did the company supply the physical material on which the art is drawn? If so, even if the artist provided his own pencils, etc. (which I *think* Erik said was probably the case), then there could be a case for the notion that the company had PART ownership, unless of course it was understood, contracturally or otherwise, that the artist automatically received the artboards back in addition to his monetary payment.
Posts: 5910 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's common practice these days for companies to return artwork. That's not really the issue is it does anyone other than "X" think that the companies are truly victims when they voluntarily return art to the artist?
If the companies supply boards as a courtesy, that's their decision, it probably helps expedite the process, it doesn't imply ownership.
That's like telling a photographer, not only did we buy the use of that photo in our magazine but we let you use our darkroom so we get to keep the prints.
In the non-comics world where I can claim at least some level of expertise, illustrators and photographers unless otherwise stated, own their work. Magazines only purchase the right to publish the work often for one time only, it's cost effective. Yeah, often there are agreements to not sell the use to direct competitors, but try telling someone you want all copies, and originals, but you don't want to pay anything extra for it.
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gene: "Did the company supply the physical material on which the art is drawn? If so, even if the artist provided his own pencils, etc. (which I *think* Erik said was probably the case), then there could be a case for the notion that the company had PART ownership, unless of course it was understood, contracturally or otherwise, that the artist automatically received the artboards back in addition to his monetary payment."
From the interview Blake linked to earlier:
"GARY - Does Marvel allow their artists anything in the way of supplies?
posted
It's been a while since I read it, but Ditko's essay [titled something like] "Who owns original art?" dicusses just this issue. I think the argument he makes is that the company is the 'first cause' of the art; in a sense, it is the creator that establishes all of the conditions that bring the art into being (owning the characters, hiring people, editoral direction of the story, paying the people invloved), and so it has legal rights to the physical work and its reproduction. Ditko also argues that the fact that the work is the product of numerous hands means that no one person can claim to be the creator of a product that clearly displays the efforts of many people- writer, artist, inker, letterer. The artist cannot claim to own a work that would not exist with the words of the writer or the efforts of the letterer in putting the words on the art.
So I am fairly sure that Ditko beleived he had no moral or legal claim to his art - in fact, he would likely not even call it 'his' art.
Ditko's views are not mine, but he does make a good case. I need to reread the essay, though, to make sure i am not misremebering it . . .
Posts: 375 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if the company ISN'T supplying the art boards, the ink, pencils whatever tools the artist(s) uses, what claim does the company have on the art?
Yes, many people are involved in the production of the finished product, but, if the artist paid for his supplies, gets paid to produce the art for publication only, why would the company have claim to the art boards, any more than it would a writer's laptop?
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: So if the company ISN'T supplying the art boards, the ink, pencils whatever tools the artist(s) uses, what claim does the company have on the art?
Yes, many people are involved in the production of the finished product, but, if the artist paid for his supplies, gets paid to produce the art for publication only, why would the company have claim to the art boards, any more than it would a writer's laptop?
I would certainly agree that if the company in no way supplied any raw materials to the artist, then the original art would be entirely the property of the artist, just as is the case with paintings and sculptures done for the fine-arts market.
As for Ditko's argument (going on Ken's memory), I would argue against the company as first cause, though even non-creative participants in the process (the money men) can be fairly considered as having a "creative" role insofar as figuring out strategies of marketing and the like. Both the primary creators and the producers draw on their experience and memories of What Has Worked Before and use that to figure out how to catch the lightning again. For instance, Roy Thomas fully credits the original inspiration for the reborn X-Men to a marketing guy who simply thought that a more internationally-oriented cast of heroes might be highly saleable. He may not have even specified revamping the X-Men, but that idea obviously caught fire with assorted creative personnel, some of whom were simply in the right place at the right time. But you can bet no one worries about whether or not Mr. Marketing Guy got a share of the resulting X-booty. (And no, I'm not against the idea that the creative personnel are the most important factors in changing a vague notion into a creative effort; just pointing out that creators don't necessarily come up with EVERYTHING.)
Posts: 5910 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: So if the company ISN'T supplying the art boards, the ink, pencils whatever tools the artist(s) uses, what claim does the company have on the art?
Yes, many people are involved in the production of the finished product, but, if the artist paid for his supplies, gets paid to produce the art for publication only, why would the company have claim to the art boards, any more than it would a writer's laptop?
Again, I'm arguing what I think is Ditko's position. The company was paying for the artist to deliver to them the physical art. The artist was responisble for the supplies, true, but that was the cost to him of doing business with the company.
"gets paid to produce the art for publication only"
I don't know if there was an aggreement on this question in the era we are dicussing: was it aggreed upon by both parties that it was only for publication? I don't think so, but i don't know. It's a key question, of course.
The fact that the art was so often not returned indicates that many thought that it was not just about publication rights, but about property rights that were claimed by the company.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I would certainly agree that if the company in no way supplied any raw materials to the artist, then the original art would be entirely the property of the artist, just as is the case with paintings and sculptures done for the fine-arts market."
Would it be the penciller or the inker or both who gets the art? -- both are "the artist." As is the letterer.
I would assume that most painters pay for their own supplies, just as many comic artists often did.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: So if the company ISN'T supplying the art boards, the ink, pencils whatever tools the artist(s) uses, what claim does the company have on the art?
Yes, many people are involved in the production of the finished product, but, if the artist paid for his supplies, gets paid to produce the art for publication only, why would the company have claim to the art boards, any more than it would a writer's laptop?
I don't think a laptop is the best analogy. Then, the physical art was esssential - the story could not appear unless the company had possession of the art. This is not true of a laptop or a typewriter. Maybe the actual typed script would be more analagous.
And were scripts ever returned to the writers? I would love to see what a Joe Gill script for a Ditko-drawn Charlton horror story looked like.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
And were scripts ever returned to the writers? I would love to see what a Joe Gill script for a Ditko-drawn Charlton horror story looked like.
I would too. And I think the writers should have the same rights in this case.
But why would anyone have a claim to the art boards?
Many people are involved in the creation of the final product, so they deserve whatever they negotiated, plus a proud feeling when they hold and own a copy of the finished printed product.
The guy who sells the ads, the guy who ran the press for the third party printer, all had a hand in the finished product, but the art boards are what's leftover from the artist's portion of the production. The artist's work hold's a special place, it is of value in and of itself.
An colorist as an independent contractor would run many color proofs, that would be his stuff.
The writer might have discarded early drafts, and final drafts, which are his stuff. As Ken mentions above, the scripts are quite possibly of value as well.
The production artist may have full mock-up color proofs of the book that may otherwise be discarded.
It is only that because the art itself has a proven market value, that everyone lays claim to it? You can't have it both ways. You can't have people on one hand ridicule any respect and value given to the art, and claim all have a right to it because it's the only byproduct of any value, created in the production of the finished printed product.
quote:Originally posted by X-height: [b]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?
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But why would anyone have a claim to the art boards?"
I would agree with you that they should be the property of the artist - but I think the past understanding was different, and that understanding was not made explicit in any contracts, I think . . .
Posts: 375 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: So if the company ISN'T supplying the art boards, the ink, pencils whatever tools the artist(s) uses, what claim does the company have on the art?
Yes, many people are involved in the production of the finished product, but, if the artist paid for his supplies, gets paid to produce the art for publication only, why would the company have claim to the art boards, any more than it would a writer's laptop?
A number of these questions are addressed in the link provided in my post above and the landmark dates in which in the problem were addressed in determining whether a work is made-for-hire. Stemming from "the fact that the Copyright Act does not define the term "employee." In 1989, The United States Supreme Court made a determination that the federal common law of agency, with reference to a legal treatise called the Restatement (2d) of Agency, provides the proper definition of an employee under the Copyright Act. In the recent case of Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 109 S.Ct. 2166 (1989)
Ditko Art and the early Marvel work precedes the legislation anyhow. The burden of designation of work-for-hire has shifted to the contract signed and the conditions of production. The laptop example also shows that there will be changes further as the distinction between tool and object is blurs.
I think the law continues in accord with the moral questions of ownership. Artists are protected TODAY by not becoming "employees" but by being understood as being contractors.
-------------------- "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: 3535 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happened upon this clip, it's an old CNN report on the "image" creators defecting from Marvel, but the quote that caught my attention was "...Marvel says creative people are secondary to the comic book characters."
posted
quick question Joe? Which would you pay more for a Neal Adams Batman (DC) art or his ARMOR(Continuity)art?
That rock star bit was funny but so was the Larsen with hair.
-------------------- "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: 3535 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ken: Has anyone ever seen any scripts for stories that Ditko drew? I'd really like to see them.
I'd love to see some of the (Spiderman or Dr Strange), Stan Lee scripts.
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that is sarcastic Joe about the Marvel Method; but my point has been from the beginning that both Company and Artist have their weight in the value of a work. That should be reflected in the contract not in the after the fact look the other way deals which are every bit morally dubious as the brickbat analogies that Mr. Larson offered from distant parts of life. Closer, I don't see Disney handing out cels to the design teams or animators.
-------------------- "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: 3535 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-height: I guess that is sarcastic Joe about the Marvel Method; but my point has been from the beginning that both Company and Artist have their weight in the value of a work. That should be reflected in the contract not in the after the fact look the other way deals which are every bit morally dubious as the brickbat analogies that Mr. Larson offered drawn from other parts of life.
I don't see Disney handing out cels to the design teams or animators.
"What after the fact, look the other way deals?" are we talking about, again you characterize the legal selling of art by artists as shady. It's not illegal, fine disagree with the concept, but there is nothing "look the other way" about it.
The only "look the other way" conversation was the occasional Marvel staffer helping himself to the art piles while people looked the other way.
I don't see how Disney "not" doing something proves anything. Are you saying animators don't sell sketches they made during the course of production or no artists at Disney have any acces or legal right to any of their materials? I'm seriously asking, I have no knowledge either way.
And you haven't explained your "Neal Adams Batman page" question, or why it should matter. Should a person selling a comic page, pay a royalty to the original publisher? Or should only artist's be denied the abilty to sell their property without paying for the privilege. What are you getting at?
You never answered would you think a Lieber page the same as an Adams? If the character matters why shouldn't the other factors in value matter?
The Stan Lee script? Actually it was "sarcasm" to point out how the artist contribution of artists like Ditko and Kirby were undervalued. Ironically the Marvel method empowered the artist creatively while still not rewarding the creators with any creative credit beyond their "official" roles. Not saying it was illegal or uncommon, just pointing out the carrot had no real benefits other than appealing to ones artistic freedom.
Posts: 5273 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Lee: The Stan Lee script? Actually it was "sarcasm" to point out how the artist contribution of artists like Ditko and Kirby were undervalued. Ironically the Marvel method empowered the artist creatively while still not rewarding the creators with any creative credit beyond their "official" roles. Not saying it was illegal or uncommon, just pointing out the carrot had no real benefits other than appealing to ones artistic freedom.
Really not wanting to open this can'o worms, but let's not make the mistake of und
