Who owns the art by Steve Ditko

[kav]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

[vodou]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

Works for me but I think few art collectors, including Aaron, will agree with the presumption of ownership in your example being applied to OA.

[Bronty]

Not a bad analogy at all Kav.

[Koa]

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/695/original-art-essay-ditko.jpg

 

I tried to link just the essay so hopefully it works, if not you can scroll down and find it.

 

My eyes glaze over when artists start speaking like lawyers.

 

Does steve Ditko really destroy his own artwork?

[kav]

Yes he does

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2005/09/22/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-17/

[drdroom]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

Works for me but I think few art collectors, including Aaron, will agree with the presumption of ownership in your example being applied to OA.

 

In my experience the contractor sets up the scaffolding, paints my house, takes the scaffolding away and I'm never even consulted about it! I definitely like this one better than pizza. Well, I mean, nothing is actually better than pizza, but for purposes of this analogy.

[kpaqu1]

Looks like it first appeared in Inside Comics v.1 #2 Summer 1974:

 

 

 

[desertdogg2006]

it,s clearly steve has gone batty, and he can do with what ever the heck he wants to with his artwork. but I wonder. if when the day comes that he is no longer with us. I really can see his family dumping all his art on the market at the same time.

 

what will that do to the current market price. I would think they would go down a lot with the influx of a ton of new art on the open market. ?

[Unca Ben]

If you mean by batty that he doesn't worship the almighty dollar, then you're correct.

 

Given he has only a few ASM stories in his possession, I don't think it will have a major impact on prices. I'm not sure how much Dr. Strange art he has.

 

When the Tony Christopher (sp?) Kirby collection consisting of hundreds and hundreds of pages hit the market, prices rebounded fairly quickly. It's not even noticeable, now.

 

So I don't believe a few Ditko stories would affect prices much.

They would be great to see, though

[vodou]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

Works for me but I think few art collectors, including Aaron, will agree with the presumption of ownership in your example being applied to OA.

 

In my experience the contractor sets up the scaffolding, paints my house, takes the scaffolding away and I'm never even consulted about it! I definitely like this one better than pizza. Well, I mean, nothing is actually better than pizza, but for purposes of this analogy.

I'm not picking on you (swear!) but that's not apples:apples. Kav's is a NEW building. Yours is a fix-up on existing (unless you're saying you bought bare land and hired the contractor to develop to plan?) Like a reprint with production touch-ups years later?

[kav]

What if Steve feels the end nearing and burns al his stuff? I can see him doing that. He utterly hates the idea that there is anything 'historic' about comic art, especially his.

[AKA Rick]

I wonder, with all of the vague assumptions and confusion, if both artists and publishers have specific contracts drawn up to clearly define the work for hire relationship, as they really should.

 

I would imagine the general split of 1/3 inker and 2/3 penciled may be a boiler plate deal, but I would not be surprised if certain penciling artists like Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, Frank Miller, J Scott Campbell, and others pre-negotiate the terms to retain a greater portion if not all of a piece. In cases of cover art, a single piece, how can that be split by a generic division deal.

 

As for the writer, lettered, colorist, and you can even include the editor and other creative staff as contributors, I think if their deal isn't pre-arranged, then tradition says they are not participants.

 

I, personally would assume, with the way the marketplace is with many artists competing for jobs, just "wanting to have their music heard" so to speak, and depending on the stage (for most, I pull assume a flagship title for Marvel or DC might trump an indie start up title), many artist are simply looking for opportunity, satisfied by getting paid, and might forgo handing over the artwork to the publisher who is paying a "work for hire" contractor. Many publishers would say, I am putting a deal out there, any takers? And for every one established artist who passes on it, would be a dozen other artists willing to accept it.

 

I think many publishers may want the art to control the images as well as, as a business decision, now knowing they are a commodity, keep them. We all know, the business of comic books does not guarantee profits for a publisher. The publisher pays a creative team, business team, and often times, everyone is getting paid, but the publisher who assumes the financial risk (and Inherantly the reward as well of course). So, to me, I wouldn't say it's out of the question that a publisher could or should lay claim to every aspect of a piece they hired an artist to render. Similarly with a commission at a convention, the fan owns the piece (although not the reproduction rights, unless he or she arranges those terms,which usually calls for a different payment rate).

 

The x-factor also is the "rates" for which artist are paid by a publisher, and many accept assignments factoring in ownership of the art for sales to supplement their income and make the job worth taking.

 

Some publishers offer royalties to the artists on books sold as well as any subsequent use in trade paperbacks, licensed merchandise, and so forth. It is a business, so I would think to shore up every granular detail on the financial relationship as well as ownership of the work is not uncalled for in today's world.

 

Back in 1974, when Steve Ditko wrote that, it was a lot less black and white than just the art itself.

[suspense39]

I doubt in the late 50s and early 60s the artists foresaw all the branding and merchandising, tv shows, action figures, bedsheets etc. that would have characters they created as the basis. So back then seeing your work as just a work for hire type deal is a bit easier to do. I think after 1966, with the explosion of shows like Batman and all the hero toys that came out around that period the artist really stared to feel cheated. Fast forward to today with the huge jump in revenues from the films and the "free" artwork that was given away (stolen?) back in the day now going for tens or hundreds of thousands, it kind of changes the conversation. Artists rights and intellectual rights were not as understood or litigated back in the early days to the extent that they are today.....artists most likely didn't know what they were entitled to back then.

[drdroom]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

Works for me but I think few art collectors, including Aaron, will agree with the presumption of ownership in your example being applied to OA.

 

In my experience the contractor sets up the scaffolding, paints my house, takes the scaffolding away and I'm never even consulted about it! I definitely like this one better than pizza. Well, I mean, nothing is actually better than pizza, but for purposes of this analogy.

I'm not picking on you (swear!) but that's not apples:apples. Kav's is a NEW building. Yours is a fix-up on existing (unless you're saying you bought bare land and hired the contractor to develop to plan?) Like a reprint with production touch-ups years later?

 

This is cracking me up. Doesn't scaffolding for a new building generally get rented from either a separate scaffold company or supplied by the contractor for the duration?

[buyatari]

Think of the OA like the scaffolding on a building. Once the building has been built, if the owner tells the contractor he can have the scaffolding, it's his. If the owner throws away the scaffolding that means he has relinquished ownership. Then whoever picks it up gets it. If years later people start collecting scaffolding, too bad.

Works for me but I think few art collectors, including Aaron, will agree with the presumption of ownership in your example being applied to OA.

 

In my experience the contractor sets up the scaffolding, paints my house, takes the scaffolding away and I'm never even consulted about it! I definitely like this one better than pizza. Well, I mean, nothing is actually better than pizza, but for purposes of this analogy.

I'm not picking on you (swear!) but that's not apples:apples. Kav's is a NEW building. Yours is a fix-up on existing (unless you're saying you bought bare land and hired the contractor to develop to plan?) Like a reprint with production touch-ups years later?

 

This is cracking me up. Doesn't scaffolding for a new building generally get rented from either a separate scaffold company or supplied by the contractor for the duration?

 

I agree. I don't see the direct comparison. The scaffolding or other tools used to do the work would only be comparable with the tools the artist uses to create the artwork like his pens and ink.

[kav]

exactly

And therefore the analogy.

Artist/contractor keeps scaffolding

[buyatari]

The contractor keeps the scaffolding and the artist keeps his pen.

[kav]

And his paper.

Nowadays publisher supplies paper but not in the old days.

[buyatari]

Scaffolding is a tool used to do this job and perhaps many others before and afterwords.

 

When I buy a pizza I can't claim to own the bread mixer or the oven but I do own the pizza box. Blank paper is consumed. It is used up by the artist in order to create the job for his employer. Items that are used up by the production are a part of the production. A roofer can't ask for his nails back that he himself paid for. It is part of production and part of the job.

 

If an artist wants his art back all he has to do is put that in the contract.

[vodou]

If an artist wants his art back all he has to do is put that in the contract.

Like Frazetta did.