Ditko's estate... 6 6

[bronze johnny]

3 hours ago, 500Club said:

Indeed.  And, yet, Chuck's whole post is written from a 2018 perspective.  In fact, he relates the state of the industry today back to my initial post discussing how things were in 1963.  Unfortunately, he's off base.   The industry is the way it is today not due to creators' rights, but simply due to economics.  We have at present an industry that simply cannot compete with other forms of entertainment, in terms of engagement and unit cost per hour.  The average comic is $3.99.  Netflix is $12/mo.  Video games are $60.  Many phone and tablet apps are free.  That has led to declining sales, declining revenue, less ability to compete for and pay artistic talent, and thus, as Chuck notes, the great talents find better pay in other media.

 

On to your post, and its 'did anyone consider...?' theme.  Yes.  I did.   My whole post was based on the perspective of the work-for-hire artist in 1963.  Not the 2018 fanboy, but the guy looking for work in 1963.  So, would they have considered attorneys? Of course not.  Their perspective would have been simply to get a job and be paid per page drawn.  Maybe there was health and other benefits, but, let's face it, this was a hire as simple as some of our first summer jobs.  Consider long term consequences of work for hire?  Give me a break.  In 1963, they're simply looking to get a job illustrating periodicals for 8-12 year olds.  First, you'd have needed psychic powers to conceptualize where this would be in fifty years, and second, I suspect if you'd challenged Kirby to consider that far flung a future, he'd have said 'get lost, buddy, I have a family to provide for right now'.  Consider whether there was any other option for them?  No need.  We all do it automatically, so they would have as well in 1963.  If they could have gotten better pay at DC, or in advertising, I'm sure they would have.

Bottom line:  these guys were simply workers with a certain skill engaged in employment par for the standards of the time.  As you say, let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today.  In fact, there's probably employment dynamics today that no one is bemoaning, but, in fifty years, will be a topic of hot debate the same as this issue.

I'm not an expert in the history of labor relations in the private sector world of comic book publishing during the 1950s & 1960s so it's not clear to me how management treated employees and how artists approached getting work. Additionally, I'm not sure what the power of the employee compared to that of the employer was in 1963 where contract negotiations were at issue. My best guess is that employers had the advantage. That's the key issue when it comes to deciding whether Kirby and Ditko should be dismissed where subsequent compensation for their creations is concerned. I raised the question of using an attorney for contractual negotiations to make a point for anyone advocating that Kirby and Ditko willfully got themselves into their disposition as it relates to future compensation.

As for Kirby and Ditko just having a skill? Can't disagree with you more. A skill is something that can be taught. Kirby and Ditko had something that couldn't be taught- what puts them way above their contemporaries. What they each had was a gift. It's not so simple to say they had a choice when a gift like theirs is bestowed upon them. Moreover, Kirby was a visionary who saw things that others didn't. And Kirby, like other comic book artists, saw himself achieving more than comic books. By 1963, Kirby had been drawing comic books for more than two decades.

A point about options since it's not clear they had any. I'm not so sure Madison Avenue was ever an option for Jewish artists back then, nor would I embrace the idea that DC would be willing to pay more than competitors for artists back then. Interesting questions that require further investigation. 

What's sad and ironic about Ditko's estate has more to do with how the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange died  with so little wealth at a time when others (Do any have a connection to the comic book medium?) are reaping billions of dollars from his creations. 

[500Club]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Maybe I'm different... I've never looked at things as... I don't have what I want in life, so too bad if someone else doesn't. I wish everyone could have what they want in life.

The death of art in America. Forget who made it! Let's worry about buying and selling it as a commodity!

Man... I'm on the wrong forum I guess...

 

Nah.  Despite debating these points, I think we all love the creators who gave us each our ‘Golden Age’ of comics.  For me, that was Byrne, Perez and Miller.  It was probably Adams for the generation before, and Kirby, Ditko and Lee before.  I think this hobby loves its creators probably as much or more than any other.

You’re on the right forum.

[500Club]

4 minutes ago, bronze johnny said:

I'm not an expert in the history of labor relations in the private sector world of comic book publishing during the 1950s & 1960s so it's not clear to me how management treated employees and how artists approached getting work. Additionally, I'm not sure what the power of the employee compared to that of the employer was in 1963 where contract negotiations were at issue. My best guess is that employers had the advantage. That's the key issue when it comes to deciding whether Kirby and Ditko should be dismissed where subsequent compensation for their creations is concerned. I raised the question of using an attorney for contractual negotiations to make a point for anyone advocating that Kirby and Ditko willfully got themselves into their disposition as it relates to future compensation.

As for Kirby and Ditko just having a skill? Can't disagree with you more. A skill is something that can be taught. Kirby and Ditko had something that couldn't be taught- what puts them way above their contemporaries. What they each had was a gift. It's not so simple to say they had a choice when a gift like theirs is bestowed upon them. Moreover, Kirby was a visionary who saw things that others didn't. And Kirby, like other comic book artists, saw himself achieving more than comic books. By 1963, Kirby had been drawing comic books for more than two decades.

A point about options since it's not clear they had any. I'm not so sure Madison Avenue was ever an option for Jewish artists back then, nor would I embrace the idea that DC would be willing to pay more than competitors for artists back then. Interesting questions that require further investigation. 

What's sad and ironic about Ditko's estate has more to do with how the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange died  with so little wealth at a time when others (Do any have a connection to the comic book medium?) are reaping billions of dollars from his creations. 

I don’t think Kirby or Ditko considered future compensation in 1963.  At the time, they were producing a disposable form of entertainment, for 8-12 year olds.  Comics were expected to be enjoyed, and probably weren’t assigned much more utility than the daily newspapers.  There were no TPBs, no their media for the characters, and comic fandom was embryonic at best.  

Skill?  Gift?  Pure genius?  I’m referring to their place in the industry (see my above post) and not to their creativity.  On a creative level, I’d agree with talent, gift, or genius...

[Buzzetta]

46 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I was being flippant. I would never tell anyone how to spend their own money or tell them what they can or can't like.

Even in this thread we have a guy whose anti Stan Lee rhetoric is so annoying, that people used to ask me years ago if he was Mark Evanier using a sock puppet  And I would never feel like I have the right to tell him he can't think what he wants.

 

 

I have to admit, that I mistakenly took that post as if it were serious as far as making a case for your own point in terms of the discussion, but in no way did I take it personally.  After years of being on the boards and our interactions, I know you better than that.  

[Buzzetta]

20 minutes ago, 500Club said:

I don’t think Kirby or Ditko considered future compensation in 1963.  At the time, they were producing a disposable form of entertainment, for 8-12 year olds.  Comics were expected to be enjoyed, and probably weren’t assigned much more utility than the daily newspapers.  There were no TPBs, no their media for the characters, and comic fandom was embryonic at best.  

Skill?  Gift?  Pure genius?  I’m referring to their place in the industry (see my above post) and not to their creativity.  On a creative level, I’d agree with talent, gift, or genius...

Stan Lee has said that in the late 40's and 50's he was embarrassed to tell people what he did for a living.  There was not much validity in working in the comics industry which was considered a lower class of making a living. 

[Logan510]

3 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Stan Lee has said that in the late 40's and 50's he was embarrassed to tell people what he did for a living.  There was not much validity in working in the comics industry which was considered a lower class of making a living. 

IIRC comic book artists were basically considered the lowest form of commercial artist in those days. Most of them would've rather been doing newspaper strips.

[bronze johnny]

1 hour ago, 500Club said:

I don’t think Kirby or Ditko considered future compensation in 1963.  At the time, they were producing a disposable form of entertainment, for 8-12 year olds.  Comics were expected to be enjoyed, and probably weren’t assigned much more utility than the daily newspapers.  There were no TPBs, no their media for the characters, and comic fandom was embryonic at best.  

Skill?  Gift?  Pure genius?  I’m referring to their place in the industry (see my above post) and not to their creativity.  On a creative level, I’d agree with talent, gift, or genius...

Kirby and Ditko's consideration of future compensation is where we differ in opinion. 

[500Club]

38 minutes ago, bronze johnny said:

2 hours ago, 500Club said:

I don’t think Kirby or Ditko considered future compensation in 1963.  At the time, they were producing a disposable form of entertainment, for 8-12 year olds.  Comics were expected to be enjoyed, and probably weren’t assigned much more utility than the daily newspapers.  There were no TPBs, no their media for the characters, and comic fandom was embryonic at best.  

Skill?  Gift?  Pure genius?  I’m referring to their place in the industry (see my above post) and not to their creativity.  On a creative level, I’d agree with talent, gift, or genius...

 Kirby and Ditko's consideration of future compensation is where we differ in opinion. 

You think they did?  I’ve never read anything that would lead me to believe that.  Have you?  Everything I’ve read about comics in the formative years at Marvel led to my above profile of comics as a disposable medium.

[bronze johnny]

20 minutes ago, 500Club said:

You think they did?  I’ve never read anything that would lead me to believe that.  Have you?  Everything I’ve read about comics in the formative years at Marvel led to my above profile of comics as a disposable medium.

My positions are always based on what I've read and studied about the history of comics. I'm also clear about what's not available in the historical record. A great deal still has to be written about the history of comics. The questions related to Ditko's estate is one chapter in comic book history that will be open to interpretation since the empirical evidence is very limited.

[Mercury Man]

He chose the lifestyle of being a recluse.  Whether this was psychological, or just a life choice this was on him.  He could have hit the autograph circuit, commissioned sketches, and hire lawyers to fight Marvel.  He probably could have stacked millions over the last few decades.  But he didn't.   

I don't feel bad for him if these were his coherent choices.   

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, 500Club said:

I’d go with the 90’s.  I agree with your overall point, though.  The problem is, once you have a fixed set of characters and mythos, after a certain amount of time, it’s tough to not regurgitate ideas.  I think it was Agatha Christie who said there are only seven basic stories.

Novels?  That’s moving from checkers to chess.  The constraints of twenty page issues make it very hard for the comic medium to match the nuances of a good novel.  It can be done; sequencing of panels, colouring, facial expression  etc,etc  give comics some sophisticated storytelling tools.  It’s just very hard to do.

That's what made Kirby and Ditko great, they continued to move forward - continued to try and outdo what they did before. It's an art form based upon recycling ideas, and those two guys were the opposite of that.

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

That's stretching it a bit. There are storylines in there that are still voted some of the best of all time. Dark Phoenix and Days of the Future Past. Some of the art will be
fantastic with Byrne early stuff. Cockrum not so much, but still well worth reading. If anything it will make you appreciate the comic medium much more.

 

I honestly hear modern readers tell me all the time that they try and read that early comic stuff, including the Claremont X-Men and they just can't get into it. When I ask, "Is it the art?" "Is it the stories?" They generally say the same thing - "It's hard to read."

I get that. If you didn't grow up reading Marvel Comics, coming into it new, it probably seems... weird. 

It's a shame, because, yes - some good stories from that period - some great Cockrum art, some great Bryne art (enhanced by the inks of Terry Austin), so... I don't know - that's been my experience with it.

[Aweandlorder]

11 hours ago, the blob said:

His rent was unpaid because he was in the hospital and nobody was minding his affairs, not because he didn't have the money. His siblings will have plenty to pay his debts and then some.

Where did I say that he didn't have money to pay?

you perfectly interpreted my assumption. That nobody including his siblings paid his rent, and that probably includes other bills/debt as well. Which tells me that they either weren't too close to him, or had access to his money while he was in the hospital. Yet another sign of how isolated he was from his close family

On another note, if his heirs (whoever that will end up being) gets ahold of his belongings and starts liquidating them for monetary gains, you may end up seeing a flood of Ditko work/personal notated work on the market very quickly. I know that Ditko's signature for one were very hard to come by. Wonder if that will change now

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, 500Club said:

Looking at it from the perspective of the industry at the time, they were simply workers.  Cogs in the machine, as Buzzetta put it.  Comics were lowbrow entertainment produced for kids.  The creators were the workers that churned the product out.  The creative genius involved was not really recognized as such until the rise of organized fandom later into the Sixties, and then the Seventies.

I understand that.

Once again - Marvel was on the brink of being out of the comic book business. Goodman had made a fatal error with distribution. Lee was told to cut corners and use as much inventory story as possible...

Kirby saved that company. And as they grew and grew and grew, Lee promised him things he never delivered on - HE knew good and well how important Kirby was to the growth of Marvel - it's no surprise, how other than with Romita, how little Stan Lee ever wrote with any other artists but Ditko and Kirby. Once Kirby wasn't working on a book, he'd turn it over to someone else.

When I read the Herb Trimpe Tribute book after his death and Roy Thomas admitted to sometimes just giving Herb a villain name and just letting him do the whole story, I was stunned. How much of that went on at Marvel?

There's no question that without Stan Lee, Marvel would've never achieved the level of success that they did. No question in my mind. But without Kirby and Ditko, there'd have been no Marvel. Kirby, especially, deserved better than he got. he was NOT just a cog.

[Prince Namor]

4 hours ago, 500Club said:

You think they did?  I’ve never read anything that would lead me to believe that.  Have you?  Everything I’ve read about comics in the formative years at Marvel led to my above profile of comics as a disposable medium.

Yes.

Ditko's whole point was that HE was the real writer of Spider-man, and thus should get credit AND compensation for such. Eventually, Stan caved in and gave him the co-writer credit, but NOT the financial compensation, which he pushed off on Goodman. This was a major point of contention between Stan and Steve. Stan even said in a Bullpen Bulletin about Doctor Strange that it was Steve's idea completely - yet right there on the published page - written by Stan Lee - which meant that HE got paid as the writer - despite not writing it - and Ditko did NOT. 

Ditko tried to get Kirby to leave when he did - but Kirby had a family to support and didn't want to take the risk - his time at DC had been marked by a bad relationship with... was it Weisinger? And he feared having to go back there - nobody else paid enough... Kirby had just finished the Galactus trilogy (another storyline written by the artist - where Stan has openly admitted to just telling Jack "the FF meet God" and Kirby did the rest) and created the Black Panther, and instead stayed and treaded ground for a few years before he'd finally leave.

But they felt they deserved to be paid more because they contributed more...

[Prince Namor]

In fact, Kirby lamented... I believe it was his infamous Comic Journal interview, that Stan would have him do breakdowns, and he'd get half the pay for art on the book. But breakdowns at Marvel were the hardest part. If the writer says, "Oh, I don't, just have him fight the Sandman or something", then the artist has to come up with a story and do the breakdowns over the 20 pages. That's ALL the work!

At other publishers, they used full scripts with everything broken down for the artist.

So for Kirby - he not only had the writer not always writing, and the main artist just using his breakdowns to draw the book, he was also giving his creativity and ideas for the story - and just getting paid for breakdowns.

It's not that he could forsee the future of how much these characters and ideas would be worth - no one could - he wasn't getting paid for the work and creativity he was doing at the time.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What made Claremont special were his plots...not his scripts.

His dialogue is horrible.

But the concepts, the broader points he was making...that is what set the X-Men apart from anything else being doing in comics at the time (1975-1981.) Yes, he got realllllly preachy, which is why his 80s stuff faltered. But the ideas he was developing in the 70s, that Cockrum and, moreso Byrne, sharpened to laser precision, were unlike anything being done in comics at the time. What? Team members who fought, who didn't always get along, who called each other out? Characters with believable backgrounds? Stories that went from cosmic, to mundane, and back again, showing real people with real lives who really felt things and who made mistakes, that sometimes cost lives...and, oh, who also happened to have super powers...?

Adams introduced realism in art. Claremont introduced realism in plot. (And Moore introduced realism in dialogue.)

If any of you ever get the chance, read X-Men #107 and #108, and consider the scope of what Claremont was doing in those issues. Set aside the dialogue. It's garbage. Just consider the plot, and how the story unfolds.

It's fairly breathtaking stuff. 

[Logan510]

One man's treasure is another man's trash 

[Logan510]

I love how some of the sycophantic Kirby guys seem to forget that:

1) Kirby and Simon ran the same kind of work for hire studio that others have complained about when describing the poor treatment Kirby received from Marvel.

2) Kirby tried to take credit for creating Spider-Man and it got to the point where late in his life his circle of yes men had him believing he was responsible for the entire Marvel Universe.

I believe in credit where credit is due and Kirby deserves a ton of it, but not all of it.

[500Club]

5 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

5 hours ago, 500Club said:

 You think they did?  I’ve never read anything that would lead me to believe that.  Have you?  Everything I’ve read about comics in the formative years at Marvel led to my above profile of comics as a disposable medium.

My positions are always based on what I've read and studied about the history of comics. I'm also clear about what's not available in the historical record. A great deal still has to be written about the history of comics. The questions related to Ditko's estate is one chapter in comic book history that will be open to interpretation since the empirical evidence is very limited.

My response was something of a lead in, to allow you to state what you’ve read, and where.  My position is, Kirby and Ditko were wage for hire, and didn’t take any sort of negotiating position based on some perception of the likely future success of the creations.   Your response is akin to stating ‘studies have shown...’, to which I always think, ‘oh, yeah, what studies and where?’.