Stan Lee's reasons not to return OA back in 1973.

[Ferran Delgado]

It's very interesting this part of Mike Baron's article published in the Creem Magazine vol. 4 #11 (April 1974) about BWS' reasons to leave Conan partially related to the return of original art, and Stan Lee's explanation about the reasons not to do it.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/5584/creem11p39.jpg

Stan Lee:

"I think that the art should be hard to get; it should be something of an adventure."

 

As told in the article, Steranko had an special agreement about original art, so he got back EVERY page that he penciled, including EVERY page inked by Sinnott, Adkins or Tartaglione. He didn't give any art to them.

 

BTW, in the pic Romita IS drawing the cover of ASM #122 (July 1973):

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6977/creem11p39copia.jpg

 

This is the original art of the cover of the Creem Magazine by Romita versus the published cover:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3558/romitacreem.jpg

[Dr. Balls]

Cool article. As an artist, I'm always torn over this issue. On one hand, it's the artist's responsibility to negotiate what happens with his art, but I feel the desire to get your original works back. On the other hand, the artist was contracted to create the art for Marvel, to which they are not the owner of it...

[*paull*]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

[Dr. Balls]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

 

I would guess it had to do with Steranko's style/popularity at the time? Depending on your position, and the company's desire to employ you - therein lies the opportunity to negotiate. That would be my take on Steranko's situation.

[USArmyParatrooper]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

 

The article implied since Steranko did all phases of the finished product, i.e. the pencils, the inks, and the color there was no ambiguity as to who actually owned the art. At least that's how I interpreted it.

[Ferran Delgado]

Yes, but it's inaccurate, because he didn't ink his work on Nick Fury, agent of SHIELD. So he had to give away a third of that production, although at this point it was not clear the share of each artist.

[*paull*]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

 

The article implied since Steranko did all phases of the finished product, i.e. the pencils, the inks, and the color there was no ambiguity as to who actually owned the art. At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

I believe most of Steranko's Marvel work was inked by others (Adkins, Sinnott, Palmer, Tartaglione).

[AKA Rick]

I think if the rules vary, but should be set and clear.

 

It's like anything else in a buisness relationship. If a publisher hires an artist for their work, and in the contract it calls for ownership of the character designs and the artwork, the artist has been properly paid and should have no legal claim to either.

 

When dealing with established artists who have a track record, then their negotiation power comes into play, and they can adjust the deal.

 

From a publisher's standpoint, they can take the stance in the creative economy of "if you don't take this assignment under these terms, there's hundreds of other artists out there looking for the opportunity to showcase their skills and get published who would gladly accept this deal" - so, that's why a lot of artists and creative folk early in their career have to pay these "dues"

 

From the publisher's standpoint also, for every "Ghost Rider" character which a creator subsequently wants compensation for, there's a "Fish Police" character that cost the publisher money and losses that never panned out. So, it's a slippery slope of not always having your cake and eating it too. For an artist to try to re-write a deal for revenue generated off of a hit character, should then possibly prompt a publisher to sue an artist or writer for damages (financial losses) associated with a failed character, which of course wouldn't make sense. The publishers invest heavily into projects so, as they assume the risk, they should also assume the reward. I think that's where companies like Image are good where it's more creator owned with the support of a powerful publisher, and there's a revenue share.

 

I think there's a lot of artists back in the day who looked at work with publishers as a commission, which they were assigned a job, submitted the work, got paid and walked away. Today, there's a healthy original art market which enables artists to get their page rate and subsequently sell the art for sometimes more than that page rate, and add to their income. Knowing what the page rates are sometimes, I can sympathize with the artists and need for that extra income. So, as long as it's clear in the contract of who gets what, there should be no complaints.

[jjonahjameson1]

My memory on this topic may be a bit fuzzy, but when the decision to return art was made at Marvel, I think Roy Thomas was still in charge and I believe writers received two pages of original art per issue they wrote.

 

I can only imagine how the pencillers and inkers must have felt about it, and I can't imagine the practice of giving originals to writers lasted very long.

 

Chris Claremont echoed a similar statement to me during the Motorcity convention a few years ago.

 

Can anyone confirm?

[Guest Grails]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

 

My guess is that Steranko would just walk if he didn't like the terms on a new project.

[Ferran Delgado]

Jim Shooter covered the item in his blog:

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/09/many-happy-returns-and-some-unhappy.html

[jbud73]

Jim Shooter covered the item in his blog:

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/09/many-happy-returns-and-some-unhappy.html

 

That's a very cool accounting of what was a potentially huge rift-type problem for Shooter at Marvel.

[PMminer]

Not that this is a definitive source, but a good read on the subject of copyright ownership in general is Comic Book Comics #5 All-Lawsuit Issue!

 

In it, it covers the trials of Kirby, and others, (among many other things) to get their artwork back and it states: Whether or not Marvel had any right to hold onto the art in the first place, however, was legally questionable. Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, not the physical form that expression takes.

 

"I didn't sell them drawings, I sold them stories. Just like an author would own his manuscript in book publishing, an artist owns his art in visual publishing."

 

Anyway, it's a really informative read and worth picking up.

 

Not being a lawyer however, I'm assuming that if you sign a dummy contract and purposefully sign away the rights to keep your work then I would guess that all bets are off and you are a dummy.

[*paull*]

So why could Steranko negotiate that deal when none of the other artists couldn't?

 

My guess is that Steranko would just walk if he didn't like the terms on a new project.

 

That's true, but why didn't other "hot" artists like Barry Smith, Neal Adams, etc. do the same?

[Ferran Delgado]

Right now there are publishers which still asks the artist to resign his rights to get back his art, in spite that nowadays it's not necessary to send the art to the publisher anymore.

 

An example is Avatar Press.

http://www.avatarpress.com/

 

And they don't have problems to find artists to work for them.

[jjonahjameson1]

Jim Shooter covered the item in his blog:

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/09/many-happy-returns-and-some-unhappy.html

 

Wow, amazing that Jim's kept all of this information all these years. That's a lot of correspondence!

 

I also found it interesting that Jim took it upon himself (or perhaps the matter had been brewing for several years) to change Roy's initial policy on art returns.

 

Off the top of my head, I believe there were several EIC between Roy tenure and Jim's: Gerry Conway, Len Wein, and Archie Goodwin come to mind (perhaps Marv Wolfman, too). I'd be curious to hear their thoughts on the matter of art returns and what decisions they made to stand pat.

 

Great reading!

[NelsonAI]

Great research and post as always Ferran.

 

Cheers!

N.

[PrechterFool-migration]

It's very interesting this part of Mike Baron's article published in the Creem Magazine vol. 4 #11 (April 1974) about BWS' reasons to leave Conan partially related to the return of original art, and Stan Lee's explanation about the reasons not to do it.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/5584/creem11p39.jpg

Stan Lee:

"I think that the art should be hard to get; it should be something of an adventure."

 

BTW, in the pic Romita IS drawing the cover of ASM #122 (July 1973):

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6977/creem11p39copia.jpg

 

You sure thats the 122 being drawn? I notice the 121 comic book on the wall in the background and it would be hard to believe that Romita is drawing the 122 if the 121 had already been published

[LastRaven]

It's very interesting this part of Mike Baron's article published in the Creem Magazine vol. 4 #11 (April 1974) about BWS' reasons to leave Conan partially related to the return of original art, and Stan Lee's explanation about the reasons not to do it.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/5584/creem11p39.jpg

Stan Lee:

"I think that the art should be hard to get; it should be something of an adventure."

 

BTW, in the pic Romita IS drawing the cover of ASM #122 (July 1973):

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6977/creem11p39copia.jpg

 

You sure thats the 122 being drawn? I notice the 121 comic book on the wall in the background and it would be hard to believe that Romita is drawing the 122 if the 121 had already been published

 

I would believe so upon first glance at least. I think you can see in the picture (hard though it may be to make out), Spidey's head and the "flame trail" from the Green Goblin's pumpkin bomb.

[PrechterFool-migration]

It's very interesting this part of Mike Baron's article published in the Creem Magazine vol. 4 #11 (April 1974) about BWS' reasons to leave Conan partially related to the return of original art, and Stan Lee's explanation about the reasons not to do it.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/5584/creem11p39.jpg

Stan Lee:

"I think that the art should be hard to get; it should be something of an adventure."

 

BTW, in the pic Romita IS drawing the cover of ASM #122 (July 1973):

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6977/creem11p39copia.jpg

 

You sure thats the 122 being drawn? I notice the 121 comic book on the wall in the background and it would be hard to believe that Romita is drawing the 122 if the 121 had already been published

 

I would believe so upon first glance at least. I think you can see in the picture (hard though it may be to make out), Spidey's head and the "flame trail" from the Green Goblin's pumpkin bomb.

 

 

 

I see what you are saying but that still doesnt explain the published 121 cover in the background

 

Maybe he is drawing a recreation of the 122 ?