Who owns the art by Steve Ditko

[suspense39]

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.

[vodou]

Not sure how many will agree with Steve's argument, but I'm sold.

[desertdogg2006]

when was this written. ? is this the reason ditko is sitting on a ton of art. or does he not care. I heard rumors of him using his art for cutting boards and coasters. ?

[Bronty]

Its very well written. Persuasive and insightful.

[drdroom]

Doesn't make sense to me. Ditko writes: “And if there is any value in a division of labor product (the art page) beyond it’s reproductive value, any artist’s claim to ownership of that page (and it’s value) is a claim to a value beyond his contribution to the page. " This is an insufficient attempt to glide over the main counter-argument. In current law, reproduction rights (what I assume Ditko means by reproductive value) is exactly what the artist sells, and ownership of the physical drawing is what she keeps. The value of other's contributions (characters, -script, etc) is very reasonably thought to inhere in the reproduction rights --publishing comics is the point of the comic company, after all. They are not art dealers.

 

Let's consider two Dr Strange originals, one by Ditko and one by Colan. Same character, owned by Marvel, on both pages, yet one is worth far more than the other. Who added that extra value to the Ditko page? Quite obviously, it's the artist.

 

(It just occurred to me that's a bad example, since Ditko created the character and co-wrote the stories, but let's just pretend Stan did all that work: I'm pretty sure we're still paying the Ditko art premium for the page.)

[Bronty]

Doesn't make sense to me. Ditko writes: “And if there is any value in a division of labor product (the art page) beyond it’s reproductive value, any artist’s claim to ownership of that page (and it’s value) is a claim to a value beyond his contribution to the page. " This is an insufficient attempt to glide over the main counter-argument. In current law, reproduction rights (what I assume Ditko means by reproductive value) is exactly what the artist sells, and ownership of the physical drawing is what she keeps. The value of other's contributions (characters, -script, etc) is very reasonably thought to inhere in the reproduction rights --publishing comics is the point of the comic company, after all. They are not art dealers.

 

Let's consider two Dr Strange originals, one by Ditko and one by Colan. Same character, owned by Marvel, on both pages, yet one is worth far more than the other. Who added that extra value to the Ditko page? Quite obviously, it's the artist.

 

(It just occurred to me that's a bad example, since Ditko created the character and co-wrote the stories, but let's just pretend Stan did all that work: I'm pretty sure we're still paying the Ditko art premium for the page.)

 

Bah. If its a ditko page for 70s charlton, and a colan page for whatever drekky project, they are worth close to nothing. A large part of the value is inherent in the title and character being silver age marvel. Whether the collector's market likes ditko marvel or colan marvel a little better is irrelevant. As he said none of it would have even come into existence without the publisher paying for the stories to be created and those stories subsequently becoming a success.

 

Moreover, he's not saying the artist doesn't contribute some of the value, but that the writer, letterer, etc, also contribute and if the artist is given complete ownership he's receiving more than his due. "a claim to value beyond his contribution."

 

The root of the argument his argument is how can you own what you were hired to do?

 

If I hire you make me a pizza, do you own the pizza?

 

If I hire you to build me a deck, do you own the deck?

 

Why is a carpenter or a pizzaiolo any less an artist than Rob Liefeld? I prefer the first two guys.

 

[vodou]

The root of the argument his argument is how can you own what you were hired to do?

I'd say the root of the argument is how can you own -claiming creation- what existed before you?

 

Taking the most obvious (and extreme) Ditko example...AF15-ASM38...Without Stan's words, without Marvel's backing, without flagging sales AF1-14, without Timely, without Martin Goodman, without...yadda yadda yadda. Without S&S's Superman (first costumed character, that was indeed created in a publishing void as a strip tryout first!), where would anything costumed and superhuman be? If you're Judeo-Christian or Muslim...where w/o God? Getting off track, but clearly Ditko has little claim (which to Ditko is NO claim where A = A) to "his" art with all that prior backstory that does not involve him other than being "hired" very late in the game. He's sitting on the Marvel, Charlton, and all other non-100% Ditko art because they gave it to him, not that he thinks he owns or deserves it. I believe (that's important -Steve and I have not chatted on this ) that Ditko would prefer they kept it (since he did not contract for it) as he's not sure what to do with it. This is likely why Marie Severin was able to donate ASM15 to the Library of Congress...Ditko (likely) was asked and said "sure, who cares...it's not mine anyway".

 

Going to Bronty's pizza guy example, it's not that you'd own "pizza" but that you'd own Pizza (in the Platonic sense). Perhaps not such a good analogy..?

 

Plato's Theory of Forms @ Wikipedia

[vodou]

If I hire you make me a pizza, do you own the pizza?

 

If I hire you to build me a deck, do you own the deck?

I do like these examples. They are fun to play with. But I'll modify them again.

 

Instead, I think Ditko's versions would be more like:

 

If I hire you make me a pizza, do you own the additional unused cheese, pepperoni, etc purchased in excess bulk to make the pizza?

 

If I hire you to build me a deck, do you own the additional unused wood, nails, etc purchased in excess bulk to make the deck?

 

Let's just leave Rob Liefeld out of it altogether at no point does Ditko address quality of finished product.

[drdroom]

All of you guys are ignoring something critical. The pizza is made to be consumed in itself. The artwork is just a step in the process of reproduction. The company pays for and receives rights of reproduction. oops, Heritage is starting. Chat later.

[Twanj]

Regardless of monetary value, ethics, collaborators, intellectual property, or prime motivators, a bunch or people (editors, writers, scripters, pencillers, inkers, letterers, colorists, printers, etc) were paid to create a mass produced commodity.

 

Do the writers etc own the paper they turn in for the Original Comic Story?

Do kids own the paper they turn in for their homework?

 

From what I've read, comic art was originally considered worthless and given away for free.

 

It was turned in as part of the assembly process of putting together a comic. Later, comic art started to have some value. At any point, artists could have negotiated or demanded as part of their pay that the art would be returned to them.

 

Pay me less for each page because I can sell it later and make up the difference.

 

If I write out a book by hand and turn it in to the publisher and get paid for it, do I own those handwritten pages? Not unless the deal I've worked out beforehand includes the return of those pages.

[Bronty]

All of you guys are ignoring something critical. The pizza is made to be consumed in itself. The artwork is just a step in the process of reproduction. The company pays for and receives rights of reproduction. oops, Heritage is starting. Chat later.

 

Kay. So when I poop it out a day later, do you own that?

[vodou]

All of you guys are ignoring something critical. The pizza is made to be consumed in itself. The artwork is just a step in the process of reproduction. The company pays for and receives rights of reproduction. oops, Heritage is starting. Chat later.

Ignored?

I specifically addressed that which is part of production but not presented for final consumption. The bag of cheese, pepperoni stick partially sliced, box of nails partially used...what of that not used? Who owns it? The purchaser. Not the preparer (unless the same party!)

[drdroom]

All of you guys are ignoring something critical. The pizza is made to be consumed in itself. The artwork is just a step in the process of reproduction. The company pays for and receives rights of reproduction. oops, Heritage is starting. Chat later.

Ignored?

I specifically addressed that which is part of production but not presented for final consumption. The bag of cheese, pepperoni stick partially sliced, box of nails partially used...what of that not used? Who owns it? The purchaser. Not the preparer (unless the same party!)

 

By purchaser, you mean the artist right? His ink, pens, paper etc? But anyway, the OA is not the pizza. The reproduction rights are the pizza.

[drdroom]

All of you guys are ignoring something critical. The pizza is made to be consumed in itself. The artwork is just a step in the process of reproduction. The company pays for and receives rights of reproduction. oops, Heritage is starting. Chat later.

 

Kay. So when I poop it out a day later, do you own that?

 

If the poop comes to have value, we can explore litigation.

[vodou]

By purchaser, you mean the artist right?

No, the party paying the preparer. They are the purchaser. In the examples banging about, either the company (ex. Domino's) or the contractee (consumer if preparer is hired to make pizzas only for a limited and specific time -ex. private Super Bowl party).

[vodou]

But anyway, the OA is not the pizza. The reproduction rights are the pizza.

No. The recipe is the reproduction rights (remain with The Owner), the OA is just the realization of the recipe by a hired hand. Again, this model speaks to property rights only - not variations in quality and timeliness of preparation and what effect that has on "demand" for a specific preparer. Draw better and faster than others, sell more books (or pizzas "made by Bob") and one just might end up a celebrity chef or artist...one day, in spite of most chefs or shop artists working in relative anonymity.

[drdroom]

In your model the pizza maker works for the company, using materials purchased by the company. But in the comic industry generally, artists are private contractors who purchase their own materials. This distinction has, I believe, been key in the various legal arguments for returning OA to artists.

[vodou]

In your model the pizza maker works for the company, using materials purchased by the company. But in the comic industry generally, artists are private contractors who purchase their own materials. This distinction has, I believe, been key in the various legal arguments for returning OA to artists.

Except for all those bristol boards marked Marvel and DC

 

Should we have Domino's paying for the shoes the guy wears in the kitchen too? Not too mention the rest of his clothes? Can't be preparing fresh food in the nude..yeah? That's pencils, brushes, inkpots imo.

 

We've been arguing one point only here though. The other, much more important imo is: what about all the "other hands"...in your world are they not "owners" (getting back to property rights) too? The inkers. The letterers. Product dept. Etc. Ditko's argument resolves this in a way that works for me. No company, no (Spider-Man as example) artwork needed. Simple. How do you resolve it?

[drdroom]

Usual practice these days is 2/3 to penciller, 1/3 to inker, right? The claims of letterers and production guys decrease into insignificance, but I guess maybe you could argue 1 page in 40 goes to the letterer or something. I don't agree that the writer is owed any part of this physical object. He could ask for his manuscript back though. Yes, it is messy and inexact. What can I say? I'm not an objectivist:)

[vodou]

Yes usual practice and everybody agrees to it (I guess?) I'm just saying I see Ditko's pov and think the companies are giving away their property, or rather the artists are taking it as part of comp (whether they realize it or not!)

 

Again I find Ditko's argument compelling. Those that don't...no surprise they won't agree with his conclusion either