Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT 5 5

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, bb8 said:

It's funny how we treat 'intellectual properties' different than so-called widgets.

Hilarious. 

Quote

How much more important is Spider-Man in our daily lives than all-wheel drive?

For the people who have Spider-man and don’t have all-wheel drive, I suppose it’s a lot. 

Quote

Or Google's search algorithm? Even something as simple as Kellogg's recipe for corn flakes. Someone had to create these things. They weren't manufactured from thin air without human ingenuity. And yet we don't care how these people are treated by the companies they work for yet they've revolutionized the way we live.

History lesson: There’s a long list of people who’ve battled for the rights of what they’ve created with companies they’ve worked for. Obviously, the law DOES care. And they have a better track record of winning than comic creators ever have had. 

Quote

I'm not siding with anyone. You certainly have an axe to grind.

I do??? Your the one who came in here, guns a’blazin’ saying, “How dare they!!!”

Yet it’s all ME. LOL. You’re funny. 

Quote

I merely point out that these are companies. They're built to make money; that's it. That's why we have laws to constrain them.

I’m not even going to waste my time giving you a history lesson on that. 

Quote

A judge can look at a contract and say it's not fair: good. We need arbiters for this purpose. I just find it odd when people are outraged because an entity acts in its own interest.

Which do you mean? When Marvel does or Jack Kirby does?

Why is one’s interest more important than the other?

Edited February 18, 2020 by Chuck Gower

[Bronty]

6 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

 

Which do you mean? When Marvel does or Jack Kirby does?

Why is one’s interest more important than the other?

Obviously, both parties to a contract act in their best interest and strike the best deal they can at the time.   marvel wants to lock down the best artist they can at the lowest rate and kirby wants to lock down the best income source he can at the highest rate.

The meeting in the middle, the agreement, is evidenced by the contract.

If the agreement pays the labour at a fixed dollar instead of a percentage, well, its unfortunate in some ways, but that's what they negotiated.     If we are going to set aside fairly bargained contracts just because we like one side or another or admire their talent we have utter chaos.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Bronty

[jsilverjanet]

for a thread about Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby comes up a lot.

[bb8]

4 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Hilarious. 

For the people who have Spider-man and don’t have all-wheel drive, I suppose it’s a lot. 

History lesson: There’s a long list of people who’ve battled for the rights of what they’ve created with companies they’ve worked for. Obviously, the law DOES care. And they have a better track record of winning than comic creators ever have had. 

I do??? Your the one who came in here, guns a’blazin’ saying, “How date they!!!”

Yet it all ME. LOL. You’re funny. 

I’m not even going to waste my time giving you a history lesson on that. 

Which do you mean? When Marvel does or Jack Kirby does?

Why is one’s interest more important than the other?

Guns a'blazin'? 'How dare the!!'? I merely point out that I'm not surprised when entities (including individuals) act in their own self-interest. Jack Kirby should! And his heirs did! Seems like there was a recent lawsuit that was settled to their satisfaction. Perhaps not to yours?

[comicwiz]

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

for a thread about Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby comes up a lot.

There is a lot of overlap in the way they were treated. There are experiences retold by others where there is a common thread of mistreatment. They both seemed to have left Marvel because of Stan.

But most of all, it's a pattern when it's more than one person who has negative experiences.

[Prince Namor]

2 minutes ago, bb8 said:

Guns a'blazin'? 'How dare the!!'? I merely point out that I'm not surprised when entities (including individuals) act in their own self-interest. Jack Kirby should! And his heirs did! Seems like there was a recent lawsuit that was settled to their satisfaction. Perhaps not to yours?

That’s not what we’re actually discussing here, but thanks for stopping by. 

[bb8]

Just now, Chuck Gower said:

That’s not what we’re actually discussing here, but thanks for stopping by. 

No problemo! 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, bb8 said:

No problemo! 

[Prince Namor]

6 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

for a thread about Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby comes up a lot.

The Stan Lee Outrage brigade comes out in full force at the mere mention of either Jack or Steve. 
 

Dirko was entitled to his opinion, I was curious to read it - thought others would be too (they are). And now all this...

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Could be worse. Could be small posts with a larger font screaming “look at me, look at me”

The littlest dog barks the loudest. 

[shadroch]

Comic wiz posts a letter from Marvel stating they don't sell artwork but will make an exception in this one case for a museum and that is proof of Marvel engaging in a conspiracy, and of course it is all Stans fault.

Should Marvel have done a better job of storing the art? Absolutely, but it wasn't some conspiracy against the artists. Where is all the DC art from that era? How about the Disney art?

I personally think the art should be returned to the artist, and recommended the Kirby family to retain lawyers to pursue the art that was stolen, but it wasn't Stan who did any of that.

[shadroch]

22 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

There is a lot of overlap in the way they were treated. There are experiences retold by others where there is a common thread of mistreatment. They both seemed to have left Marvel because of Stan.

But most of all, it's a pattern when it's more than one person who has negative experiences.

Stan held one job his entire life. Jack switched companies at least a dozen times and for whatever reason couldn't cut it at DC, but Stan was the difficult one. 

Once he got rid of that parasitic, credit stealing Stan, Steve Ditko's solo work certainly rose to new heights, didn't it?

How did Stan treat Jack when Jack wanted to come back home? 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by shadroch

[shadroch]

20 minutes ago, bb8 said:

No problemo! 

This is the Stan bashing thread. The reasoned discussion thread is up and to your left.

[jsilverjanet]

3 minutes ago, shadroch said:

This is the Stan bashing thread. The reasoned discussion thread is up and to your left.

Seems more like a Stan defending thread at any cost with foam in the mouth 

[jsilverjanet]

The hyperbole is being used for context. One exagerration deserves another in return. 

[jsilverjanet]

Here's a thread dedicated to Stan The Man Lee - post your pro Stan comments here

 

[bb8]

12 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

Seems more like a Stan defending thread at any cost with foam in the mouth 

Honestly, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just don't understand the point of it all. All the principals in this are dead besides the original company, and even there there are likely no people still working connected to this dispute. Does anyone here honestly think Mr. Ditko didn't make a huge contribution to the creation of Spider-Man? He was essential; we all know that. His run made the character. He should have been given more credit. Stan should have insisted on it. But, what should Disney do? I believe they've given him co-creator credit on Spider-Man. Does he have heirs that want something? The Kirby heirs may have created a precedent that would give them a good chance to recover some funds. I'd have no problem with that.

[Logan510]

45 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Comic wiz posts a letter from Marvel stating they don't sell artwork but will make an exception in this one case for a museum and that is proof of Marvel engaging in a conspiracy, and of course it is all Stans fault.

Should Marvel have done a better job of storing the art? Absolutely, but it wasn't some conspiracy against the artists. Where is all the DC art from that era? How about the Disney art?

I personally think the art should be returned to the artist, and recommended the Kirby family to retain lawyers to pursue the art that was stolen, but it wasn't Stan who did any of that.

It wasn't Shooter either and I remember him being lambasted in the comic "press" about that issue in the early 1980's.

[jsilverjanet]

1 minute ago, bb8 said:

Honestly, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just don't understand the point of it all. All the principals in this are dead besides the original company, and even there there are likely no people still working connected to this dispute. Does anyone here honestly think Mr. Ditko didn't make a huge contribution to the creation of Spider-Man? He was essential; we all know that. His run made the character. He should have been given more credit. Stan should have insisted on it. But, what should Disney do? I believe they've given him co-creator credit on Spider-Man. Does he have heirs that want something? The Kirby heirs may have created a precedent that would give them a good chance to recover some funds. I'd have no problem with that.

I thought it was a thread about Ditko and how he saw his time at Marvel and how he was treated and not necessarily what he wanted.

I think the Kirby stuff has been brought in to discussion of the ongoing rights/credits/financial but unless I missed it Ditko never wanted any of that, he just wanted to set the record straight on what the issue he had was aka his side of the story

[ADAMANTIUM]

 I didn't understand how were not here to get 2 sides to the story, I can just read Ditko's though  I'm out!