Who sold all of that Silver Age Original Artwork from Marvel? 3 3

[kav]

3 minutes ago, Readcomix said:

THAT is absolutely a difference — influence is a better word for that era; imitation is too often accurate today. (And no I’m not bashing the Copper age — just like Kirby influenced those guys and they went in different directions, I think there’s pretty clear influence from Michael Golden to Art Adams to McFarlane to Jim Lee, then we got the clones, more or less.)

exactly.  Guys like steranko and Smith still studied classical art and in steranko's case pop and op art.  The newer guys only study comics.   And only modern comics.  Its so 2 dimensional lazy and boring.

Edited June 17, 2021 by kav

[WoWitHurts]

2 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

And again, there are quite a few of us that understand what 'work for hire' actually is.  Kirby and the rest CHOSE to enter a field in art where their publisher owned everything they did and all intellectual property.  If they regret doing that then go find another job or pump gas.   Just as you are tire of hearing the Stan Lee created everything song and dance from Marvel, which I agree they do push a bit much, I have no remorse for any of the artists who believe they should receive royalties for what they created.  

 

This mirrors my feelings. Atlas/Marvel/Archie/DC etc did not appear out of the ether. Someone took on risk (debt/own money) to make these things happen. The people getting a steady paycheck risked little and because of playing it safe did not reap the greatest reward. 

[Larryw7]

One guy who always wanted his art back was Frazetta. He and Bill Gaines got into some friendly arguments over this in the EC days.

[Larryw7]

4 hours ago, Taylor G said:

This is a bizarre thread, throwing out accusations about people still alive and not mentioning the (now deceased) Marvel artist who is well known for pilfering the Marvel art

Who was the deceased artist who was taking the artwork?

[jjonahjameson11]

4 hours ago, Larryw7 said:

Who was the deceased artist who was taking the artwork?

Gil Kane

[theCapraAegagrus]

[Garystar]

11 hours ago, boomtown said:

I believe it was Steranko who wanted his art back after publication and just went in and took it regularly.

Happy to be corrected but I thought Steranko negotiated a deal on joining Marvel that he could keep his art which was not the industry norm, nor Marvel’s, as someone has said, until the mid 70s. Stan must have been immensely impressed by him or Jim was a persuasive negotiator confident in his own ability even as a newcomer. (Might have to do some re-reading if I’m wrong).

[HighVoltage]

11 hours ago, kav said:

You can see the kirby influence in steranko and berry smith but their work is also starkly different and original.  Many of the newer comic artists I cant even tell the difference bewteen them.  It's just a clone style that makes me gag.

That’s what she said.

[KirbyJack]

6 hours ago, Larryw7 said:

One guy who always wanted his art back was Frazetta. He and Bill Gaines got into some friendly arguments over this in the EC days.

Gaines was a visionary in many ways: one was knowing that original art was worth keeping. He kept everything…except for most of Frazetta’s stuff. They had a special deal worked out so  Frank got back what he wanted.

[pemart1966]

Is there a detailed list as to what Beerbohm bought back in 1969?

[Bird]

12 hours ago, boomtown said:

The Wolfman and Wein story has been around for a long time. As many have pointed out, there was little interest in the art until it started to sky rocket in value. Most of the art sat around in large piles at Marvels offices until it was taken to be warehoused. I've read stories that it was given away to visitors at the office, used on the floor to cover leaks, stolen, etc. I believe it was Steranko who wanted his art back after publication and just went in and took it regularly. I wouldn't think it would have been difficult for any other of the artists to do the same, if they were interested at the time. I believe there were some interesting articles in Twomorrows Comic Book Artist mags that shed light on a lot of this stuff. Pretty sure that was where I read it.

I have heard these stories as well. And there were sales made at a gas station as well IIRC, was that a chance meeting sale and one return sale? Fragments of stories now in my brain.. And AF15 got out there somehow someway.

I try not to tell others what to do with their money, so I won't try and judge the work for hire situations 40/50/60/70+ years later. We are fans of a fringe profession where many made questionable decisions to make some quick cash (BKane, Kirby sigs/late commissions anyone?). They were not saints and no one is perfect.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Bird

[Randall Dowling]

16 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

I can understand if they amended his contract or that they made a peace offering in the fear that he would jump to DC permanently if they felt he was still a draw.  Personally, I would have let him go to DC and do whatever he wanted to do and find new talent.   There is ALWAYS new talent.    As far as what Marvel did in giving some of it back, I kind of get it but not entirely.

I was watching a documentary on Shawn Michaels on A&E.  Some of those have been actually very good btw.  Anyway, when Michael Shawn Hickenbottom hurt his back and said he could never wrestle again, McMahon paid him $750,000 a year after Wrestemania 14 even though he was not working "in compensation".  However the reality was that while Hickenbottom stayed home, Vince inserted a non-compete clause so he would not jump to WCW and Turner / Time Warner who Vince McMahon was still losing the Monday night wars to.  That made sense because if the character of Shawn Michaels showed up on WCW TV Vince knew that it would be another nail in the coffin in the WWE / WWF.  Once Vince bought WCW, Michael Shawn Hickenbottom was miraculously healed and could wrestle again. . Vince had no need to continue paying him now that he owned WCW.  ( @jaybuck43, correct me if I am wrong here and add if necessary.)

Marvel was never in a position where they would 'lose' to DC.  While Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were probably the top three well known and marketable characters of all time, Marvel's basically took up the majority of spots in the top 20 after that.  While DC had superstars, Marvel had depth.

I know this is blasphemous but the characters outlive the artists and writers.  Once created they take on a life of their own.  They may get a stretch of bad writers and artists but they are instantly revivable with new 'good' talent.   Kirby made the characters with Lee and neither were replaceable in the creation of those characters.  However, better writers have come along since Lee and better artists have come along since Kirby. 

Kirby signed his contract.  Now Kirby had to work under it. 

 

Am I correct that you've seen a copy of the contracts that artists signed at the time?  Otherwise, how can you make these statements?  My guess would have been that there was no language in the contract regarding the disposition of original artwork at all.  Which is why Marvel was nervous about going to court about it.  But I could be wrong.

There are other professions wherein creators of drawings always retain ownership of original work.  And it's been that way for over 100 years.

Just because you can take advantage of someone doesn't mean you should or that it's good business to do so.  And although your posts implies that talent is cheap, I would argue otherwise.  Good talent is and always has been relatively scarce and compensated accordingly.  The only exception to this that I know of is when an employer goes out of their way to convince talented people that they're not that valuable (like a bad after school special).   I've seen quite a bit of that.  

[jjonahjameson11]

6 hours ago, KirbyJack said:

Gaines was a visionary in many ways: one was knowing that original art was worth keeping. He kept everything…except for most of Frazetta’s stuff. They had a special deal worked out so  Frank got back what he wanted.

He wasn’t a visionary wrt keeping the original art.  Eisner preceded him in doing so by a decade

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

Am I correct that you've seen a copy of the contracts that artists signed at the time?  Otherwise, how can you make these statements?  My guess would have been that there was no language in the contract regarding the disposition of original artwork at all.  Which is why Marvel was nervous about going to court about it.  But I could be wrong.

There are other professions wherein creators of drawings always retain ownership of original work.  And it's been that way for over 100 years.

Just because you can take advantage of someone doesn't mean you should or that it's good business to do so.  And although your posts implies that talent is cheap, I would argue otherwise.  Good talent is and always has been relatively scarce and compensated accordingly.  The only exception to this that I know of is when an employer goes out of their way to convince talented people that they're not that valuable (like a bad after school special).   I've seen quite a bit of that.  

Yep. Also unknown are the promises made - and it's been suggested that they were made to Jack - during a day and age where a man's word meant something. Jack also felt that if he gave his all, and sold more books, the company couldn't help but want to reward him for it. Not the case. A thief like Goodman wasn't interested in people, only what he could take from them to make his own. And he taught Stanley very well.

Marvel's 'method' went by the way side... and their talent eventually dried up as well. Who wants to work for a company where they keep your creative ideas and don't recognize you for them?

Jack would create an idea, sometimes completely on his own. Sometimes with input from Stan, but never with a -script.

Jack would then put the story together through sequential art. Sometimes creating additional characters and taking the story in a different direction.

He'd then draw the entire thing with full pencils.

Write dialogue and captions in the margin.

Then do the cover.

Stan would then take it and put the dialogue in. 

Marvel could then license the art for cartoons or merchandise.

 

Jack would get paid only for drawing it.

Stan would get paid for writing it AND editing it, getting paid twice.

And Marvel would own it and be able to make money off of it forever. (Which Stan used as leverage for his own nest egg for decades)

 

What artist would want to continue to go on with THAT deal?

Ditko got out rather quickly - when he started doing all the work and not getting the extra pay - he was gone in a little over a year. Jack... Jack just couldn't conceive that Stan would screw him over.

 

Just think if Marvel had made Jack and Steve a REAL deal and let their imagination run wild while Stan continued to oversee the books and continued to dialogue them and promote them. The Marvel Age could've extended for another 10 years and we could've seen even greater works.

Instead it was Stan's petty ego and greed that got in the way of all of it.

Marvel owed Jack more than just his original art pages back.

The Marvel Age of Comics would've never been the same without Stan Lee - his promotion and editorial skill were unparalleled. 

But without Kirby, it would've never existed at all. 

[Prince Namor]

Jack wasn't on his own. The second and third wave of creators almost all ended up hating Marvel Comics, after growing up and loving them and going to work for them. Marvel HAD to change because the way they did things previously drove away good talent. 

[kav]

20 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Yep. Also unknown are the promises made - and it's been suggested that they were made to Jack - during a day and age where a man's word meant something. Jack also felt that if he gave his all, and sold more books, the company couldn't help but want to reward him for it. Not the case. A thief like Goodman wasn't interested in people, only what he could take from them to make his own. And he taught Stanley very well.

Marvel's 'method' went by the way side... and their talent eventually dried up as well. Who wants to work for a company where they keep your creative ideas and don't recognize you for them?

Jack would create an idea, sometimes completely on his own. Sometimes with input from Stan, but never with a --script.

Jack would then put the story together through sequential art. Sometimes creating additional characters and taking the story in a different direction.

He'd then draw the entire thing with full pencils.

Write dialogue and captions in the margin.

Then do the cover.

Stan would then take it and put the dialogue in. 

Marvel could then license the art for cartoons or merchandise.

 

Jack would get paid only for drawing it.

Stan would get paid for writing it AND editing it, getting paid twice.

And Marvel would own it and be able to make money off of it forever. (Which Stan used as leverage for his own nest egg for decades)

 

What artist would want to continue to go on with THAT deal?

Ditko got out rather quickly - when he started doing all the work and not getting the extra pay - he was gone in a little over a year. Jack... Jack just couldn't conceive that Stan would screw him over.

 

Just think if Marvel had made Jack and Steve a REAL deal and let their imagination run wild while Stan continued to oversee the books and continued to dialogue them and promote them. The Marvel Age could've extended for another 10 years and we could've seen even greater works.

Instead it was Stan's petty ego and greed that got in the way of all of it.

Marvel owed Jack more than just his original art pages back.

The Marvel Age of Comics would've never been the same without Stan Lee - his promotion and editorial skill were unparalleled. 

But without Kirby, it would've never existed at all. 

Areyou saying Jack didnt care about the original art since he worked for over a decade without receiving his art back but just the general unbalanced treatmentt he got?

[boomtown]

7 hours ago, Garystar said:

Happy to be corrected but I thought Steranko negotiated a deal on joining Marvel that he could keep his art which was not the industry norm, nor Marvel’s, as someone has said, until the mid 70s. Stan must have been immensely impressed by him or Jim was a persuasive negotiator confident in his own ability even as a newcomer. (Might have to do some re-reading if I’m wrong).

I believe he did negotiate that, but have heard in stories that he was the one that actually went in and collected it before it disappeared. Entirely possible it could be Neal Adams that was doing this, It's been awhile since I read the stories. My main point was, I don't think it was too difficult to get the art if you really wanted it back at the time.

[Aman619]

don't think there were contracts ib the beginning except for a few artists and writers who went in demanding a contract.  At some point to enforce the "work for hire" deal, weren't the checks from Marvel etc stamped with a clause on the back that said "endorsing the check constitutes agreement that the work was performed as work for hire?"  Sounds legal in a way, but I dont recall if anyone challenged it in court besides Kirby who settled before the legality of the "check contract" dodge was affirmed by a court.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Aman619

[VintageComics]

20 hours ago, Readcomix said:

Not for a long time, anyway. I guess there was a time when they did a fair amount of both. But swipes and cross-influence in comic art is not new. The lack of formal art study might be a more recent phenomena, however.

I saw Dan Green last week; he showed me a portrait that Jeff Jones had done of him. That led him to telling me how they met. He said he was 17 when he walked into the Marvel offices for the first time, where he met Berni Wrightson. Dan said Berni was there trying out for Conan, and when they got to talking Wrightson showed Dan his work, from which Dan was able to say “You’re Berni Wrightson!” Berni was surprised Dan knew of him and could identify him based on his work, so he invited Dan back to his apartment, where Wrightson was living with Jones and Michael Kaluta. So I guess artists have been influencing one another for quite some time.
 

And besides, I thought you’d appreciate that anecdote, and these boards are a good place for recording comics history as we are able to learn it. 

I love the comraderie they had.

This story reminds me of the story of how Bill Everett, Carl Burgos and the associated creators at Timely came up with the 1st crossover battle issue in Marvel Mystery Comics #9 over a weekend.

They basically hung out over several days, drank booze, ate and came up with one of the greatest comic arcs of the Golden Age.

I love reading into the culture of the time. It was such a more innocent era and I can feel the atmosphere as I read about it.

This excerpt is from a book called Fire And Water about the birth of Marvel Comics.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by VintageComics

[lordbyroncomics]

21 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

I would not have given him a single page. 

 

Because the guy who plotted and generated the majority of the MCU doesn't deserve his artwork, on paper and with ink he paid for. Who said he didn't want it for profit but to leave for his grandchildren. Got it. I'm glad you guys aren't running corporations.