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

[kav]

17 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

You didn't generate most of the stuff in the MCU or the New God's concepts in DC's films, Kav. You weren't given false promises or had your writer and plotter's pay stolen from you. I'm sorry you think you're on the same level. And hey, I like your work Kav. But you being fine with being exploited doesn't justify it.

Work for hire is work for hire whether your art is worth $10 or $10,000,000.

[kav]

Whether you just did some doodles for 10 bucks or worked for years creating something that became worth billions, if it's work for hire it's work for hire.  If you dont like that dont work for hire.  People forget Marvel also gave Jack the opportunity to become a rich, famous dude.  It wasnt a one way street.

[kav]

There are plenty of undiscovered talented artists out there-just peruse deviantart.  They will remain nobodies.  I'm sure they would trade for 1/10th of Jack's success in a heartbeat.  You could say but jack was far more talented than anybody else ever but that is just subjective.  there are plenty of people that hate kirby's art and think he sucked.

[jjonahjameson11]

When Jack and Joe we’re publishers, did they ever return the OA back to Mort Meskin and other artists who worked for them?

Edited June 17, 2021 by jjonahjameson11

[Mercury Man]

Timing is everything really.  How many 'masters' lived frugal lives and died penniless, only to see their works in museums or be auctioned for millions, not seeing any of it?   How many athletes in the 1950's-1970's made a decent living playing sports, but had to get jobs in the offseason to supplement lost income.  Now they see average players get $3 mil a year?    

If these old comic book artists only knew what pop culture would evolve to, and how much their work would be worth, everything would have gotten saved. 

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Mercury Man said:

Timing is everything really.  How many 'masters' lived frugal lives and died penniless, only to see their works in museums or be auctioned for millions, not seeing any of it?   How many athletes in the 1950's-1970's made a decent living playing sports, but had to get jobs in the offseason to supplement lost income.  Now they see average players get $3 mil a year?    

If these old comic book artists only knew what pop culture would evolve to, and how much their work would be worth, everything would have gotten saved. 

Van Gogh sold zero paintings.   He was mocked and considered the village insufficiently_thoughtful_person.  

9 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

When Jack and Joe we’re publishers, did they ever return the OA back to Mort Meskin and other artists who worked for them?

ouch

[Buzzetta]

5 hours 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.  

The 1975 contract is online for anyone to read through.  So even when he came back in 1975, it was that the, "Writer / Artist grants in Marvel the sole and exclusive right to all Material delivered to Marvel hereunder including, but not limited to, (a) the exclusive right to secure copyrights (s) in the Material in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world, (b) the magazine rights therein of every kind, (c) all film and dramatic rights of every kind, (d) all anthology, advertising and promotion rights therein, and (e) all reprint rights.  The exclusive rights herein granted shall be Marvel's property for the period of the copyright and any renewals thereof."

Marvel owned it all.

He signed his name to it.  

His choice. 

As far as why Marvel settled instead of going to court.  Settling does not mean you are wrong.  Settling sometimes means that you recognize that the cost fighting it outweighs the settlement.  In another case you may know you are right but you are worried about the perception from the public so you do a settlement with a NDA.  And yes, there are instances where you know you are wrong and want something to go away as quickly as possible. 

The problem with settling, which is why I say I would not have offered him a single page can be provided by the example of NYC.  The city offers way too many settlements even when they know that the person is full of it and the case is meritless.  It's easier to pay the person to go away than tie up more of the city's time.  The problem is that there are too many that make claims out of NYC because it basically comes to an attempt at 'free money."  

They even tell you on their city website that they prefer to settle.  https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/GoingToCourt/settlements.shtml

Free money. 

 

This is why I would not have given Kirby a single page.  Give a mouse a cookie and then every other artist wants to know what they can get outside the contract that they signed. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Buzzetta

[Buzzetta]

1 hour ago, wisbyron said:

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. 

If he signed a contract giving Marvel possession and rights over the submitted materials, he either abides by the terms or he terminates the contract by quitting.  If he wants to hold out for more in the middle of the contract he is certainly welcome to try and then the two sides go from there, like when an NFL player holds out and does not report to training camp in an effort to restructure.  Sometimes it works.  Sometimes they find themselves cut. 

So... no... I don't feel bad for this guy. 

[Randall Dowling]

10 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

The 1975 contract is online for anyone to read through.  So even when he came back in 1975, it was that the, "Writer / Artist grants in Marvel the sole and exclusive right to all Material delivered to Marvel hereunder including, but limited to, (a) the exclusive right to secure copyrights (s) in the Material in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world, (b) the magazine rights therein of every kind, (c) all film and dramatic rights of every kind, (d) all anthology, advertising and promotion rights therein, and (e) all reprint rights.  The exclusive rights herein granted shall be Marvel's property for the period of the copyright and any renewals thereof."

Marvel owned it all.

He signed his name to it.  

His choice. 

As far as why Marvel settled instead of going to court.  Settling does not mean you are wrong.  Settling means that you either recognize that the cost fighting it outweighs the settlement.  In another case you know you are right but you are worried about the perception from the public so you do a settlement with a NDA.

The problem with settling, which is why I say I would not have offered him a single page can be provided by the example of NYC.  The city offers way too many settlements even when they know that the person is full of it and the case is meritless.  It's easier to pay the person to go away then tie up more of the city's time.  The problem is that there are too many that make claims out of NYC because it basically comes to an attempt at 'free money."  

They even tell you on their city website that they prefer to settle.  https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/GoingToCourt/settlements.shtml

Free money. 

 

This is why I would not have given Kirby a single page.  Give a mouse a cookie and then every other artist wants to know what they can get outside the contract that they signed. 

So this is for all work from 1975 going forward, correct?  It sounds like we don't know what the contract before looked like (or if one even existed).  And 1975 would have been after everyone caught on to the value of original art so it makes sense that Marvel would want to establish a new precedent of ownership.

But that doesn't help us with before this contract, does it?    And isn't it the missing 60s artwork we're discussing?  Apologies if I'm missing something.

[kav]

13 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

The 1975 contract is online for anyone to read through.  So even when he came back in 1975, it was that the, "Writer / Artist grants in Marvel the sole and exclusive right to all Material delivered to Marvel hereunder including, but not limited to, (a) the exclusive right to secure copyrights (s) in the Material in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world, (b) the magazine rights therein of every kind, (c) all film and dramatic rights of every kind, (d) all anthology, advertising and promotion rights therein, and (e) all reprint rights.  The exclusive rights herein granted shall be Marvel's property for the period of the copyright and any renewals thereof."

Marvel owned it all.

He signed his name to it.  

His choice. 

As far as why Marvel settled instead of going to court.  Settling does not mean you are wrong.  Settling sometimes means that you recognize that the cost fighting it outweighs the settlement.  In another case you may know you are right but you are worried about the perception from the public so you do a settlement with a NDA.  And yes, there are instances where you know you are wrong and want something to go away as quickly as possible. 

The problem with settling, which is why I say I would not have offered him a single page can be provided by the example of NYC.  The city offers way too many settlements even when they know that the person is full of it and the case is meritless.  It's easier to pay the person to go away than tie up more of the city's time.  The problem is that there are too many that make claims out of NYC because it basically comes to an attempt at 'free money."  

They even tell you on their city website that they prefer to settle.  https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/GoingToCourt/settlements.shtml

Free money. 

 

This is why I would not have given Kirby a single page.  Give a mouse a cookie and then every other artist wants to know what they can get outside the contract that they signed. 

This this this.

The End.

[VintageComics]

53 minutes ago, Mercury Man said:

Timing is everything really.  How many 'masters' lived frugal lives and died penniless, only to see their works in museums or be auctioned for millions, not seeing any of it?   How many athletes in the 1950's-1970's made a decent living playing sports, but had to get jobs in the offseason to supplement lost income.  Now they see average players get $3 mil a year? 

Or what their own rookie cards sell for now.

4 minutes ago, kav said:

This this this.
The end.

I have been lucky to have some great bosses in my business.

I was once working for $12 an hour in the early 1990's. But I was only hired to fix cars and yet I ended up running the guys entire shop because he was a little disorganized and going through a divorce.

My boss ended up giving me a 50% pay raise without me asking for it because he felt I was underpaid. To me, this is the way to run a business....recognize someone's talent and reward them for it without them even having to ask for it.

Most businesses don't operate like that.

Some people just aren't strong negotiators and THAT is what works against them rather than their talent level. It's a problem that plagues most artistic types. They're great at their art but not great at business and they get taken to the cleaners because of it.

That's pretty much the entire music industry that we grew up knowing and loving.

[Randall Dowling]

Copyright and intellectual property aside, the problem I've always had about the missing artwork is this:  If it was out in the public somewhere, why has none of it every showed up for sale (or almost none of it)?  If it's stolen, I understand trying to keep a lid on it.  But historically, virtually all stolen works eventually show up for sale.  It seems like we would have seen more of it before now if it was in private hands (just due to the shear volume).

I personally believe that Marvel still has it all someplace.

[Buzzetta]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Or what their own rookie cards sell for now.

I have been lucky to have some great bosses in my business.

I was once working for $12 an hour in the early 1990's. But I was only hired to fix cars and yet I ended up running the guys entire shop because he was a little disorganized and going through a divorce.

My boss ended up giving me a 50% pay raise without me asking for it because he felt I was underpaid. To me, this is the way to run a business....recognize someone's talent and reward them for it without them even having to ask for it.

Most businesses don't operate like that.

Some people just aren't strong negotiators and THAT is what works against them rather than their talent level. It's a problem that plagues most artistic types. They're great at their art but not great at business and they get taken to the cleaners because of it.

That's pretty much the entire music industry that we grew up knowing and loving.

I think comparing it to the music industry is a great analogy. 

You either abide by your contract or gtfo.   You created the music and are signed usually in exchange for the publishing rights to the very music you created.  One of the only times I have ever seen it flipped on its end was when Prince wanted out of his contract and vowed to make a country album after he changed his name to the symbol. 

[Buzzetta]

1 minute ago, Randall Dowling said:

So this is for all work from 1975 going forward, correct?  It sounds like we don't know what the contract before looked like (or if one even existed).  And 1975 would have been after everyone caught on to the value of original art so it makes sense that Marvel would want to establish a new precedent of ownership.

But that doesn't help us with before this contract, does it?    And isn't it the missing 60s artwork we're discussing?  Apologies if I'm missing something.

I am just getting back from another 15 mile bike jaunt and am going to make dinner and do some paperwork.  I heard the 'dunk' alert as I was walking away. 

The comic medium at the time at the inception of the Marvel Universe was considered a low class profession and medium.  Lee and multiple artists of the era have said this.  The contracts would not have been lucrative in an effort to promote the individuality of the artist and for them to succeed over the company itself.  

As pointed out it was standard operating procedure for the publisher to retain all original materials submitted to be published as exemplified with Jack and Joe retaining the original artwork submitted to their studio.

 

Now, does Kirby get credit for dreaming all of these characters up?  Absolutely.  What a genius he was WITH Stan to create these characters.  Does he deserve additional compensation just because the characters turned out to be widely successful?  No... no he does not.  Dreaming up successful characters was part of his job.  As stated in many of the contracts, if the artistic creation is not to a certain level that is useable or successful a company may terminate the contract.   So, at least in 75', Kirby submitted great ideas not in an effort to gain further compensation but to keep his job. 

Now, I have to make dinner and then there is a sales thread to organize.  I cannot go back in forth here all night otherwise it will distract me from doing what I wanted to do. 

 

It will be... epic.

 

[Buzzetta]

14 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

Copyright and intellectual property aside, the problem I've always had about the missing artwork is this:  If it was out in the public somewhere, why has none of it every showed up for sale (or almost none of it)?  If it's stolen, I understand trying to keep a lid on it.  But historically, virtually all stolen works eventually show up for sale.  It seems like we would have seen more of it before now if it was in private hands (just due to the shear volume).

I personally believe that Marvel still has it all someplace.

um... there is a lot of stuff that is stolen and hidden and then lost over time or kept private.  

On a more tame end that is usually generally accepted, soldiers often liberated enemy artifacts as souvenirs.  Some of those items have been passed down as collector's items over the years.  Look what happened with the AF15 artwork.  It was 'donated' to the Library of Congress.  Yeah right.  It was stolen and the guy realized the best way to dump it is to donate it to the government.   I am sure someone somewhere still has the cover. 

 

Now I am really going. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Buzzetta

[kav]

9 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I am just getting back from another 15 mile bike jaunt and am going to make dinner and do some paperwork.  I heard the 'dunk' alert as I was walking away. 

The comic medium at the time at the inception of the Marvel Universe was considered a low class profession and medium.  Lee and multiple artists of the era have said this.  The contracts would not have been lucrative in an effort to promote the individuality of the artist and for them to succeed over the company itself.  

As pointed out it was standard operating procedure for the publisher to retain all original materials submitted to be published as exemplified with Jack and Joe retaining the original artwork submitted to their studio.

 

Now, does Kirby get credit for dreaming all of these characters up?  Absolutely.  What a genius he was WITH Stan to create these characters.  Does he deserve additional compensation just because the characters turned out to be widely successful?  No... no he does not.  Dreaming up successful characters was part of his job.  As stated in many of the contracts, if the artistic creation is not to a certain level that is useable or successful a company may terminate the contract.   So, at least in 75', Kirby submitted great ideas not in an effort to gain further compensation but to keep his job. 

Now, I have to make dinner and then there is a sales thread to organize.  I cannot go back in forth here all night otherwise it will distract me from doing what I wanted to do. 

 

It will be... epic.

 

clearly the case when you subtract emotion and just use pure logic.  Kirby didnt get his art back and worked for over a decade with that understanding.  He could have quit any time if he didnt like it.  He never said a peep about it until years later when the dollar signs started showing up.  Ditko says he was work for hire and didnt want anything.  Pretty sure ditko and Kirby had the same contract.

[Bird]

There seems to be an ignorance of the timeline on some of the posts in this thread and some fundamental cognitive distortions displayed. We could never imagine the mindsets involved at the time, from Eisner through to Kirby. And people were inconsistent, as people are. And then we have a corporation involved as well.

These things were not decided overnight, it took many many years to change things and the Kirby page issue seems to have never been fully settled (as was stated, the sheer volume of pages is off considerably). Irene's list is fascinating and I encourage everyone who is interested to read up on it but it brings forth tons of new questions despite giving some answers. I enjoyed Shooter's blog and the comments section was more informative than the posts, but Jim's recollections are not corroborated by everyone involved. There appears to be many many versions of the "truth" here. I know enough black hole collectors that it is entirely possible they are in a closet or 3 somewhere. Look at the bound editions of DC Comics that showed up last year or so, it appears they were in an attic for 40+ years or so since they were last seen at the DC offices. Someone put them up for sale in a local NJ auction house, some press followed and legal issues arose immediately. So why not the OA? The thousands of pages that surely could not have been given away (many given away pages are documented in some fashion although there is no way to know what % that may be).

I have thanked Neal Adams for his work in getting artwork returned to Kirby and started the dominoes falling that led to my being able to collect original comics art. Without him there is no comic art hobby as we know it. work for hire is a beast but a faithful beast and I am glad to see some of the fundamental changes that have been made. Now NFTs are going to further define the boundaries of the work for hire concept.

(And Ditko likely never used his OA as a cutting board either! Ooops, too far afield now!)

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Bird

[shadroch]

4 hours ago, wisbyron said:

If I was hired to draw a political cartoon for a paper.. and the publisher literally didn't care about the art.. and I found out a kid proofreader took it to sell it... I'd be completely justified in being upset. 

If the publisher threw it out and a fan grabbed it, should the artist be upset?  I've heard much of the Disney art ended up in the garbage.

[Muno42]

Much of WB cartoons were either lost in a fire, or the cel's wiped clean for the next cartoon because material was scarce during the war. That is why you cannot find examples of original WB cartoon stuff. Even the Disney stuff is mostly recreations.

[mtlevy1]

On 6/17/2021 at 4:24 PM, Randall Dowling said:

Copyright and intellectual property aside, the problem I've always had about the missing artwork is this:  If it was out in the public somewhere, why has none of it every showed up for sale (or almost none of it)?  If it's stolen, I understand trying to keep a lid on it.  But historically, virtually all stolen works eventually show up for sale.  It seems like we would have seen more of it before now if it was in private hands (just due to the shear volume).

I personally believe that Marvel still has it all someplace.

Yeah, no