General Category > Comic Related Discussion

Jack Kirby's copyrights and Steve Ditko's departure from Marvel Comics

(1/17) > >>

bminor:
As this topic has evolved to include a lot more than just Ditko I'm renaming it.
-Yoc

=================================================


I have just read, after all these years, some of the reasons why Steve Ditko left Marvel in the late 60's.
The book "Strange and Strange, the World of Steve Ditko", tells us all.
A short excerpt from Page 95 of the book follows:

But Robert Beerbohm, a comics store owner in the late 1960s and early fanzine producer, got an earful. "A high school buddy, Steve Johnson, and I spoke with Steve Ditko by phone of couple of times back in 1969. Ditko told us point blank that he left Marvel over promised percentage royalties based on sales and merchandise, if the books took off. Steve started making noise about the extra dough. So did Jack(Kirby). They were told that the company was still not making enough money, and to wait. Promised contracts never seemed to be completed, to be signed, or were carefully verbal in nature.
If Goodman had lived up to his promises, Ditko and Kirby would have received hundreds of times more than what they were paid to simply produce the work - still only a fraction of the millions their creations have generated for Marvel. And denying a "producer" what he had "earned" is the equivalent to waving a red cape in front of an Objectivist.
Near the end, Ditko wrote Kirby a letter trying to recruit him into leaving Marvel together. Kirby's family responsibilities gave him pause , but he too would follow three years later under the same cloud.

End of excerpt.

Very interesting reading. On a similar note I remember reading a story about Jack Kirby told by Mike Evanier. The story was they stopped at a store on an outing. Either Mark or Jacks wife had to go into what was a store that had toys in it. Jack could not go in because of all the items in the store based on his comics. Items that he as a creator was denied in any royalties from. He would get extremely upset if he went in.

Why is it people treat other people so bad?

Greed?


Thoughts please....


B.

Geo (RIP):
I'm sorry to say DC did pretty much the same to it's artist and writers, and lost most if not all it artists and writers too. The story was posted in a Alter-Ego, I can't remember which issue it was in though off-hand.

Greed would be my answer to this.

Geo

narfstar:
Yes greed but we all operate out of greed to some degree. Would we have really done any differently if we were in charge? We like to think we would. Business's are in business to make money. We forget sometimes that if they pay upfront they are taking the risks. It is also at the expense of the company that promotions are made that could be the reason for success. DC's superhero revival was partially responsible for the FF and Spidey success. If they had come out five years early would they have made such a hit? With Spidey and FF I do agree that it is a case where the creations were their own main reason for success but not the only reason. With risks come rewards or LOSSES. If the creator is getting paid upfront he has no risk of loss. The movie industry has gone way to far in upfront payments. I think it is seldom the actor that makes a movie, we just have that mind set. That being said I think that promises are promises and should be upheld. If they were promised more then they should have gotten more.

Roygbiv666:

--- Quote from: narfstar on March 21, 2011, 07:05:38 AM ---Yes greed but we all operate out of greed to some degree. Would we have really done any differently if we were in charge? We like to think we would. Business's are in business to make money. We forget sometimes that if they pay upfront they are taking the risks. It is also at the expense of the company that promotions are made that could be the reason for success. DC's superhero revival was partially responsible for the FF and Spidey success. If they had come out five years early would they have made such a hit? With Spidey and FF I do agree that it is a case where the creations were their own main reason for success but not the only reason. With risks come rewards or LOSSES. If the creator is getting paid upfront he has no risk of loss. The movie industry has gone way to far in upfront payments. I think it is seldom the actor that makes a movie, we just have that mind set. That being said I think that promises are promises and should be upheld. If they were promised more then they should have gotten more.

--- End quote ---

Greed is good. Stupidity and short-sightedness are bad. DC and Marvel both failed to realize that keeping their creators happy would have incresed their overall profits - happy creators are prolific creators, I think.

builderboy:
another way of thinking of it is that Marvel repaid DC in full for DC's superhero revival and Marvel's ensuing profits from their Super-Hero Silver Age...Marvel screwed Kirby and Ditko, who left and went to DC to produce Fourth World and the Creeper, putting money into DC's pockets.   :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page