General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Jack Kirby's copyrights and Steve Ditko's departure from Marvel Comics
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: John C on April 02, 2011, 03:07:04 PM ---I mean, it sounds nice on the surface, but it's basically saying that artists get money long after they've put in the work (and get paid again and again, potentially), while the guy who fixes potholes or invents a new way to fuel cars gets his salary, maybe a bonus, and a pat on the head, to be forgotten.
If the artist gets a cut of every painting resale, why not the company who produced the paints? Why not the oil company (or walnut/linseed farmer, I guess) that provided the medium for the oil? We all know why: Because everything would be too expensive if we priced it that way.
--- End quote ---
I don't see that analogy, John. This is applicable only to Art, wherein a specific effort by a specific person adds a value to the canvas and the oil and frame that varies with both the quality of that effort and the value that society places on the result over time. The person who "invested" in a page of Jean-Claude's Valerian strip in 1975 did nothing to increase the value of that page. And it can easily be argued that Jean-Claude's continual effort and the quality of that effort and the popularity that he engendered DID contribute to the value of the 1975 effort. So when M. Collector decides to sell at a profit, there is a case to be made (and French Society makes said case) that a portion of the ROI for M. Collector is due to the Artist who made it possible.
--- Quote ---But somehow, we can idolize an artist and demand such payments without every thinking of demanding it for ourselves, and certainly turning a blind eye to everyone who enabled the art.
--- End quote ---
It's a little more subtle than that, I think. There is a value that societies place upon Art that is not given to making bricks or waxing automobiles or drilling for oil. Whatever "it" is that an Artist adds to a work of Art, the value of "it" varies with the talent and popularity of the Artist and with time and scarcity. "It" is more than a product or a service, where the normal market forces hold sway. Someone may be able to make a better brick and charge more for it, but there is usually the material and ability available for someone else to produce additional bricks. With Art, it's a done deal. There aren't going to be more Steve Ditko Spider-Man #33 covers. Can you really deny that the seller today of that piece of art doesn't have some moral debt to Mr. Ditko to share a portion of his windfall with Steve? Said seller hadn't contributed anything other than the preservation of it, and Marvel hadn't either.
I'm not saying that Ditko can demand such recompense, but I maintain that a society that can make a rule that awards him such is pretty enlightened.
--- Quote ---I think it's well past time I walk away from this topic. It seems I'm more angering people (not you, Jim) than engaging in conversation, and that's a waste of everybody's time.
--- End quote ---
I understand your position, and basically reject the current copyright laws as patently unfair and quite contrary to the intent of the framers of our laws. They are a manifestation of the manipulations of Corporate America. If the original intent of a 28 (or even the 56) year limit were enforced, the Shuster, Kirby, and Simon cases would be moot. Public Domain would be all the richer and faceless corporate ownership of Artistic Creations would be severely limited.
Much of these extension laws stem from Disney's efforts to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain. And where would Walt Disney be without such Public Domain material as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, Swiss Family Robinson, etc. etc. etc.?
We exist in a hypocritical world run by lawyers, but there are a few bright spots of respect still around. I think that the French acknowledgement of an Artist's contribution to the value of his own work is a laudable one.
In NO way have you angered me, so I hope you will consider a continuation of our conversation.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
narfstar:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 03, 2011, 05:38:58 AM ---
--- Quote ---Much of these extension laws stem from Disney's efforts to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain. And where would Walt Disney be without such Public Domain material as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, Swiss Family Robinson, etc. etc. etc.?
--- End quote ---
Very astute observation that I had not thought of.
--- Quote ---We exist in a hypocritical world run by lawyers, but there are a few bright spots of respect still around.
--- End quote ---
Yep
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 03, 2011, 05:38:58 AM ---
--- Quote ---Much of these extension laws stem from Disney's efforts to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain. And where would Walt Disney be without such Public Domain material as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, Swiss Family Robinson, etc. etc. etc.?
--- End quote ---
Very astute observation that I had not thought of.
--- Quote ---I think that the French acknowledgement of an Artist's contribution to the value of his own work is a laudable one.
--- End quote ---
I question why we as a society place the arbitrary values on this or that effort. Picasso slapped a few lines on canvas and because he was Picasso it was art. NONSENSE. Someone sticks a cross in urine and it is art. NONSENSE. If any hack can easily copy it then it is not talent. Some argue that it is the idea. Within one novel a writer may include many such ideas. Just because he does not have a name as an artist and make a physical representation it is not as valued. I remember a "sculpture" I saw once. It looked like a wad of gum. I would bet money that was the "artists" inspiration. It took no talent to make a large version of a wad of gum. He made money probably founded by tax dollars.
I guess my points on this are coming from being a teacher. I feel that I add far more value, with far more effort and work, to society. In most instances I feel that society contributes to the value of the artist more than the artist to society. Same with actors or music stars. In most cases I think it is the work of the writer and the people behind the scenes that add the real value and quality. Once society places a value on the celebrity they continue to reap great rewards. It is almost always the product that made them more than the other way around.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on April 02, 2011, 04:48:47 PM ---I'll just add one last thing.
I was considering this the other day... when Kirby and Ditko joined up with Atlas in those waning days of the 1950s, Atlas was indeed on the rocks. Basically, it was a completely renewed company by the time Kirby, Ditko and Lee hit their stride with the new superhero titles. And IMO if one is to draw a correct analogy with the workings of the computer software industry, the conditions of Atlas-Marvel at that time was more akin to a modern day software startup. If Atlas was a software company today and it brought in two high profile creative talents like Kirby and Ditko, I'm sure they would be offered not only a salary, but stock options as well. Why? Well, it's obvious. The stock options work as a method of recapturing "a cut" of future profits for these creative efforts.
--- End quote ---
The analogy falls down, DL, when you consider that Kirby and Ditko were not working full time for pre-Marvel. They weren't "brought in" to create a company, they were two guys looking to earn a paycheck and taking work where ever they could get it. Kirby was at Classics Illustrated and Archie, while Ditko was still active at Charlton and even Dell. Without a full/total commitment to a company, I don't believe that anyone today would be offered stock options.
--- Quote ---Did Kirby get such a deal? No, not at all. So by this loose modern analogy I'd say yes, Kirby's family deserves to be compensated for loss of income/profits.
--- End quote ---
I am a firm believer in Jack Kirby's contribution to the Marvel Universe and would argue until the day I die that he deserved more than he got. BUT, I simply reject the notion that his family is owed anything. Families aren't the creators of the work and their contributions are non-existent. The copyright of a work is a tangible asset that can be willed to an heir or heirs, so if there is a legitimate copyright that Kirby can be shown to have owned, then they deserve to inherit that asset. The convoluted and insubstantial nature of the "rights" defined by the new copyright laws makes this both debatable and difficult to prove.
Personally, I think all the rights to anything done over 58 years ago should be PD and the notion that Marvel or Kirby's family should be fighting over them is sad. It seems possible that nothing will ever again fall into the Public Domain.
--- Quote ---Of course I'm not even sure stock options as a form of compensation for key people was even a concept back then, and besides Atlas was privately held at the time. But Kirby could have at least been offered a small percentage of the comic book business... in other words, he could have been made a silent partner in the company... which IMO would have amounted to about the same thing as a stock options offering. But neither he nor Ditko (or Lee for that matter, as far as I know) were... yet they did pretty much rebuild Goodman's comic book business for him (IMO).
--- End quote ---
I also agree that Kirby rebuilt Goodman's business for him. But he did it with his eyes opened and he did it probably MORE for Jack Kirby than for Martin Goodman. He needed a steady job and he effectively created one for himself. It wasn't altruism on Kirby's part any more than it was manipulation on Goodman's. It was one more example of Capital and Labor joining forces to satisfy their own needs. We don't know exactly who said what to whom, but I think it's extremely unlikely that Kirby was concerned with the long-term returns on his creative investments until long after he had made them. As has been proved more than once in his career, he wasn't the world's greatest contract negotiator. And that doesn't make Martin Goodman an ogre (though he still may have been one).
Peace, Jim (|:{>
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: narfstar on April 03, 2011, 06:02:47 AM ---
--- Quote ---I think that the French acknowledgement of an Artist's contribution to the value of his own work is a laudable one.
--- End quote ---
I question why we as a society place the arbitrary values on this or that effort. Picasso slapped a few lines on canvas and because he was Picasso it was art. NONSENSE. Someone sticks a cross in urine and it is art. NONSENSE. If any hack can easily copy it then it is not talent. Some argue that it is the idea. Within one novel a writer may include many such ideas. Just because he does not have a name as an artist and make a physical representation it is not as valued. I remember a "sculpture" I saw once. It looked like a wad of gum. I would bet money that was the "artists" inspiration. It took no talent to make a large version of a wad of gum. He made money probably founded by tax dollars.
I guess my points on this are coming from being a teacher. I feel that I add far more value, with far more effort and work, to society. In most instances I feel that society contributes to the value of the artist more than the artist to society. Same with actors or music stars. In most cases I think it is the work of the writer and the people behind the scenes that add the real value and quality. Once society places a value on the celebrity they continue to reap great rewards. It is almost always the product that made them more than the other way around.
--- End quote ---
I agree, narf. I think that much if not most of what is classified as "Art" these days is stupid and laughable, and such is especially true of the popular arts of film and "music". You will get NO argument from me. The "conceptual" nature of Modern "art" is, as you say, nonsense.
I've NEVER understood the appeal or "value" of Picasso, but you and I are not the arbiters of what Society views as Art. Our society is VERY confused on its priorities, as you correctly point out, but it's a social evaluation, not one that we as individuals have control over. You and I can value the writer of a film more than the actors, but Society doesn't. We can be right and Society wrong, but it has ZERO impact on how much Johnny Depp is going to get paid for his next film.
As a teacher, you probably contribute much of value, but Society may just see you as a parasitic leech out to suck the public coffers dry. How stupid is THAT? Pretty DAMN STUPID, but the reality isn't what we're discussing - it is what the masses of opinions that manifest themselves as our Social Values reflect.
So, private opinions aside, American Society values notoriety, sex appeal, and popularity. It's probably much the same in France, but the simply fact that they acknowledge the role of the Artist in the public valuation of his/her Art, is something not found in America and something I laud.
YMMV.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
bcholmes:
Hm.
I've been hesitating to get involved in this conversation, because I'm sure that a large number of people will disagree with me in ways that are (in my opinion) knee-jerk reactions. Basically, because I'm really not very far from a communist in my political views, and I find that people just want to argue with anything involving the 'C'-word regardless of whether or not the argument applies to anything said in the conversation.
But there are a coupl'a points that I would like to raise -- and they're common points that (in my opinion) seem to be neglected in these kinds of conversations. I think that, because we live in such a capitalist society, we aren't really given any real training in the labour theory of capital. And we also, in my opinion, tend to analyze situations as individual choices without applying any sort of systemic analysis.
Consider the following suggestion that John made:
--- Quote ---Warren, yes, there's another choice. It's usually referred to as "getting a real job," which is what most artists do to support their families and their art. I have a lot of respect for those people and for the choice Kirby made, because they did make the choices, with their eyes open, and in full recognition of the facts. Kirby, especially, would know the facts, because he had been a publisher for a few years in the same business.
--- End quote ---
This is classic "individualist" thinking, in my opinion. I would assert that the better choice is for the Marvel artists to unionize and collectively bargain for reasonable wages and/or some other reward system for their work (such as, if the group wants it, future bonuses on the work).
This is, in my opinion, the real difference between the example of the person who fills potholes and the person who draws the X-men: not that one is "art" and the other is "pavement" (although it seems like the difference is obvious, I actually think that the distinction is built on a house of cards that'll tip over the moment you really start to interrogate it). The pot-hole-filler is almost certainly a unionized municipal worker, whose union has negotiated a reasonable wage and benefits. We all know what happens to comic artists later in life: the vast majority end up destitute even when the companies that they work for make fortunes. I don't think that is right, and I do think that there are equitable ways to fix that -- ways that don't involve suggesting that someone like Jack Kirby should have gotten a job filling pot holes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version