DNAlien wrote:
Ditko has "been very vocal about not suing Marvel"? Where has he said one word on the record about whether he would or would not sue Marvel?  He hasn't sued Marvel (but I think the copyright termination window for his major creations isn't even open yet, or if it is open will stay open for a good while yet), but not suing isn't the same as being "very vocal" about not doing so.
I can't really point to a specific source, but I do know that I have read several pieces by Ditko about creator rights and about the creation of Spider-Man. Ditko is an Ayn Randian guy. He knew what his working conditions were at Marvel. It would violently contradict his ethical code to now sue and try and claim he worked under different conditions.

In his specific piece on the creation of Spider-Man, Ditko gave Stan Lee credit for initiating the idea and many of the elements that made up the strip. Ditko took credit for designing the costume and the look of the various characters. He really stuck to just Spider-Man's origin in the piece and didn't get into how much of the plotting and character creation he took over as the strip developed. But it was clear from the article that he understood that Spider-Man was Marvel's property.

As I understand it (and others may correct me if I am wrong), Ditko has also not been interested in receiving royalty payments for his earlier work (because royalty payments had not been discussed when he did the work). If the guy is not interested in royalty payments, I think it would be highly illogical to expect him to suddenly sue over ownership.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the copyright window" as the Kirby estate suit doesn't appear to center on a copyright expiration/reclamation issue (as Joe Simon's suit did), but on the original working conditions (the "work for hire" vs. not "work for hire" argument). Even so, Thor and Spider-Man debuted the same month, just ten months after the Fantastic Four. Doctor Strange followed almost exactly one year later - certainly well before many of the characters and concepts mentioned in the Kirby suit.


DNAlien wrote:
Well, maybe if you find weak "based on the comics by..." or "special thanks to..." type credits accurate.  I think an accurate credit would be "Fantastic Four created by Jack Kirby and ...", which I haven't seen (but I haven't watched most of them).  I also seem to recall there was some hubbub about the second Hulk movie and the Wolverine movie and others not including even those weak credits.
First, my bad on Wolverine and the second Hulk film. I was wrong. Those films do not have creator credits. They should.

Second, I don't find a "Based on the comics by" credit confusing in the slightest. Nor do I think it confusing to the average movie goer. The comics are the source material. The guys named in the credit are the guys who created the comic. What else could it possibly mean?

Primary credits are about as good as it's going to get.  After all, in a Superman TV or movie project, you get "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster." You do not get "Jimmy Olsen created by [insert name of radio script writer who actually invented the character], Bizarro created by Otto Binder and George Papp, Morgan Edge created Jack Kirby, Star Labs created by Cary Bates and Rich Buckler, etc."