Fin Fang Foom wrote:
No direct, first-hand evidence, just a general understanding of how media companies do this stuff... (Even at DC, questions about creator credit, where and when those credits were to be applied, that all had to go through Legal.)
Well certainly, all credits for all movies must go through legal.

My point was that the credits in the Marvel movies do NOT differ in any significant way from the credits in any other Hollywood movie derived from another source.

"Based on a comic book by" is exactly the same type of credit as...
"Based on a novel by"

Your inference was that somehow Marvel was being sneekier or more devious than what has been standard practice throughout Hollywood history for original creator credits.


As to redrawn pages, another analogy from my freelance writing assignments. If I agree to take on a project for a lump sum fee, rather than a per hour charge, I am accepting an assignment similar to Marvel's freelance artists (for example, Kirby accepting the assignment to draw Fantastic Four # 25). I submit my first draft. The client accepts parts of it and rejects parts of it (similar to a page of artwork being rejected). I write a second draft and submit it. Again, parts of it may be rejected. I keep submitting drafts until the project is accepted and I am paid.

If I do it to the client's satisfaction the first time, great. But I clearly understood and accepted the risk that parts of my creative work may be rejected and I would have to change and resubmit it to complete the project.

In any event, it does not appear that a great many of the pages were rejected. After all, if most of what was submitted was not acceptable, wouldn't the company eventually start looking for another artist who could turn in acceptable work at a faster clip? In fact, the opposite appears true. Jack Kirby was able to draw and submit acceptable pages at a rate faster than other artists - one reason he became Marvel's "go to" guy when there was a deadline crunch.


czeskleba wrote:
Alex has debunked the AF #15 original art story above already.
How has Alex's comment debunked anything?

First, Alex's cites no source for his post either. I'm not saying Alex isn't being truthful (personally, I think he is being truthful), just saying that both posts are unsourced.

Second and more importantly, Alex's post says that the owner of the artwork reported to the LOC that he spoke to Ditko. That in no way proves that the owner of the artwork is lying. In fact, it asserts just the opposite. Why would we assume that he did not talk to Ditko? Especially when the response attributed to Ditko is totally in line with what Ditko IS on record as saying time and again?


sterlling wrote:
Steve said that he was an adult when he did his work for Marvel in the sixties, that he knew what he was doing, that he understood the way things were done at the time and he accepted the terms. He agreed to the deal, or the standard terms that were in place then and he would not renege. If Marvel chose to be generous, fine. But he would stand by the choices he made. And, here comes the quote, he wasn’t going to let the Guild use him as a “poster child.”
Thank you. This is indeed one example of what I meant when I posted that Steve had "been vocal" about not suing Marvel. (I may be geting older, but my memory isn't totally shot!)


boraboran wrote:
While I feel Marvel has some moral obligations to the actual creators (the living ones not their estates), I have never understood this case from a legal perspective.  Work for hire is work for hire.  The fact that twenty to thirty years after the work was created its value soared in ways never imagined does not change the condition under which it was created and the expectations of the parties at that time.
+1.


Last Edited By: BillyBatson4360 Jul 31 11 9:52 AM. Edited 1 times.