ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 10379
Jul 30 11 6:51 PM
Registered Member
So when I see a movie with a credit "based on a novel by" or "based on a stage play by" I should assume the dastardly forces of Hollywood are "by no accident" trying to steal a "creator" credit from an author or playwright?
Posts: 2776
Jul 30 11 6:52 PM
Golden Age
Medieval Guy wrote:Is there even such a thing as a "created by" credit in Hollywood?
Jul 30 11 7:05 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote: -- but the more likely explanation is that this specific language, carefully chosen, is based on a legal recommendation, for specific reasons.
Posts: 14376
Jul 30 11 7:17 PM
Posts: 218
Jul 30 11 10:11 PM
DNAlien wrote: BillyBatson4360 wrote: I can't really point to a specific source,So we go from "he's been very vocal about not suing" to you not being able to cite a source, and you arguing about how your interpretation of his views would be inconsistent with him suing. In other words, he hasn't been very vocal about not suing. 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 workI've heard from people at both DC and Marvel that Ditko gets royalties (or whatever term Marvel uses) for reprints of his work. So much for your interpretation of his ethics and their real-world impact.
BillyBatson4360 wrote: I can't really point to a specific source,
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
Posts: 11308
Jul 30 11 10:43 PM
sfcityduck wrote:No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work? Marvel or Jack? It was not unheard of for Marvel to reject some, sometimes all, of the pages for a story with no payment to the artist. Think of it this way: If Jack was being paid $50 a page, and was assigned an 8 page story, he'd get paid $400. But, if he presented an 8 page story to Stan, and Stan didn't like two pages, resulting in Jack having to draw two more pages, he still got paid only $400 even though he'd done $500 worth of work (10 pages). So Jack would be out $100 worth of effort. Put simply: Jack bore the risk that the pages he submitted would not be accepted. That will be the crux of an appeal. Jack bore the risk of the story not meeting Marvel's approval, not Marvel. In theory, Marvel bore no risk in giving an assignment to Jack. If they didn't like the story he turned in, they didn't pay for it.
Jul 30 11 11:01 PM
...You know this based on what specific evidence? And is this the same legal recommendation given to other studios when they used the "Based on a novel by" credit?
I've heard from people at both DC and Marvel that Ditko gets royalties (or whatever term Marvel uses) for reprints of his work. So much for your interpretation of his ethics and their real-world impact.
Posts: 851
Jul 31 11 12:40 AM
Jul 31 11 12:47 AM
Jul 31 11 1:00 AM
Posts: 8154
Jul 31 11 1:47 AM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:As is often the case, I like Tom Spurgeon's take on this... "Fourth, this case should never have been filed. It’s pathetic that it had to come to this. Marvel should have used a decade’s worth of mega-cash to settle honorably with the Kirby family a long, long time ago, using their current relationship with Stan Lee — which itself had to be haggled out in court — as a model. Marvel doesn’t even match its closest rival’s efforts in terms of compensating creators for use of their characters in movies, and at some point, no matter how well they treat their current crop of creators, no matter how many entertaining comics they make, no matter how many weekends are won by their movies, this easily correctable series of +##@*% policies should matter to people."
Posts: 899
Jul 31 11 2:06 AM
karl51 wrote:Steve has said multiple times over the years that he's not interested in royalties for Spider-Man and a lot of other stuff. The "In Search of Steve Ditko" documentary asserted that Ditko accepted no royalties. It was widely reported that Ditko turned down any money for the Spider-Man movies, and the Amazing Fantasy #15 original artwork (that ended up being donated to the Library of Congress) was offered first to Steve and his response was "not interested". Jim Shooter alleged that Ditko told him (in the 1970s or 1980s) that Ditko felt that he wasn't owed any royalties for reprints under his "contract" with Marvel, and that he would honor that "contract". However, Shooter also claimed that Ditko said he wouldn't necessarily object to Marvel being "generous".
Jul 31 11 2:16 AM
Posts: 1816
Jul 31 11 8:34 AM
droid714 wrote: sfcityduck wrote: No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work? Marvel or Jack? It was not unheard of for Marvel to reject some, sometimes all, of the pages for a story with no payment to the artist. Think of it this way: If Jack was being paid $50 a page, and was assigned an 8 page story, he'd get paid $400. But, if he presented an 8 page story to Stan, and Stan didn't like two pages, resulting in Jack having to draw two more pages, he still got paid only $400 even though he'd done $500 worth of work (10 pages). So Jack would be out $100 worth of effort. Put simply: Jack bore the risk that the pages he submitted would not be accepted. That will be the crux of an appeal. Jack bore the risk of the story not meeting Marvel's approval, not Marvel. In theory, Marvel bore no risk in giving an assignment to Jack. If they didn't like the story he turned in, they didn't pay for it. Why should Stan (or Marvel) be expected to pay for pages that don't meet their quality expectations? If Stan (or Marvel) did pay for the two unacceptable pages, then Stan (or Marvel) would be out the $100, since those pages would still need to be re-drawn. Since Jack was responsible for the unacceptable work, shouldn't he also be responsible for the financial loss?
sfcityduck wrote: No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work? Marvel or Jack? It was not unheard of for Marvel to reject some, sometimes all, of the pages for a story with no payment to the artist. Think of it this way: If Jack was being paid $50 a page, and was assigned an 8 page story, he'd get paid $400. But, if he presented an 8 page story to Stan, and Stan didn't like two pages, resulting in Jack having to draw two more pages, he still got paid only $400 even though he'd done $500 worth of work (10 pages). So Jack would be out $100 worth of effort. Put simply: Jack bore the risk that the pages he submitted would not be accepted. That will be the crux of an appeal. Jack bore the risk of the story not meeting Marvel's approval, not Marvel. In theory, Marvel bore no risk in giving an assignment to Jack. If they didn't like the story he turned in, they didn't pay for it.
Jul 31 11 8:44 AM
Jul 31 11 9:00 AM
Posts: 47
Jul 31 11 9:08 AM
Jul 31 11 9:50 AM
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.)
czeskleba wrote:Alex has debunked the AF #15 original art story above already.
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.”
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.
Jul 31 11 11:26 AM
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.
Jul 31 11 12:04 PM
Share This