747 – Doth Protest Too Much…
This is going to be a difficult blog post to write… mainly because I don’t have a clear cut black & white view of the whole “Avengers movie and Jack Kirby” thing. As is the case with life most of the time, I have many conflicted feelings that go back and forth between seeing Marvel’s side and seeing the view of the Kirby defenders.
I think Scott Kurtz makes some very insightful points in his blog post about Kirby and the Avengers movie but I can’t say that I agree with all of them.
But then I read another article like this one and I think “Man, there’s some great points in there too…”.
So where does MY opinion fall, you might ask? Well, as I said in that opening paragraph, it probably falls somewhere right square in the middle. Just call me Chris “rockin’ the fence” Flick from now on, I guess.
See, here’s the thing… for a great many years, I worked as a production graphic designer grunt designing car ads that made car dealerships lots of money – money I never saw a penny. I’ve designed Buick professional golf tournament posters. Never got invited to the event. Never got any extra cash for it. Now, I now there’s a difference between designing a poster using products that already exist and designing a new super hero that goes on to become an American icon – but the one thing that isn’t different about those two things is that they are both “work-for-hire” situations. Graphic designers are used to this kind of thing… especially if you’re an “in-house” designer – which I basically was when I was a newspaper graphic production grunt.
Later on, I worked at an advertising agency where I got to create those Buick golf posters and a bunch of other really great – and highly commercial – stuff. But other than a steady paycheck and health benefits and a vacation package, I didn’t receive any other benefits for designing a great potato chip package that helped Potato Chip Company X reach top ten sales along the east coast (totally made up but you get my point). Those of us that are or have been “in-house” designers know we’ll get very little compensation for doing what we’re… well, what we’re hired to do – to create great creative designs so our clients can make more money then WE will probably ever see. But we go into the job knowing this as we are making a conscious decision to trade in freelance flexibility but job uncertainty with in-house inflexibility but job security.
Now, with all of that being said, any kind of “work-for-hire” situation sucks (except for that job security, health and vacation benefits thing). You will never get to own your own stuff, you can’t make any extra money profiting off of a logo you created for a client. If you create the next NIKE Swish, well, too darn bad. NIKE owns it. You’re just the designer that gets two weeks vacation on NIKE’S (your employer) dime.
Now, would it be nice if Marvel got all “It’s a wonderful life” and gave the Kirby Estate a large “donation” to show their appreciation for what Jack created for them? Sure it would. Is it likely to happen? Nope, not a whole lot.
But here’s the part that I seem to be aligned with Scott Kurtz on…
To me, the movie Marvel characters have always been greatly different than their printed counterparts. I understand the argument that the BASIC CHARACTER in the movie would never have existed were it not for the people who created them in print. Shoukld Ditko be given compensation and credit for a Spidey that shoots organic web fluid from his body instead of mechanical web shooters? Should Len Wein be given credit for a six foot two inch celluloid version of Wolverine?
How much credit should Marv Wolfman get for
For me my beef with Marvel is they never tried to do more than what was minimumly required when paying or giving to Kirby and others. In some cases they did everything in their power to do even less. It’s such a cartoonish level of villany, especially considering how little effort it would taken to have avoided this and the large amount of goodwill they would have got in return.
I used to think all the shitty stuff was in the past, but Marvel’s counter-suing of Gary Friedrich changed that. Ghost Rider is my favorite Marvel character, Gary was near broke at the time. Marvel has the right to defend its property, but it did it in such an overboard and callous way. To top it all off they also made the ridiculous demand that he stop calling himself the co-creator of Ghost Rider. I pretty much think Marvel comics is evil now, not the people who work there, but the company itself.
I don’t think work for hire is wrong, especially now that writers and artists have other options. But to be so stupidly legalistic and bullying towards those who have done most of the creative work is mindboggling. Marvel could have had more years of brilliant work from Jack Kirby, or DC having more masterpieces from Alan Moore. They could have made much more money working with the writers/artists than what they got through screwing those guys over.
Anyway, that’s the main points for me. It’s really a death of a thousand cuts. It’s the background radiation of comics, the Ghost Rider thing just was the point that brought it all to the fore for me.
And I can agree with all you said above, Tim. The Ghost Rider situation is especially deplorable too.
But what do you do about it? What do you do when you either routinely buy a product you either need or enjoy but then find out the company that makes said product does something you are morally opposed to? Do you quit purchasing the product altogether? What if it’s a product you NEED? What do you do then?
In other words, let’s say you have a baby that will only eat a certain Gerber’s food product but you later find out Proctor & Gamble – the owners and producers of that Gerber product – has done something that goes against your morals? Do you starve your kid just because you’re opposed to now buying that Gerber food product?
Those are the types of philosophical questions I wrestle with…
I find it really tricky. Because not all work or comics done by the companies is done unfairly. And I certainly don’t think that Marvel or DC should go away. I try keep a “hate the game, not the player” mentality, but I don’t always manage and it sometimes means I don’t enjoy books that are writen by a writer of books I have problems with. I like the people working on the books, I like the books, I don’t like the company and I don’t have an answer. I don’t boycott books, but knowing the background of a book often means I enjoy it less, and in some cases that’s enough to stop me from reading it altogether.
I don’t have an answer. I think the overall problem is fixable and out of my hands. And those who could fix is probably won’t. Which leaves me in a spot where anything I do will mean doing something I don’t want to do. Buy, boycott or steal.
I agree with Roy.
The comics industry is unique. Corporations like DC and Marvel are in business to make money.
I met my first boss on take your kid to work day. He thought I was a nice, well-behaved kid. He gave me a job to do. When he paid me, he told me that I was so polite I hadn’t asked him how much he would pay me. As he was handing me the ten bucks he was paying me, he told me, “Always as how much you get paid FIRST, BEFORE you do the job.” I’ve always tried to remember that.
I don’t think anybody thought that comics would catch on and become as big as it is today. It was all disposable from the start. Now that it’s as huge as it is – everybody wants a slice of pie. But, who’s pie is it? The corporations or the creators? I pay a guy to paint my house, should he get residuals?
In a perfect world creators like Kirby would be millionaires. They would have great company benefits. They wouldn’t be incorporated themselves.
As Edna said in The Incredibles, “Luck favors the prepared.”
Hey AirDave… all good points. That’s why I think this situation – for me – is so complicated. The key to your comment is right there at the bottom… “In a perfect world”. In a perfect world, your scenario would hold true and all of this would be moot.
But of course, in a perfect world, SOOOOOOO many things we deal with on a daily basis would be moot as well.
“I pay a guy to paint my house, should he get residuals?”
There are a few ridiculous “points” in this thread, but this one has to be the most inane. How is this relevant? Are you somehow profiting from your house? I doubt it. But let’s say you are. Let’s say your work-for-hire painter created a beautiful mural on the side of your house that people from all over come to see. Let’s say you begin charging admission for those people to view it. Should the painter get a cut of the profits? Absolutely. Why else would people be paying to look at your house if not for the work of the painter?
Here’s another example of a ridiculous point made here: “How much [credit] should go to Wesley Snipes for bringing the character to life and making Blade into a totally unique character that looked nothing like the comic book version?”
The credit Wesley Snipes received was listed in the opening and closing credits (yes, credits!) of the film, not to mention top billing on all promotional items and trailers of the theatrical and video releases. And not to mention the millions of dollars he made for starring in the film(!). Seriously, do you really consider this a solid argument?
Ryan, I’m not saying my thoughts are necessarily good or bad, pro and con arguments. The points you bring up about Wesley Snipes and Blade are valid. My point was not necessarily about the actual money Wesley may have made through the Blade movies. My point was about Wesley adding his own little piece of ingredient to a character that made it uniquely different from the printed comic book character.
Yes, Wesley got credit as an actor for the role of Blade but I would argue that, when it comes to films and comic book characters, there is a very, very large and ever expanding grey area about who should get sole “creator” credits for a celluloid interpretation of a printed comic book character.
See, again, I am conflicted because I can easily agree that Kirby should be compensated for either co-creating or fully creating some of the more popular characters that are making their way to the big screen. He should have had some sort of similar deal that Stan Lee was able to put together for himself. At the same time though, I can also agree that the characters that end up on the big screen might only have a passing resemblance to the core of what Kirby created. Should Kirby get credited for that?
When a huge chocolate chip cookie is finally baked, who gets final credit for the final product? Is it the guy who bought the ingredients? Is it the guy who decided to add the chocolate chips? Is it the guy who went out and was able to sell the chocolate chips? Is it the graphic artist who designed the packaging that made people want to buy the chocolate chips? Or, is it the guy who one day got this great idea that he was just hungry for something sweet that he wanted to bake?
My point about Wesley Snipes is that he added a very unique little piece of ingredient to the overall Blade cookie – just as so many others did to The Avengers over the years. So how do we slice that cookie and share it with everyone who had a piece in putting their own personal little ingredient in it?
That’s what I was getting at. 😉
Is anyone lined up outside MiB 3 protesting that Lowell Cunningham isn’t getting his?
That’s a REALLY great point, Chris… especially with the new movie coming out this weekend too.
For that matter, how many people, comics fans or no, really knew that MIB was a comic? Or who Lowell Cunningham is? Is it only because Kirby was this legendary figure that anyone cares? Or is it because the original MIB comic had a print run of maybe a couple thousand copies?
I don’t like the Ghost Rider situation and agree Marvel went over the top in their response, but remember Gary sued them first. They then made a example of him when they won the suit. Will it cause another artist to re-think whether they try to wrest control of a character? I think that was the intent.
These contracts were signed in another era. I think it is unfair to hold them to today’s standards. It was another time. And they are not the only industry that had these types of contracts. Most art is subsidized and the artists, inventors, musicians etc. rarely had control of their work. If you buy a old Carole King song, she gets little to no money for it. Because she doesn’t own her own songs. You buy a recent album, she sees a lot of more of the money, because she owns her recent songs. Different times, different contracts. Work for hire, was work for hire.
Should the companies be a bit more generous? I think making a sizable donation to Heroes Initiative wouldn’t hurt their karma or their copyright.
But the long of the short of it is, these companies are not going to let go of their copyrights and will fight for them with everything they have. Without these characters they are nothing.
Stacy… great comments – especially about Carole King. If I’m not mistaken, I believe I remember reading a story (maybe it was in Rolling Stones) where someone asked Debbie Gibson the best advice she ever got and she said it was from Billy Joel who told her to make sure she owned the rights to all of her songs she wrote. Yeah… all of those bubble gum hits when she was a teenager. She owns all of them so that was great advice all around.