Thinking of Mary Jane Watson, in terms of today’s Spider-Man books. I think the character is irreversibly Damaged Goods, and can never be fixed in the Spider-Man books.

Looking at her, or bringing her back into the current Spider-Man books with a recurring role, just cannot happen. When fans look at her, they will just see and remember that she is Spidey’s wife, but that the marriage was removed.

She now has a stigma that cannot be shaken from the character. Looking at her and the fans remember the marriage. It’s inescapable this conclusion.

And why even associate her with Peter Parker anymore or his world? You know that corporate Marvel will never let a real relationship grow between the two again, that could lead to marriage. It just won’t happen. So it’s pointless to make them date again. And could even be seen as an insult. A way to dangle it in front of fans, yet full well knowing, they’ll never let them get close again.

And for arguments sake, even if they did let them get married again. What’s the point? It’s a case of seen it before. They made that pointless.

So I ask you, thinking about that. Is she damaged goods in the Spidey books now? Does Mary Jane even have a role in the book anymore? I don’t think she does for the above reasons.

In the Amazing Spider-Man #623-624, Peter Parker gets fired and us Unemployed. I guess their trying to reflect today’s economy and people who have lost their jobs.

But truth is, I’ve stopped caring for the book. And while Spidey is my favorite superhero. In terms of the current comic books and buying it? I can’t. I‘ve lost that emotional connection to the character ir his struggles, ever since One More Day.

It’s just a comic book character, and in a corporate, non creator owned world, a character can only grow so much.

The famous Illusion of Change line. Because make no doubt about it. At some point, he will be working for the Daily Bugle again and it’s a return to status quo. So this new story DOES NOT matter at all. ALSO, Peter Parker has been Unemployed before. So this new story is nothing new we have not seen before.

Sony Spider-Man 1 image found on google with my caption

Just read the news that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maquire are out and will not be part of Spider-Man 4 and a reboot is in the works.

There were script troubles and NO DOUBT Sony was not happy at all that they had to miss their intended movie date. For a studio to not make a movie date they planned and set out years in advance is kind of unforgivable in that business and they don’t forget it.

I think missing the planned date is a big reason why they let Sam Raimi go. And credit to him, Tobey Maquire probably left out of loyalty to Sam Raimi.

The problem was the script and creative difference on who the villain would be. Raimi wanted the Vulture but the studio wanted someone else. I think the studio was not happy because of the age issue with the Vulture. An old guy is not exactly marketable to a young buying crowd and audience now is it?

Raimi also probably learned his lesson about bowing to the studio for their villain needs after the Spidey 3 disaster with Venom. A character he never wanted in the film.

Overall I’m HAPPY Sam Raimi, Tobey Maquire are GONE and a Reboot is in the works!

While Raimi was great in the first film and the second film. And Mcquire was also good in both.

I think Maquire is too old for the role now and they need someone younger. I also think it showed he had no real passion for the role or character. It was just a job to him. I hope the next one cast actually reads comic books or has a passion for Spider-Man.

Raimi has passion for the property. Much more then Maquire, but I think he lost balance and focused to much on Peter Parker and his life outside the mask.

Raimi did not give us many moments of Spidey in costume in action.

People go to superhero movies to see the Superhero in costume doing things.

Look at the Dark Knight and the GREAT BALANCE between the Bruce Wayne and Batman action.

I think this is just what a new Spidey or any superhero film needs.

Raimi in the last Spidey 3 film featured Peter Parker way too much. And Spider-Man in costume way too little. With his Spidey 4 he’d probably feature Spidey in costume for less then 20 minutes again.

Let’s get the balance right in the next Spidey movie.

Also with the news already mentioned, I think it goes without saying that Kristen Dunst is gone as well. I haven’t heard official word yet but please say it’s so.

I hated Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane. She had no passion or interest in the roll. See the Spidey 3 news for how little she cared. And she never fit the look or was in my opinion particularly hot, beautiful, or attractive enough for the roll.

It’s been enough years, and three films is usually it for a cast in movies. I just hope they get a good director who likes the property.

And though the Spidey costume was great enough as it is. Why not upgrade it as well? Change the eyes to make it more spider like, and though it probably won’t happen I know, but make the under the arm webbing as well.

I’m all for a Spidey reboot and seeing what happens.

Picture found on google with my caption

Besides the rise in comic book prices to $3.99 at Marvel for many books and mini-series, one thing that slipped under the radar and didn’t get much attention is that Marvel raised the prices on their collected editions.

I was in the comic shop recently just to observe the prices on paperbacks and hardcovers and they have increased quite a bit. Also page count appears to be reduced.

The Essentials line went from $17.99 to now $19.99 an issue. And page count seems thinner on some recent volumes then in previous issues.

Still it is a good deal for the price.

The Hardcover line, books like Ultimate Spider-Man went from a then standard $29.99 to now $39.99. And the last volume 11, was very thin and cost $39.99.

It’s not such a good deal anymore. Almost $40 for about 10 issues.

Marvel Omnibus line took a drastic increase. The normal big books cost $99.99. But their recent volume of Golden Age Marvel Comics cost $125.00. And seeing it in the store I was surprised how thin it was. Past volumes that were much thicker cost only $99.99.

There really was no justification for a $125.00 price tag for a book so thin.

In fact the whole Omnibus line seems to be having smaller page counts and sizes then in the earlier volumes. And sometimes Marvel’s price points make no sense at all.

For example Secret Wars Omnibus cost $99.99 for only 12 issues.

Yet Secret Wars II Omnibus cost $99.99 for more then 30 issues.

Paperbacks that were $19.99 went to $24.99.

Overall, you can still find discounted prices online in places such as Amazon. Lines like the Essentials are still great deals with the discounts. While other series such as the Omnibus line which seems to be having a new price tag of $125.00 just don’t seem like good deals anymore. Because even with an online discount you are still paying close to $80 and the volumes are not as big as before.

So the next time you are at the store, take a minute to look at the recent Marvel collected trades, and try to find earlier volumes in the series and compare the price changes.

Amazing Fantasy 15 cover with my caption

Kirby Estate Going After Spider-Man

Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case

Wow what a news surprise!

What a bunch of crap in my opinion!

Having read a lot about the creation of Spider-Man. It’s clear to me, that a Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER have been the same as the Published Lee/Ditko version of Spider-Man that we got.

The Spider-Man we know today is a creation of Lee/Ditko.

THIS VERSION is the successful one. THIS VERSION is a creation that the Lee/Kirby version never would have been.

Read the Ditko paperback “The Avenging World”. It has various articles about Spider-Man and comic book creation.

Did Lee/Kirby make an undeveloped Spider-Man idea? Yes.

Was the Lee/Kirby Spider-Man idea the same as the Lee/Ditko idea? No.

Key Question: Are there ENOUGH DIFFERENCES from the Lee/Kirby idea to qualify and say that the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man idea Qualifies as a Separate Creation, that stands on it’s own merits? YES!

Bottom Line: What Lee/Kirby made of Spider-Man was an idea that was never fully developed.

The Spider-Man we know today is a Lee/Ditko creation that went a separate way, and stands as it’s own creation.

A Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER have become the icon we know today.

I find this latest claim to be Kirby Heir GREED and Hubris.

They assume that the Kirby Spider-Man idea is the same, and would have become the same thing. Reach the same fame. Become the same character we know today.

Anyone can talk. But I want them to back this claim up with proof, facts, documented evidence. Not hearsay, and just throwing allegations out there.

The Overall Conclusion looking at the evidence from articles I’ve read and researched is this:

Kirby with Lee developed an initial Spider-Man idea that Lee rejected. What Lee developed and created with Ditko was a Spider-Man creation that stands as a separate creation.

The Ditko/Lee Spider-Man idea became the success we know today. Became the character we know today.

If the Kirby Heirs are so right in their allegations. Let’s take Ditko out of the equation. Would a Lee/Kirby Spider-Man idea BE ANYTHING like the character we know today?

I think it’s fair to say: NO WAY! It would be MUCH DIFFERENT!

And that very FACT that it would indeed be MUCH DIFFERENT, all but proves the case that the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man is a separate creation that stands on it’s own merits.

If anyone deserves compensation for Spider-Man it’s Ditko and Lee.

And some facts I’d like to lay out of what Kirby “created” in terms of Spider-Man.
1. Possibly brought Lee the Spider-Man name idea. Yet the Spider-Man name in some variation (without hypen) had been used before. The word itself was already out there. Kirby never really created it. Just like the word Batman was already out there before Kane/Finger created Batman.

2. An Aunt and Uncle. Yet no reference for names. But in a previous published comic story Lee/Ditko created similar looking characters who by coincidence were named Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Also just mentioning characters with no description or character development. Well, it’s generic enough that anyone can have an idea. Yet it’s not enough to claim the idea as your own.

3. Amazing Fantasy #15 cover Kirby penciled. EXCEPT for that FACT that it’s based on a cover Ditko already made. Kirby just made the cover from a different perspective.

Facts that Ditko CREATED for his Spider-Man.
1. Designed the Spider-Man costume and visuals of the various characters and villains in Spider-Man’s world.

2. Designed the web shooters and out of the wrists idea.

3. Designed the spider sense and other various powers. As Ditko mentioned in his article. Lee gave him no specific powers to use. But using a power like clinging to walls for a Spider themed character is just a natural progression. It’s what spiders do.

4. Designed the way Spider-Man moves. His visual nature in poses and movements. All have which been associated with the character ever since.

If the Kirby Heirs win money for Spider-Man, it would be one of the big screw jobs in comic history. The CREATION and money should go to Ditko.

As I mentioned, what Kirby brought was an unfinished idea that was rejected.

While I’m for the Kirby Estate to get his Marvel co-creations. This case is really pushing it and in my opinion is definitely not justified. A Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER be the same as the published Spider-Man we know today. It’s just wrong to assume that a Kirby Spider-Man would be the same thing as the Ditko Spider-Man.

The Lee/Ditko Spider-Man version is a separate creation. This idea went in a different direction and became the success we know today.

As I heard mentioned: Like Mickey Mouse, everyone is claiming a hand in that they created Spider-Man. As if whatever ideas they had, would equal the Spider-Man we know today. Facts and evidence prove otherwise though.

Had Spider-Man just been a failed concept, no one would be talking about the character. Much less wanting to claim credit.

Yet have a successful idea, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Various Kirby co-creations with my caption

Kirby Estate Goes after Marvel

This news is a surprise! It appears that Jack Kirby, or rather his Heirs in the form of his Estate are going to sue both Marvel and now Disney. They are going for the Copyright ownership of the characters Kirby created or that he co-created.

They are using the same law firm that is representing the Superman case in court.

They are also going to go after the various movie studios that produced recent films.

I thought this change in copyright law only took effect if it could be proven a character was made before and that a publisher bought what was already created?

Such as the Siegel case. That is why in the Superman case, the Siegel family won something back.

BUT this is a case where a creator made Work For Hire material, on the job. Which is what appears to be the case with Kirby and his 60’s Marvel work.

This is a whole other matter to me. And not legally, anything like the Superman case that is going on.

Also I wonder to what extent this copyright law was changed? How many years are covered? Because if Kirby, or rather his family is able to gain come form of copyright and character ownership. What of Ditko, Romita Sr., and other creators from that era? Is it all going to be open game now? Can they sue for Copyright ownership?

I’m no lawyer, but just because Kirby helped make a lot of characters, this doesn’t mean his case is more valid then any other creator from that era. Can and will other Marvel creators ask and get copyright ownership back?

I also can’t help but think greed is a factor on why the Kirby Heirs are suing now. Why not earlier? I think they waited for others to start the hard work. And now they are riding the coattails.

The Superman case is going on and DC appears to be losing. Plus now, with the recent Marvel and billions deal. Is it any wonder that now this case is brought up?

While I think hiring the same lawyers as the Superman case is a good idea. I can also smell those lawyers just being sharks and wanting to get millions. Which is what they will get paid if they win their cases.

Overall Kirby at least did okay financially. And didn’t end up poor like other creators. As I read in a post, poor people don’t leave Estates.

I also wonder the fact that didn’t Kirby sign away his characters in later contracts? This is in regards to the 80’s art controversy and what What For Hire meant legally. If he signed away his rights in contract. How can his Estate get back what was already signed away?

And don’t forget most are co-creations. And not his characters outright. So exactly what percent of ownership is his family due?

For example Iron Man is mentioned. Yet Kirby had little to do with the character. He only designed the original armor, which is no longer used. He did not create the Tony Stark face, or the first issue. He did not create the origin. At least as far as I can tell in evidence.

So is Kirby really a co-creator of Iron Man? Sure he had a hand in it. But in my opinion, not much of a hand.

Wouldn’t Ditko deserve as much Iron Man co-creator status? After all, it was Ditko who made the classic slimmed down red and gold armor that has been the characters trademark.

And legally speaking I don’t think there is much documented evidence to back up any cases from back then. Without clear evidence for your case, how can you win? You can’t just say you co-created a character. Their should be clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you can backup your claim. I ask where is such legal evidence?

I’d be real interested if Ditko could get some Spider-Man and Dr. Strange ownership back? As a creator, I think he lost out far more then other creators. He co-created an icon that the world knows. And never was justly compensated for his work.

Other then questions, I’ll wait to see if this develops and more news on the subject.

I don’t think this case will win, if you had to prove you made the characters before the company hired you.

But if they win back some control of the character, then I think this could open a door to many other creators.

Legally this could also be one major problem for Marvel.

The ironic thing is a few weeks ago I posted an article wondering just this topic. What if other creators from Marvel could get their characters back?

Read the article by clicking the link below.

Work For Hire Copyright Ownership Laws Time For A Change

Spider-Man and Captain America by Joe Quesada with my caption

Comic Book Resources

I took the above images from the Comic Book Resources link above on his Cup O’ Joe art.

Spidey was a One More Day Wizard picture. Cap was from the Reborn story cover art.

I put my text in both and found Both Images to well represent my feelings about the Disney Takeover of the Marvel characters and company.

Basically like an old chant I heard of “You Sold Out”. Meaning someone sold themselves out just for money. I changed it to disparage Marvel.

As I mentioned in my post before this one, once Disney Takes Over. The Marvel property as you know it is forever theirs. A corporation like Disney knows the long term value of these characters, and will not let them go. I think they would rather go bankrupt, then to lose a property like this.

Not much to say after that. I think the images and my captions speak for themselves.

Marvel Characters image found on Google with my caption

I’m sure you heard the news by now. That Disney plans to buy Marvel and all their characters.

My reaction? Utter Surprise!

For all the comic news gossip / journalism sites, I never saw or read about this coming. Yet, wouldn’t their be news of this happening for at least a few weeks? Things like this just do not happen out of nowhere. The information had to be out there in the business circles.

Yet I heard nothing on the comic book news sites. At least until like everyone else, it was after the fact.

I think this shows that the comics news people, may know a lot about comic creators and about books. But when it comes to actual business issues, most comic journalists know nothing. Or at least very little.

My further reaction?

THIS IS TERRIBLE!

I think this really ruins Marvel for the reasons I’ll list:

1. I’m not a big Disney fan, and for all the talk of ‘Well this will help get more exposure for the Marvel brand. And no one brands better then Disney?’

News item: Marvel is already a popular brand and has exposure. Look at all the movies, animation and merchandise. They have been a POPULAR brand for DECADES.

This really is not needed. You need a brand, if you are something like an Independent or Small publisher.

If they bought say: Dark Horse or maybe IDW, then the branding idea would have a point. It doesn’t in this case.

2. I fear since Disney DOES NOT understand how comic books work. It will only be a matter of time before some executive is put in place and at some point Marvel characters will be watered down.

I fear an overall watering down process will happen. It’s just a gut reaction and feeling I have.

Remember Disney bought CrossGen comics, and did nothing with the property. Why did they buy them and not use it? I feel characters and items that are not seen as immediate money makers will be pushed to the side.

If a corporate suit does not understand the product. Or really care to understand the product. Then they will only stick to the money makers. And push others aside. And demand changes to other characters to make them more friendly. Even if these changes go against what that character is all about.

3. Marvel always seemed a place that had an edgy appeal to it. Marvel was not a stuffy shirt, like corporate DC Comics. Now like DC Comics, it will only be a matter of time before Marvel seems like a stuffed shirt and corporate puppet.

4. I hear a bunch of talk about ‘This is great. Now Pixar can make Marvel movies!’ Well, I guess I’m too old but Pixar movies do not appeal to me. And not everyone is a fan of CG movies.

Besides, is it not the goal to get Live Action movies with actors? And not animated movies?

And if you look at what Pixar makes, any Marvel movie would be watered down. I have yet to hear of a Pixar movie that deals with serious themes. The Pixar movie company works in only one movie genre, and that not a genre that is really compatible with Marvel.

5. Joe Quesada you can kiss your job goodbye! Prepare for it. When big corporations buy out smaller companies. It is only a matter of time before the buyer, REPLACES the top staff of the company they bought.

They do this for a general clearing out, and fresh start. Also the people buying a smaller company, want to put their own people in place. They do not want the old people in place.

You can be sure, within two years you are out as EIC and you are done. Well it’s either that or at the very least being demoted. And do you really want to be demoted? Most people would rather quit then suffer that humiliation.

So if you have book ideas, stories and things you really want to do Joe. I think you had better plan on doing them soon. While you can still call the shots.

6. Marvel will become a property FOREVER owned by Disney. It will be game, set and match. Marvel is done.

By this I mean, Disney once they own it, will never sell Marvel Comics. This will be a Disney property and then forever remain a Disney property.

Just like Time Warner will make sure their DC property will never be sold.

Disney will make sure they never sell their Marvel property.

First off, with what Disney is paying. You can be sure they plan to use the Marvel property for decades, and have absolute zero interest in selling the property.

This is not one of those, buy and then you flip it for a better price, short term thinking ventures.

This is a very long term property they plan to use. In the end, Disney will benefit more then Marvel. The main reason is Disney will eventually at some point make their money back on this purchase. And then, they will be profiting from that point on.

Also the Marvel brand is firmly established. You know these icons are reliable properties. And that means you know it will sell for you.

Their really is no risk on Disney making this purchase. They know Marvel is a money property. And it will keep making them money regularly. All they have to do is wait long term, and eventually they will make their money back.

As I mentioned, Disney will have no plans to sell this property to anyone. And if their were an exception, it would only have to be a Bill Gates type of guy or company. And that just won’t happen.

I think Disney would rather fail and go into bankruptcy, then to give up any of their reliable purchases. And with that said, they will never give up Marvel. They would rather go out of business, then let that happen.

That’s kind of sad when you think about. Forever to be bound and never free to move around or be purchased by anyone else ever again.

7. 70 Years of Marvel, has led to this? ‘Nuff said.

I mean why really knew or thought this would ever happen? Back when Marvel and all these heroes were being made. Whoever thought it would eventually lead to this?

I always saw Marvel as the cool place to hangout. It always seemed to have an edge to it. And I ALWAYS appreciated the fact that it was it’s own company.

That it never really was just a branch of a corporation.

Now Marvel will be nothing more then a cog in a corporation. Marvel will just be a branch on a tree. It will not be a tree itself anymore.

That’s my point and I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

Overall

I couldn’t come up with more reasons and I didn’t want to drag on a list and fill it with needless points. What I said so far sums up my feeling on the situation.

Basically as I mentioned, my gut reaction and feeling is that this is bad news for Marvel. I’m talking about the big picture here, and projecting way into the future.

I’m not talking about the short term, but the long term.

I think in the overall view that this is really bad. And quite frankly sucks. I’m not happy about the idea.

Marvel will become nothing but a branch in a tree, or a cog in the machine. Not the machine itself, or tree itself anymore.

Also as I mentioned, I just don’t see Disney ever giving this property up. Like Time Warner will never sell DC Comics. Disney will never sell Marvel Comics. Disney would rather crash and burn as a corporation, then to give up their properties. Especially one like this.

If a corporation were to buy Marvel, I’d rather it be Time Warner so both universes could be together.

And in particular, I think the news blindsided me. It literally dropped out of nowhere. As I mentioned at the start of this article. I didn’t see this coming. I go to comic book news / journalist sites to get the inside word so that something like this does not happen.

News this big HAD TO be circling the business news wires in rumors for weeks, if not months.

Yet where were the comic news journalists to cover this story before the fact? I think this demonstrates, as I mentioned, that comic news sites only are good with dealing with the creator end of things. But when it comes to the real world, business end of the industry. Most of these comic news sites know nothing about real business news.

Finally, even though the news was announced.

I’d like to know the technical details and business aspects.

It was announced, but when does the legal paperwork get signed? When does it become real and official.

I’m talking about the official takeover.

What we have here is a plan to purchase, but correct me if I am wrong here: But the purchase has not happened yet? At least technically and legally right?

I’d like to know the details and when the transaction officially takes place and Marvel Comics as we know it becomes no more.

And Marvel then changes and becomes nothing but a Disney owned property.

If you have or know the details, shoot me an email at: comicbookblogger@gmail.com If I use the news, and unless you tell me otherwise, I’ll give you full credit for the news provided and whatever link you want to promote.

Thanks

Of the properties that Marvel owns the rights to produce movies, which do you think is their best property?

I’d like to state, and feel free to add to the list, but I don’t think Marvel owns the movie rights to these properties.

Spider-Man is Sony and company.
X-men, Wolverine, Magneto, Fantastic Four, Daredevil are FOX and company.
Blade, does New Line still own the rights ?

So they can’t count. And Spider-Man and the X-men are main franchise books.

With that said, I think by far Iron Man is their most popular property. Who would have thought that?

Thanks to the movie, and the next one looks great also. The character is really getting mainstream recognition. Plus his abilities seem in today’s world very plausible. In the whole suspension of disbelief movie way.

I’ll talk about what I think of their other properties below, and while I hope their hits on Iron Man level, I really don’t think their other properties will reach that level.

Hulk, The last movie did just okay, but is not Iron Man level. I think the audience knowing he’s just a CG created character makes the audience lose any connection with the character. At least with Iron Man, you know someone is in the costume. And like Spidey, the CG Iron Man scenes are seamless and not picked up by the general public. With the Hulk, you know it’s all fake CG running the show.

Captain America, I think this is a very tough property to show off and not make it look silly or of no relation to today’s audience. Today’s young movie paying public, most of them were not of the WW II generation and have no connection to that era, or of America’s ideals. Many of today’s generation just see America as corrupt.

Plus by his very nature, Cap is a propaganda type of character. You’d want to portray him not as a propaganda piece, but also representing the best qualities of America. And at the same time, relevant to today’s world. That seems like a very tough balance to me.

Thor, I think the whole Asgard and magic theme might be to much for the audience to understand or take. I actually liked how the Thor in the Hulk movie was portrayed. They brought it down to earth the concept and made it work.

The Avengers, team movies are always tough to properly make. At least a good one.

Punisher, I’m surprised no one can find the formula to make a great movie for this character.

Others like Namor, Ant Man, Iron Fist I don’t think are popular enough to do well as solo movie properties.

Superman, Hulk, Spider-Man images with my caption

Siegels Get More Superman

Recent Court Rulings Have given Superman’s creators Family, co-ownership of the character, with DC DC comics owning the rest.

It seems in the last few years copyright laws have changed. And what is happening in the Superman case is legal. And you you DC Comic, owned by Time Warner, can afford the best lawyers. And yet, DC is losing their case. They have lost quite a few rulings. This to me is further proof, that DC is in the losing side of this legal battle.

In fact if corporations did not use their leverage, and had the copyright law changed in the 1970’s, Superman would have been Public Domain property in 1994. And anyone could have made books, movies, or anything else they wanted with the character.

This leads me to this articles topic, and wondering if government knew about how comic books were made in the past, would they change the law to protect past creators? And to give them proper credit as co-owners of the characters they made?

When the concept of Work-For-Hire Ownership laws were made in the United States, I think it can be certain for me to say that a creative media like comic books were NEVER considered.

Comic books deal with a media that is both visual and the written word.

Under work-for-hire, it basically means if a company was employing you, and you created something. A character / story / idea, they owned your work.

Yet I wonder and think it’s time to change these laws in today’s world in terms of comic book creation. And especially in regard to past comic book creators work.

This article will also mostly refer to Silver Age Creators Stan Lee / Jack Kirby / Steve Ditko as examples.

Does Marvel, who was then run by Martin Goodman really own these characters? Or should their creators?

Stan Lee was a company man. So at most you could say Marvel owns 50% of the work. Yet to my knowledge, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were not on staff contract workers. They were freelance workers, selling their creative art to whoever would hire and publish them.

So is it right to say that their work, that of someone who is not a contract worker, is owned by Marvel?

Also in a creative media like this, Martin Goodman was not giving direction on what to create. From all accounts it seems that he left the creation to Kirby, Ditko, Lee. The ideas and stories they created were not driven by the company owner.

When an idea was made, Lee pitched it to Goodman for approval or not. But the key factor is, the idea was already made and Goodman had nothing to do with it. He was not in charge or gave direction to his employees on what to create.

So how is it fair to claim ownership of creations he and his company really had no hand in?

I’d say something like this, if in this example the company owner Goodman gave some direction like: I want you to create an Ant themed hero who can change his size to that of an ant.

Then I could say the idea and creative momentum was set by the owner.

Yet from all accounts, something like that did not happen at Marvel. The books were left to the workers to create whatever they wanted.

Also shouldn’t work-for-hire in comics apply to work that is taking place in the office? On company time?

Yet in comic books then, as now. The artwork was made at home. And the writing of Stan Lee, some of it was probably made at home? But I won’t speculate much on the writing.

So if the costume / character designs and visuals were made at home by the artists on their own time. Artists whom I might add were not company employees. Should not the artist have an ownership of those character design ideas, and their artwork pages?

Or is it right that the company own all that?

I’m no legal expert, far from it. But I really do think in terms of comic books, and especially to past creators and their creations. I think the ownership of characters made under work-for-hire should be looked into.

Maybe the points I’m trying to bring up in this article can help stir up discussion on the topic.

Earlier I mentioned those in government who change copyright and ownership laws. And I speculate that if they looked at the creative process of comic book characters, hopefully like Superman’s creators, these other Creators or their Families will get co-ownership of the characters they made.

All it takes is a change in the law for it to happen.