The Marvel Method Archive

Steve Ditko on stolen art

Patrick Ford 7 June 2016 Steve Ditko (THE SORE SPOT © 1998 S. Ditko) : "In the thieves market how anyone came to possess it [the original art], has no meaning, makes no sense. (It just is. One has it or one doesn't. One wants it or one doesn't.) The means are irrelevant to the possessing. It's like asking a dog, a rat, or a cockroach of its right to its food. Its eyes saw it. It began to drool. It doesn't just 'drool,' it drools for something: the food, the art page. It went after it. And got it. The food now belongs to it." Misinformation concerning Steve Ditko continues to be spread around in various places. This in spite of the fact that Ditko has made his thoughts abundantly clear on a whole array of topics in a series of essays he has written. Ditko wrote a 28 page essay called "The Sore Spot" which was published in Jan. 1993. In the article Ditko described in detail what art had been returned to him: "I received story/art pages from 3 Spider-Man issues: 2 complete issues (inside pages) and a 3rd which had three pages missing. So, I was given, as a 'gift,' a portion of 3 issues of the 41 Spider-Man books I did. There is nothing from the Spider-Man annuals (one of which included Dr. Strange as a guest star). And no covers of any kind. What happened to those 38 missing Spider-Man books and all the other missing pages and covers? And how many other artists' names could be added to Kirby's and mine who are denied our 'original artwork' and are being 'deprived of a portion of (our) livelihood'?" Ditko had very harsh and extensive words for the comics community and it's attitude towards stolen art: "...the open wound was the comics companies claiming (or acting as if) it was self-evident that they had the ownership and property rights" of the original artwork. To appease the counter-claim that it was the artists who owned the pages, "a Band-Aid was put over the unsightly wound. Story/art pages would be returned to the artists. But it wasn't a correction or a cure. It was more of a conceptual, moral, tranquilizing effect to dull the already dulled understanding. "Marvel is pleased to deliver [the pages] as a gift to the artist...the artist will not reproduce, commercially exploit or publicly exhibit any portion of the artwork...will not use or exploit the name of Marvel, or the name, title, or likeness of any characters depicted in the artwork, in any manner or media....The artist has no claim or right to any kind in or to other artwork prepared by him....never contest or dispute, or claim rights inconsistent provided herein, or assist anyone else in doing so...." Ditko notes, "The release form is almost a full page of binding conditions. There have been changes in wording at different times, but the policy, premises, don't change. All rights are with Marvel. The conditions are attached to the "gift" so that the story/art pages are never fully owned by the artist. "Marvel is pleased to deliver [the pages] as a gift to the artist...the artist will not reproduce, commercially exploit or publicly exhibit any portion of the artwork...will not use or exploit the name of Marvel, or the name, title, or likeness of any characters depicted in the artwork, in any manner or media....The artist has no claim or right to any kind in or to other artwork prepared by him....never contest or dispute, or claim rights inconsistent provided herein, or assist anyone else in doing so...." Ditko notes, "The release form is almost a full page of binding conditions. There have been changes in wording at different times, but the policy, premises, don't change. All rights are with Marvel. The conditions are attached to the "gift" so that the story/art pages are never fully owned by the artist. With valid property rights and ownership title, one has the right, freedom, to use and dispose of his earned property as he chooses. With such a conditional "gift," the conditions are not strings attached but bars of a cage. The 'gift' and the receiver are captives. Ditko commented on the stolen art when mentioning Kirby original art. These comments are flat out contemptuous of the comics communities attitude towards original art stolen from Kirby. The attitude at the time was the original art being held by Marvel belonged to Kirby, but the stolen pages were according to Ditko "gifted to looters and thieves" who deal, sell and trade in a "thieves market": "The C/C held that Kirby had an 'unqualified right' to all of his pages held by Marvel. So Marvel had no rights of any kind to the 'original artwork.' But according to the C/C's 'justice,' Kirby did not have an 'unqualified right,' or any kind of right, to any of his 'original artwork' which was now being held by others, immorally or illegally taken from Marvel or elsewhere. Kirby has no right to claim, to possess or own, all of those other missing 'original artwork' pages not gotten directly from him (or his authorized agent). Those missing 'original artwork' pages were not considered to be Kirby's property anymore. So Kirby could be 'rightfully deprived of a share of his livelihood.' ...How generous of the C/C to dispose of Kirby's 'original artwork' and a 'share of his livelihood' and make an 'unqualified' 'gift' to looters and thieves. ...The C/C sanctioned unlimited 'rights' to the immoral, to the thieves, to 'rightfully' possess, to 'own,' to deal, trade with and sell, the ill-gotten Kirby 'original artwork' and his earned values. They could all profit at Kirby's expense in a sanctioned thieves market." Ditko goes on discussing what he calls a "thieves market": In the thieves market how anyone came to possess it [the original art], has no meaning, makes no sense. (It just is. One has it or one doesn't. One wants it or one doesn't.) The means are irrelevant to the possessing. It's like asking a dog, a rat, or a cockroach of its right to its food. Its eyes saw it. It began to drool. It doesn't just 'drool,' it drools for something: the food, the art page. It went after it. And got it. The food now belongs to it. That is its true nature. How else is it expected to act? Any conceptual/moral level concepts (stolen, thief, dishonest, unearned, etc.) are not part of the mental content of any lower animal, any sensory perceptual mentality or creature or bug. Who would call a dog dishonest or a thief for snatching a bone from a table or off a plate? As to the story/art pages, there were plenty of them taken and/or stolen from Marvel. Yet Marvel doesn't seem to consider it a wrong, an offense, or a crime, a violation of its property rights. ...With real earned property, the rightful owner has a responsibility in protecting his valued material (via safeguards, insurance, etc.). Any property taken from a true owner without his consent is a violation of his rights: a crime. That act would not be tolerated. But it seems Marvel easily tolerated losing a portion of it's property.''

home