Artists, Writers, and Creators
I was finally able to watch In Search of Steve Ditko. It appeared on YouTube last year but was yanked before I could watch all of it. Of course, I couldn't find it on the BBC site or broadcast on BBC America, so I turned to the the wonderful world of torrents. Overall, it is an interesting show about Steve Ditko's most notable creations (namely, Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, The Question, and Mr. A). It's that word creations that I want to touch on.
In the show, Stan Lee says that he is willing to say that Steve Ditko co-created Spider-Man. However, he will not actually come out and say "Steve Ditko co-created Spider-Man" without the qualifiers. Stan's belief is that he created Spider-Man and that Steve only drew him (and plotted some stories), but he's willing to say Steve was co-creator if that would make Steve happy (which it apparently hasn't). Stan was maintaining a position that the guy who thought up a character is the creator, not the guy who implemented the idea.
In a novel, it is clear that author created the characters (ignoring shared universes and other collaborative fiction). Nor is there any debate about who the creator is in a comic that is both written and drawn by the same person, like Usagi Yojimbo's Stan Sakai. But when you have a comic that is written and drawn by two (or more) different people, where does the creation credit lie?
Despite actors talking about "creating a character"as part of their process, the ownership of a character belongs to the writer(s). Things get murky with likeness rights and such, but no one would claim that an actor created the character in any legal sense. In many ways, a comic artist is like an actor--interpreting what is in the script and bringing it to life. The artist is also the set designer, costumer, cinematographer, etc. But no one would claim the lighting director created the character.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Steve Ditko created Spider-Man's outfit, and I am going to run with that notion. Though it has changed many times over the years, the iconic red-and-blue spider theme is as recognizable as the Superman or Batman logos. In fact, I'd bet that Marvel has the spidey outfit trademarked. If Steve's only creative contribution to the character was this (and I'm not saying it was), is it it enough to be considered co-creator?
As much as I might be tempted to vilify Stan, I can see his point. No one would claim that the first artist to draw Dracula or Frankenstein's monster were co-creators with Stoker or Shelley. (even though the iconic images of these characters, such as the monster's flat head and green skin, were not part of the original description). But comics are different in that the character does not exist without the illustration.
The key question is, "What percentage of the character creation process is liked to the visual expression of the character?" The follow-up question is, "At what percentage of creative input should the label co-creator be attached?" I don't have answers and I certainly don't know what level of creative collaboration existed between Stan and Steve. But I'm willing to say that they both co-created Spider-Man.
In the show, Stan Lee says that he is willing to say that Steve Ditko co-created Spider-Man. However, he will not actually come out and say "Steve Ditko co-created Spider-Man" without the qualifiers. Stan's belief is that he created Spider-Man and that Steve only drew him (and plotted some stories), but he's willing to say Steve was co-creator if that would make Steve happy (which it apparently hasn't). Stan was maintaining a position that the guy who thought up a character is the creator, not the guy who implemented the idea.
In a novel, it is clear that author created the characters (ignoring shared universes and other collaborative fiction). Nor is there any debate about who the creator is in a comic that is both written and drawn by the same person, like Usagi Yojimbo's Stan Sakai. But when you have a comic that is written and drawn by two (or more) different people, where does the creation credit lie?
Despite actors talking about "creating a character"as part of their process, the ownership of a character belongs to the writer(s). Things get murky with likeness rights and such, but no one would claim that an actor created the character in any legal sense. In many ways, a comic artist is like an actor--interpreting what is in the script and bringing it to life. The artist is also the set designer, costumer, cinematographer, etc. But no one would claim the lighting director created the character.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Steve Ditko created Spider-Man's outfit, and I am going to run with that notion. Though it has changed many times over the years, the iconic red-and-blue spider theme is as recognizable as the Superman or Batman logos. In fact, I'd bet that Marvel has the spidey outfit trademarked. If Steve's only creative contribution to the character was this (and I'm not saying it was), is it it enough to be considered co-creator?
As much as I might be tempted to vilify Stan, I can see his point. No one would claim that the first artist to draw Dracula or Frankenstein's monster were co-creators with Stoker or Shelley. (even though the iconic images of these characters, such as the monster's flat head and green skin, were not part of the original description). But comics are different in that the character does not exist without the illustration.
The key question is, "What percentage of the character creation process is liked to the visual expression of the character?" The follow-up question is, "At what percentage of creative input should the label co-creator be attached?" I don't have answers and I certainly don't know what level of creative collaboration existed between Stan and Steve. But I'm willing to say that they both co-created Spider-Man.
Labels: Miscellany
posted by Patrick at 5:00 PM
<< Home