WHO OWNS ORIGINAL ART? INSIDE COMICS #2, pg. 43; 1974
Published by Larry Herndon
[Editor's note]-Steve Ditko is one of the
industry's most respected artists. He's
also one of the most outspoken.
After reading the first issue of
INSIDE COMICS, Steve wrote down his
opinions concerning the ownership of
original art. Steve isn't a writer by
trade, but after several attempted
re-writes satisfied neither Steve nor
INSIDE COMICS' editors, we decided to
publish Steve's comments verbatim,
except for grammatical changes.
''Who owns original comic art?'' is a
misleading Question.
A clearer Question might be "Who has
the right to possess, use and dispose of a
product that is the result of a division of
labor?"
It has been said that 1) the company
owns the original page; 2) the artist
owns the original page; and, 3) there is
uncertainty as to who owns the page
because there is no way to determine the
page's ownership. The issue requires an
understanding or the concepts of owner-
ship. original art, creator, trade and a
division of labor.
To talk about ownership-who has the
right to what, who actually owns
what-is to talk about rights. More
specifically, property rights; i.e., the
right to take actions (without initiating
fraud or force) to acquire a property.
A person acquires and owns property
through his actions and by the fact that
no one else has a valid 'claim to the
property. If ownership is to have any
meaning at all, it must mean the owner is
free to use and dispose of his property
without anyone else's consent or
interference. What an owner does to his
property-be it an original art page or a
comic book-is no one else's business. It
is hard to understand the assertion that
even though a company pays a writer,
pays a penciller. pays a letterer and pays
an inker, he still cannot own the art
page; but that an artist, who has been
paid, yet has paid no one, does own the-
art page.
In taking actions to acquire and own
property, one has to make a trade
agreement by mutual consent.
Trade, in the context of comics, means
the artist and the company are free to go
their own way (neither one has a claim
on the other party) or to mutually agree
to deal and make an exchange for mutual
benefit. Under what conditions each will
agree to trade (what each gets and what
each gives) depends. as with all trades,
on the rationality of the parties involved.
"Just" conditions are not automatically
known or guaranteed. Honest mistakes
are possible and dishonesties can be
practiced. The artist trades his services
for the company's money and benefits.
The artist assists in producing a comic
page for the company.
In comics, an artist doing the originaL
art is not synonymous with being the
creator of the comic art page. Being a
"creative" artist does not automatically
'mean he is the page's "creator." The
Question is not "Who is the originator or
creator of the drawing?" The question is
"Who is the creator of the whole page?"
And who is the creator of the complete
comic' page? Who brings the page into
being? The company is the first cause. It
provides the opportunity for the
existence of the comic page and creates a
need for comic artists, writers and
letterers. The writer's story is the
secondary cause of comic art. In
addition, "original" comic art is usually
the artist's interpretation of another's
idea, story or character, Even if it is
called a "creative" or "original". inter-
pretation, it is not the same as being the
creator of the complete comic art page.
If an artist originates his own
character, writes his own story and
draws it, then he can claim to be the
creator and claim ownership. As a form
of proof he can copyright his art page.
But, if an artist works for someone
else (on someone else's idea, character,
story line or break down) no matter how
much he contributes, he is part of a
division of labor. As such, he can only
make claim to that which he actually
produced-and is only entitled to
payment, not payment and total owner-
ship of the comic page. A company can
return the art freely, or as part of the
payment in a trade agreement. But a
division of labor or a non-creator role
does not justify any artist's claim to
creating and owning the complete comic
art page.
A division of labor is a process by
which a number of people sell their
special skills to make a finished product.
In the context of comics, this means that
the company, their character properties,
the editor, writer, artists, letterer and
others are included in producing a
complete comic page.
Who owns the end product produced
by that division of labor?
Is it who was paid-and only worked on
part of it? Or is it who made it all
possible and paid for all of it? If the artist
has a right to his part of the trade-and
owns the money he received in
payment-then the company has the
right to its part of the trade and owns
the art page. (Remember the issue is
ownership. the result of a trade made
through mutual consent. The issue Is not
what is a fair trade!)
It is also an error to speak about
derivative effects while ignoring the
primary causes. It is the forming of a
company (the cause)-the bringing
together a number of differently skilled
people-that creates a new product, a
comic page, a comic book and a comic
industry (four effects). This is not to say
that any comic company today is an
admirable model. But it is the idea of a
company (and its formation) that makes
possible an art page with a "reproduc-
tive value."
And if there is any value in a division
of labor product (the art page) beyond its
reproductive value, any artist's claim to
ownership of that page (and its value) is.
a claim to a value beyond his contribu-
tion to the page. How can an artist not
only claim to still own what another has
paid him for, but also claim he owns what
others have contributed? How can an
artist claim to sell only reproductive
rights to an art page containing other
people's ideas, story line, characters,
efforts and contributions? How can he
sell what he hasn't, created or hasn't
bought or hasn't paid others for? How
are his services, however important, a
right to claim sole ownership while
denying rights and ownership to others?
The issue of ownership is not
psychological, but moral and legal. It
cannot be understood or settled by what
makes one feel good, it ,can only be
resolved by knowledge of what is right.
Property ownership is not what one
wants or claims it to be.. It may even be
true, but irrelevant to the issue, that a
Property owner is 'not worthy of his
aquired property. When the company
makes it all possible, has taken all the
necessary actions, has traded and paid
for it, how could the company be less
than the rightful owner of the comic art
page?