Save Spider-Man

[MK_Wizard]

The analogy behind this picture is when the symbiote nearly took over Spider-Man. When I look at Sony and Disney fighting over Spider-Man, THIS is what it reminds me of and how Spidey is suffering for it. This is wrong. Spider-Man doesn’t belong to one person or one company. He belongs to EVERYONE. And if Stan Lee saw people greedily fighting for control over him, he would be furious and heartbroken.

Who here agrees with me? Who here thinks we ought to think about what's best for Spider-Man and how to keep his legacy going with dignity?

Comment or make art if you agree Spider-Man deserves better and belongs to everyone.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I do agree that Stan Lee would probably be miffed by this...it might not even be happening if he were still alive today to weigh in on the issue.

But apart from that, I'm not really all that concerned? ^^; I mean, it's not as if there'll be a stalemate and Spider-Man will be gone forever; no one in their right mind would let all that potential profit go to waste.

The only real creative problem is whether he will be allowed to participate in the MCU anymore, and I honestly couldn't care less about that. Spidey was around before it started, and he will most likely outlive it. I do understand how devastating it is for people who are particularly attached to the MCU and Tom Holland's Spider-Man, but I'm not one of them...so I just take a sort of 'nothing gold can stay' perspective on that. =T

In my mind, all it boils down to is who gets to slap their name on the credits, which doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Both Sony and Disney have people of talent in their employ, so it's not as if either's ownership will guarantee that Spider-Man will be handled well...or badly. Whatever happens in that respect, you won't see any tears from me.

My biggest concern, in fact, is whether this squabble will pressure Disney to try to buy out Sony, which could have huge repercussions down the road...

[mariusthered]

the same as Star wars and Star Trek this whole Spiderman Issue is not so much about the comics or movies but about merchandise. If Disney get thier grubby hands on spidey they will change his character and much worse that will ramp up the price of every bit of merch and video game with his name on it, while probably taking steps to stop any other spidey games out their to be stopped.
I will be honest I never liked the Tom Holland spidy, I was kind hoping he would have stayed Dust , but I never saw a need for more spidey movies anyhow after the first three (well two that whole dance number thing was just weird)
but either way ...uncle Bens gonna get yet another bullet in a year or two.

[AceRagz]

I'm one of those that like Tom Holland's Spider man. It should be pointed out that a lot of MCU Spider-Man is taken directly from Miles Morales. Without MCU Spider-Man the producers of Spiderverse would never have been forced to change up Miles to keep him from ironically looking like a clone of MCU Spider-Man.

We got a much better story out of Sony due to it. The original story arc for Prowler was weak so was that of Miles' dad. But Spiderverse found a way to work it all into something far greater.

Now if it comes down to which to keep I rather have Sony making more movies on par with Spiderverse.

[punkarsenic]

This is wrong. Spider-Man doesn’t belong to one person or one company. He belongs to EVERYONE. And if Stan Lee saw people greedily fighting for control over him, he would be furious and heartbroken.

if it werent for disney lobbying for changing of copyright laws for years, spidey woulda literally belonged to everyone last january. he should be a public domain character.

[skicoak]

if it werent for disney lobbying for changing of copyright laws for years, spidey woulda literally belonged to everyone last january. he should be a public domain character.

Preach Preacher, preach.

Two conglomerates got people picking sides about which one can monetize the IP more effectively.

And dragging the ghost of Stan Lee in it...like he was some paragon of creator rights. Pssssh!

[MK_Wizard]

I don't know about public domain, but if anyone should own Spider-Man and Marvel in general, it should be the Lee family. They should have the final say of where Spider-Man goes and what he does next.

EDIT: I take it back. Spider-Man should belong to everyone. It's what his creators would have wanted.

[bakasama25]

Maybe, you should explain doing comic books the "Marvel Way". It might help explain why Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were in, uh, bad terms with Lee for years.

[AceRagz]

Steve Ditko had a hand in Spider-Man's creation too and he passed away as well so why give all the authority over to the Lee family? In the end business is business and we have to be realistic. Marvel owns Spider-man. Disney owns Marvel. Sony has the movie rights.

[nostalgicroxas]

Quick note on public domain: Eiffel Tower in Paris is an iconic landmark and thus Public Domain copyright. Until it's lights are own - those fall into a realm of copyright and your pictures published with it's lights on are, if sold for profit, illegal.
"Game Theorists" on yt also have an interesting movie that goes into copyright about Dance and how Fortnite is oddly leading the charge in the discussion on it - of what can be considered a dance, and what parts or whole can be protected by copyright.

As for Spider-man I'm in with @AceRagz on this one. I'm one of the few who likes Holland's spidey, and I really enjoyed the plot of Spiderverse. I'm not really a superhero fan at all since it always felt like a boy thing or moody characters, to have someone like Holland's or Miles be portrayed as an awkward teen with some confidence, jokes and then more selfconfidence mixed in, it was refreshing over say- Stark, who's already smart and knows he's smart and takes advantage of he's smart. Holland's knows he's smart, but doesn't know how smart, and his personal intelligence isn't how he measures himself (his ego). That is, he doesn't fall victim to hubris. All of the other spider-man's I've been exposed to over the years by my siblings have been hubris-guzzling men.

From wiki's page on Spider-man

Spider-Man is a fictional superhero created by writer-editor Stan Lee and writer-artist Steve Ditko. He first appeared in the anthology comic book Amazing Fantasy #15 (August 1962) in the Silver Age of Comic Books.

Well right there we have a huge problem. Both creators of the initial Spidey are dead. Copyright laws should hold something like 30 years past the last usage/owners death, or some sort limitations. But since Lee worked with other companies and groups, we'd have to examine a lot of different contracts that were signed. Marvel being broke and selling to Disney is only one part of the conversation - it's what did Marvel agree to let Disney have creative control over.
You can read a summary about the contract when it was announced here, when it was listed as a Collaboration - https://www.superherohype.com/news/329465-its-official-spider-man-enters-the-marvel-cinematic-universe

[skicoak]

but if anyone should own Spider-Man and Marvel in general, it should be the Lee family.

Steve Ditko had a hand in Spider-Man's creation too

Let's clear up some confusion ...Ditko is the majority creator of Spider-Man, and if we're being generous we say Stan Lee had a "hand in it". Don't just listen to the huckstering corporate line Stan Lee pitched most his life. Comic historians and other people in the industry at the time have made this abundantly clear.

Maybe, you should explain doing comic books the "Marvel Way". It might help explain why Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were in, uh, bad terms with Lee for years.

This is the mechanism that allowed Lee to make his broad claims and in the end, repeatedly defend the company against creator rights lawsuits.

The process started with the pitch... Ditto and Lee (or Kirby and Lee) would figure out the broad plot. Usually something like "Let's have Spider-man fight Vulture this month and miss a date with Betty".

Then Ditko went off and plotted out a whole issue based on that, drew it and suggested dialogue and sent back to Lee. Lee then adapted the suggested dialogue ...sometimes adding stuff, sometimes not.

This all led to eventually issues with Ditko and Kirby feeling the process wasn't giving them the creative credit most felt they deserved.

[mariusthered]

i will just leave this here....

[nostalgicroxas]

I think this is probably the funnier version of the pitch meeting.

[punkarsenic]

I don't know about public domain,

no i mean literally if the laws werent changed to keep extending the deadline, spiderman would have been public domain this year

https://www.diversetechgeek.com/2019/01/01/cartoons-public-domain-2019/

The Public Domain Is Working Again — No Thanks To Disney

if anyone should own Spider-Man and Marvel in general, it should be the Lee family.

fuck that, what about kirby and ditko? lee wasnt this one great pillar of marvel comics, he was one of a team of outstanding artists - many of whom have not been compensated as fairly

anyway, marvel as a company (or really, as many companies) should be owned by its workers

[AceRagz]

Let's clear up some confusion ...Ditko is the majority creator of Spider-Man, and if we're being generous we say Stan Lee had a "hand in it". Don't just listen to the huckstering corporate line Stan Lee pitched most his life. Comic historians and other people in the industry at the time have made this abundantly clear.

I don't want to sit and argue over what hand in means but please don't lump me in with someone that says Spider-Man should solely belong to the Lee family or imply I buy into some huckster line. My point wasn't over who did what percent I was only concerned with someone giving 100% credit of Spider-Man over to Stan Lee.

[skicoak]

Sorry if I generalized you.

Vague statements like "had a hand in" or "was in the meeting" were the shorthand for creating confusion about work distribution/creative input on these IPs. It was part of the process for keeping creators from their creator rights.

I don't like seeing them because they're usually the shield of people denying rights/credit.

[AceRagz]

Yeah I understand. It does get tiring that Steve Ditko is ever rarely given his proper credit much like Bill Finger got tossed aside by Bob Kane.

[skicoak]

much like Bill Finger got tossed aside by Bob Kane.

Ohhhh!! Don't even get me started!

At least with Lee, we don't have the huge paper trail of horrible things Finger had to do to fix Kane's horrible directions ... Exhibit A...Bob Kane's original design.

[AmazementComics]

Well considering that Disney wanted half of profits to the Spider-Man movies after Spider-Man: Far From Home racked in $1 billion, it'd make more sense to let the Sony-Marvel deal fall apart. Disney wants to eat its cake and have it. Spider-Man is Sony's biggest property at the moment, and from a business perspective, would not make sense for Sony to split the revenue 50/50. Spider-Man will survive without the MCU, especially since Venom and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did exceedingly well for Sony.

[MK_Wizard]

Ok, let me clarify what I meant because I rushed while typing.

Spider-Man belongs to his creators first. That is what I meant. Pardon me. The point is that Sony and Disney are fighting like kids over him and not giving him any respect. They keep rebooting him and changing which direction they want to take him in. There's no respect for the character anymore.

Plus, might I remind everyone that Stan Lee would give credit to people from what I know. He was not like Disney.