When -- particularly in a collaborative medium like comic books, motion pictures, television, etc. -- does the spark of creation happen?

Some might say whoever thinks up the character or the concept is the creator, and it's that burst of thought that provides the "Eureka" moment. But as Vygotsky wrote "thought is born through words...and a thought unembodied in words remains but a shadow." In short, it's not the thought itself, but the articulation of the thought. So, let's look at the articulation of thoughts.

My "Eureka" moment occurs, and I express my thought in words to put flesh to the shadow. Perhaps it's a phrase. Maybe it's one or two sentences. Perhaps I write a two page outline. Or, maybe i'm consumed by the idea and I fill out an entire notebook. Does the VOLUME of expression make me more of a creator?

Brandon Tartikoff, head of NBC's Entertainment Division, scribbled two words on a brainstorming memo: MTV Cops. From that came Miami Vice. Nowhere in those two words -- MTV Cops -- do you have Crochett or Tubbs or Miami or neon. That was left up to Anthony Yerkovich to figure out. So, does Tartikoff qualify as the creator? Or is he merely the inspiration?

For those who like to turn to the end of the book for answers, Anthony Yerkovich is credited as the creator of Miami Vice, not Brandon Tartikoff. But consider this: those two words from Tartikoff held a very powerful concept. It's expression is arguably less important than the concept itself. And while Akron Meter Patrol probably would have been a less successful program, that expression of the concept does not invalidate the concept itself.

From what I've read of Stan Lee on Spider-Man, this is essentially our dynamic. Stan Lee had a concept, the degree to which it was expressed can be debated. Steve Ditko was given that concept and put flesh on the bones -- like MTV Cops into Miami Vice -- turning spider-man into SPIDER-MAN.

Now, before someone suggests I'm discounting Stan Lee, is this really any different than Frank Geary scribbling a doodle on a napkin, and handing it to a staffer to turn into a rendering, and from that we get the Bilbao Museum?

http://www.creativepro.com/blog/scanning-around-with-gene-fr ont-napkin-wisdom

These discussions about creation and who are the creators are often at cross purposes. As fans we look at a finished product -- a Stan Lee written, Steve Ditko illustrated Spider-Man, for example -- and attempt to pick it apart to figure out who brought what to the table. Meanwhile, Lee and Ditko are dealing with a more embryotic state or creation and development. It would be easy to see how Lee might view himself the sole creator of Spider-Man as he had the inspiration and guided the development that led to the realization of his inspiration. It's equally easy to see how Ditko might view himself as the creator of Spider-Man (as we know him) as he took Lee's shadow and gave it form.

In a collaborative medium it's likely always to be a little bit muddy.

••

There is considerably MORE in saying someone was "inspired by" a character than saying they were inspired by the NAME of the character. The latter is very specific, and that is what Stan said.

Laren Farmer wrote "So Stan has to negotiate contracts for profit sharing for Steve Ditko too now? .. So you're calling Stan unfair..."

Slow down, Laren, I make no such claim. I merely provided an answer (such as it was) to John Britton's question of "what could be fairer" concerning Lee's somewhat hamhanded and belated extension of recognition to Ditko. I'm not stating Lee SHOULD do anything, nor am I stating that Lee is even OBLIGATED to do anything. Merely, if we are discussing "fairer" in the context of Lee crediting Ditko, there is certainly a fair distance that still could be covered. (Sorry, couldn't pass up the pun.)

Ditko does not appear to be motivated by financial rewards and even appears to be indifferent to credit for Spider-Man. His famous essay which I've posted on previous threads deals less with ME ME ME and is more along the lines of what is the nature of creation vis a vis the Stan Lee Spider-Man, the Jack Kirby Spiderman and the Steve Ditko Spider-Man. And if you'll go back to my earlier post in this thread likening Ditko to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead -- a novel about an architect (artist) who would rather struggle in obscurity than sell out and compromise his artistic vision -- you'll see that I have an appreciation for Ditko's Objectivist philosophy and a degree of admiration for the man.

While I may not agree with his choices -- I could not live as spartan a lifestyle as Ditko, and I'm horrified at the news that he is using his original Marvel art pages as cutting boards -- I respect that the man is true to himself and not a hypocrit.

Pascal Lise wrote "I knew he just took the name but I thought I wouldn't need to point it out to an expert like you, my mistake."

Alas, Pascal, I failed at Mind Reading 101 and can only interpret your posts based on what you wrote versus what you intended. And I'm not all that comfortably with you calling me an expert. "Opinionated SOB" might be closer to the truth, although I hope we might be able to squeeze "well read" somewhere into that description...

I didn't mean to sound too strident...but taking the idea of "fairer" in this context is...well, certainly it is open to debate. 

I just don't think it is reasonable to imply (even if the implication was unintended) that is is somehow "more fair" for a person to take actions on behalf of someone else...when that someone else has no desire to take such actions. 

And I agree with you about Ditko.  I don't think I would want to live certain aspects of his lifestyle...but I do admire his convictions.

From what I have read, it seems that it was Ditko's input during his time on the book that really gave us the character we've come to know today.

But this is turning into another - "Did Ditko or Lee create Spider-Man?" thread.  And we've had those. 

This is the thread about how Jack Kirby's heirs shouldn't get anything for Spider-Man.   

Laren,

I concur with your earlier note: "fairer" is debatable.

As a historian, I'm well acquainted with the desire to interpret the past based on our contemporary understanding and mores. When Lee, Kirby and Ditko were attempting to schlep a few comic books every month, not one of them could ever have conceived they would be creating multi-billion dollar properties. "Didn't they realize what they had?!" we might ask. Yes, they did. They had a steady job and a reasonable paycheck, in a dying industry that was always at the low-end of the commercial art totem pole. That's much more than many of their contemporaries formerly in the business enjoyed at the time.

There is a degree of irony that Bob Kane is castigated for doing exactly what Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Joe Simon, Jack Kirby et al failed to do at the time (and which we seek done on their behalf retroactively): protecting his intellectual property, to backdate a term of the art. But rather than applaud Kane for his vision and foresight in the valley of the blind, he's a villain for exploiting Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson and a host of others who ghosted for him.

And yet, we don't hear similar negative comments about Will Eisner, do we? Like Kane, he protected his intellectual property, and ran a shop of ghosts. Is it because Batman is "worth something" compared to the Spirit? Is it because Eisner remained a creative force while Kane drifted away? Was Eisner a nicer boss to those he exploited? Just how much do personalities come into play?

Laren Farmer wrote "This is the thread about how Jack Kirby's heirs shouldn't get anything for Spider-Man."

Actually, no. This is a thread about Marvel making a pre-emptive legal strike to prevent the Kirby heirs from contesting the copyrights for a number of Marvel characters which are scheduled to be renewed between 2014-2019. Spider-Man is only one of the characters listed in the letter sent out by the Kirby heirs' legal representitives last September announcing their plan to contest these copyrights.

Like most things in life, we have a game being played here. Spider-Man is the big gun at Marvel, in publishing and licensing. His inclusion on the list of (I believe) 45 characters created during the 1959-1963 period that the Kirby's are contesting suggests either a) he's there as a bargaining chip to give away in negotiation, b) he was included due to error and poor research by the legal team, or c) the Kirby heirs have reason to believe (rightly or wrongly) that Jack made a significant contribution to the character that gives rise for a claim.

We're in the early stages here, with each side moving a pawn forward. There's a long way to go yet, and I'm looking forward to what will be released during discovery.