I always understood that Stan Lee thought up the idea of a teen superhero, gave it to Jack Kirby to draw it up, but wasn't satisfied with Kirby's renderings and handed it off to Steve Ditko. But then, Stan Lee always described the first Spider-Man story as a one-off tale that was dumped into an about-to-be-canceled book; somehow, though, that one-off tale merited an ongoing series.
Now, to hear that Kirby had a bigger hand in various elements of that ongoing series is surprising ... although, I expect, quite difficult to prove.
You're not going to find a bigger Kirby-booster than I, but I've seen Kirby's Spider-Man proposal and it's nothing like what was used. Lee rejected Kirby's proposal in favor of Ditko's just as he rejected Ditko's AF #15 cover in favor of Kirby's.
Kirby as the co-creator of Spider-Man is a stretch, to be sure. It may be erroneous enough to draw the notoriously reclusive Steve Ditko out in public. It's a shame that Jack never got everything he deserved while still alive, but my sympathies for his heirs are limited with stuff like this.
The idea of having a hero getting his name and power-set from a yucky creepy crawly like a spider was a big factor in setting Spider-man apart from his square-jawed straight-arrow predecessors. It's very original and denotes something of an anti-hero from the outset.
Even if Kirby only came up with the name and everything else in his proposal was rejected it's still a starting point, and worth considering on that basis.
As for the supporting characters like the Lizard and J Jonah Jameson, I’d have to wonder how much proof they have that Kirby was involved?
A lot of commentary on this case shows a misunderstanding of how the law works. NO-ONE knows what the Kirby estate's rights are until they are tested in court. No-one can say if they have a case until the Judge makes his judgement. If the court decides they are owed ownership/royalties/whatever then there is no right or wrong to it, just the judgement of the court.
Similarily, if the court finds against them, only then will we know that their case has no merit. The finest lawyer in the land doesn't know how a case will play out until it's finished. That's why we have the whole legal process.
This seems to be a clear-eyed commentary on recent developments in the Kirby case...
Joe Simon and Jack Kirby came up with a character for Archie's adventure line in the late 1950s called "The Silver Spider." That morphed into The Fly. Kirby has asserted in some interviews that he suggested The Silver Spider to Lee, which turned into Spider-Man. Plus, he did do the original treatment (which was largely rejected). On the other hand, in other interviews he's given credit to Ditko for "developing" the character.
Meanwhile, Lee has taken full credit in some places, and shared it with Ditko in others (and sometimes Kirby).
The strongest argument is for a co-creation credit for Lee and Ditko, especially over time as they jointly forged the most popular character at Marvel. (Whatever Kirby did, very little of it is in evidence in the Lee/Ditko character, or can be credited for the character's growing popularity, especially over time as the character moved farther from Kirby's input, whatever that was.)
Replies
Now, to hear that Kirby had a bigger hand in various elements of that ongoing series is surprising ... although, I expect, quite difficult to prove.
The idea of having a hero getting his name and power-set from a yucky creepy crawly like a spider was a big factor in setting Spider-man apart from his square-jawed straight-arrow predecessors. It's very original and denotes something of an anti-hero from the outset.
Even if Kirby only came up with the name and everything else in his proposal was rejected it's still a starting point, and worth considering on that basis.
As for the supporting characters like the Lizard and J Jonah Jameson, I’d have to wonder how much proof they have that Kirby was involved?
A lot of commentary on this case shows a misunderstanding of how the law works. NO-ONE knows what the Kirby estate's rights are until they are tested in court. No-one can say if they have a case until the Judge makes his judgement. If the court decides they are owed ownership/royalties/whatever then there is no right or wrong to it, just the judgement of the court.
Similarily, if the court finds against them, only then will we know that their case has no merit. The finest lawyer in the land doesn't know how a case will play out until it's finished. That's why we have the whole legal process.
This seems to be a clear-eyed commentary on recent developments in the Kirby case...
Meanwhile, Lee has taken full credit in some places, and shared it with Ditko in others (and sometimes Kirby).
The strongest argument is for a co-creation credit for Lee and Ditko, especially over time as they jointly forged the most popular character at Marvel. (Whatever Kirby did, very little of it is in evidence in the Lee/Ditko character, or can be credited for the character's growing popularity, especially over time as the character moved farther from Kirby's input, whatever that was.)
That's my take. Your mileage might vary!
Couldn't find the article from that link.