Original Art Stories: Marvel Masterworks Non-Original Artists

Or so we've been led to believe. There's another truth to this - you're not buying what you've been told you're buying. Not even close. In some cases you're buying all new material recreated by artists who probably weren't even alive when the original comic books came out. You're being duped.


...features original art by artist Michael Kelleher that has been authorized, commissioned, approved by Marvel Comics, and published in their Silver Age Marvel Masterworks anthologies. These are exact recreations of the original works created by legendary artists Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, John Buscema and many others.
Each drawing measures 14 x 17 inches and was painstakingly reproduced to mimic line-weights and styles of the original artists and inkers.
These are not simple recreations made for fans and collectors. Marvel Comics has gone to great lengths over the past few years to give fans EXACT reproductions of the Silver Age stories that made Marvel famous. Often times the film that was used in the original printing process was either lost, damaged, or altered, so a new version must be created. This is an incredible opportunity to own original artwork of some of the greatest comics ever published!

Amazing Spider-Man Omnibus Vol. 1
Reprints: Amazing Fantasy #15, Amazing Spider-Man #1-38, Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1-2, Strange Tales Annual #2
SPECIAL BONUS FEATURES:
Stan Lee introductions to Amazing Spider-Man Masterworks Vol. 1-4
Essays by Arlen Schumer, Jon B. Cooke and Blake Bell
Amazing Spider-Man #10, unused cover
Amazing Spider-Man #11, original version
Amazing Spider-Man #35, original version from Italian reprint
Bullpen photo spread from Marvel Tales Annual #1
Reprint covers from Marvel Tales Annual #1-2 and Marvel Tales #3-28
House ad for Strange Tales Annual #2
House ad from Marvel Tales Annual #1
House ad from Fantastic Four Annual #1
Creator bios

He then further expands on his answer; "We'd probably be able to locate those films or digital files depending on how the book was produced, but not having that reprint in front of me, I can't speak to the quality of it. Sometimes these books have been reprinted in the past, but the quality isn't up to the standards we try to stick to now. They might not have recolored it to match the original. The line art may not have been reconstructed well."

Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1: Page 1
Amazing Spider-Man #29: entire 20 page story
Fantastic Four Annual #1: pages 48 to 53 inclusive
Strange Tales Annual #2: pages 1, 2 13 & 14
And that's what we know of, because that's what's on sale. What else was recreated? For all we know the entire volume is one big recreation, yet it all bears the signature of one Steve Ditko.

Iron Man #1: pages 18, 19 & 20
Tales of Suspense #88: page 9
Tales of Suspense #94: page 1 and pages 4 to 9 inclusive
Tales of Suspense #96: pages 1 to 12 inclusive
Tales of Suspense #98: pages 1 to 11 inclusive

"Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Atlas Era has proven to be either completely hit, or completely miss so far. These issues have either been intact in the film library and in great shape, or completely missing. For instance, Marvel Boy #1 and #2 were found and in sparkling condition (the earliest finds from our film warehouse yet, which is not to say there isn't earlier material, we just haven't gotten around to reprinting it yet); however, Astonishing #3 and #4 were completely missing.
"For the Marvel Age, it varies. Some volumes require no full reconstruction. Others require two or three pages, and others, say where a complete story is missing, 20 plus pages. Earlier material tends to be in poorer condition. Most likely because it was duplicated over and over again throughout the '60s, '70s, and '80s for various reprint comics. I've heard word that the first generation photostats were sent out West for use in the 1960s Marvel Super Heroes cartoons.
"Conversely, the version of Amazing Fantasy #15 the film warehouse located for the ASM Omnibus is bar-none the absolute best version ever. I put my word on that—you can see the pencil line from where the captions were sketched out on these proofs! Jean, Ryan, and their crew at Jerron deserve huge kudos for their hard work searching the tens of thousands of photostat reams. The reproduction quality of every Masterworks starts with these guys and girls.
"Before I close this out one thing I'd like to clarify here is that the folks that do this work are reconstructing the artwork from an original printed copy with utter faithfulness to the originals. There have been hullaboos about how reconstruction is a disservice to the original talents, and I hate to say it, but I take offense to that.
"Folks like Mike Kelleher, Wil Glass, Dale Crain, Matt Moring, All Thumbs Creative, Pacific Rim Graphics, and Secret Agent Pond Scum put an intense effort and an enormous amount of time into every page, and its all to honor the original artists. There are no bigger fans than these people. They've made this their life's work, and for the record, they rock. I'm spinning plates, and figuring out plans, and chasing schedules, but these are the people that really deserve your thanks and respect. They make it happen."


"So it's reasonable that Marvel could have art recreated for printing purposes, but it should then be destroyed. To sell the recreated art, regardless of who gets the profit, seems to me to violate the artist's copyright."
To be fair to Marvel all the profits from the sale of the art is channeled into the Hero Intitive, but again Bob has an answer for that, "The Hero Initiative is a worthy cause, but how about giving the profit from a recreation of Gene Colan's work to Gene himself?" Very good question. And it raises another - do Marvel pay royalities on these books to the original artists? The answer is, thankfully, yes, but it'd be a nicer touch to feature the original art. Also, what would Marvel do to me if I then approached an artist to recreate and entire story, line-for-line and attempted to sell it? I think we all know the answer to that.
Personally I'll be boycotting these books until such a time that Marvel include the disclaimer that you're buying books that feature art NOT drawn by the artists listed in the credit pages. Hopefully they insist that all the sold pages carry some form of stamp or hallmark stating that it is not the original art by the listed artist, or I can see some major problems arising down the track when someone pages a few thousand for a page, or a cover, and then is told, "Well, that's not done by Jack Kirby, although it bears his signature, that was drawn by Johnny Bananas for the Fantastic Four Ominbus Vol 1."
In the above interview Cory states, "There have been hullaboos about how reconstruction is a disservice to the original talents, and I hate to say it, but I take offense to that." Personally Cory I take offense at being mislead by paying good money for stories that have been drawn by some unknown artist somewhere and not by the original talents. I take offence at being mislead by seeing a signature on art and not knowing it was forged by some unknown artist. After all if I want the stories I'll just buy the original comic books. Come to think of it, I might just keep doing that instead of handing over hundreds to Marvel for some un-named artists rendition of a classic Steve Ditko story.
Marvel, come clean and include the disclaimer and give the rightful credits. For once at least. Because those names on the front and insides of the books do not accurately reflect what you're offering. Perhaps the words, "Based On Stories Drawn By..." would closer to the truth because these books are not reprints - they're recreations at best.
Comments
That said, I can't say I have any issue with reproducing pages by hand when an original isn't more readily available. I fail to see how a line-for-line repro is, at the end of the process, any different from a stat. Moreover, if you've seen the earlier materworks which were often shot from what appear to be old comics, the line-work was totally lost anyway. That said, a true archival edition would include restoration notes.
As far as paying someone to trace their old work, that just seems like an unecessary waste of time and talent. As to renumeration for the original artists, so long as they get a percentage of the sales on the Masterworks then it seems fair.
-Nate
But more than anything else, I wonder -- why go to the trouble of having the work redrawn at all? Digital restoration of linework from printed pages has proven to be more than adequate, particularly as the process has advanced over the last several years. Why does Marvel feel it's necessary to have this work traced and recreated?
I'm not entirely certain that they do -- DC pays a token royalty payment even where not contractually obligated, but everything I've heard from reliable sources says that Marvel does not pay royalties on the MASTERWORKS (and other reprints) unless there is an agreement in place that mandates it.
As a comic art historian I would much prefer reprints to be done from the original printed comics even if they are often pretty poor. Re-creating art inevitably creates a distorted picture. I am afraid that is true even when the re-creation is by the original artist years later.
That said, I am not sure there is any true legal basis for the concept of copyrighting the original art. I know some have made that claim but I do not think it has ever been upheld in a court case.
http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/reply/151736#reply-151736
http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/topic/6855
The sale of the original art is a tad suspect, but the production of the books? Doesn't bother me as long as the recreations are as perfect as can be.
* The defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising.
* That statement must have actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the audience.
* The deception must have been material, in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decision.
* The defendant must have caused its goods to enter interstate commerce.
* The plaintiff must have been or is likely to be injured as a result.
More specifically, which route would you suggest for the Ditko original Dr. Strange run? Masterworks 23/49 or the Essential? Color is not a issue to me.