B5Erik

Ummmm... Ditko may have co-created Spider-Man, but it was Stan's idea to have him be a geeky teenager with normal, everyday teen problems. Stan had some input inito the character's creation, too. And Ditko worked under contract knowing that Marvel would own the characters.

Pathetic lawsuit on his brother's part.

ytrez

I've been torn on these types of lawsuits over the years. On the one hand, the family of the creator didn't do anything to deserve compensation. On the other hand, wouldn't the creator (Ditko in this case) want his family to benefit from the fruits of his labor? The law says creations revert back to their creators. In the case of Spider-Man, that should mean both Stan & Steve. Now, does it make sense to split the rights and allow all of the confusion that will lead to in rights to publishing, merchandising, film, etc.? Of course not. Spidey is complicated by the work-for-hire caveat but, in the end, Lee & Ditko's estates should get a payday.

Now Dr. Strange is another story. Stan's editorial for Strange's 1st appearance said:
"Well, we have a new character in the works for Strange Tales, just a 5-page filler named Dr. Strange. Steve Ditko is gonna draw him. It has sort of a black magic theme. The first story is nothing great, but perhaps we can make something of him. 'Twas Steve's idea. I figured we'd give it a chance, although again, we had to rush the first one too much."

Doesn't sound like work-for-hire when the head honcho in writing says "Twas Steve's idea." Regardless, it just makes sense for Disney to pay the family. No reason why a mega-corporation should reap the rewards from artists' creativity in perpetuity without appropriately compensating said artists (living or dead). I'm on the Ditkos side on this one.