>>7737955 (OP)
>Does drawing make you go crazy?
I'm sure there's elements that do so, but I'd also argue that art just attracts crazy people in general. I'm sure there's something about the prestige of being an artist, and the ability to express yourself in unique ways, that attracts such people.
It's also something a lot of... "underdeveloped" people are attracted to, because of cartoons and such, so you end up with people like chris-chan.
>>7738446
Was he living in poverty? I believe he always had an office separate from his home that he rented out, and that he would be receiving royalties for his prior work, which is still basically the most celebrated in spiderman's run, even if he didn't receive a co-creator title.
As for Stan Lee, I think he dicked a lot of people over, but I don't necessarily think he was a bad guy either, it was just an new-ish industry where questions of who created what could be hard to answer because such scenarios hadn't legal precedent.
We can say that the artists were obviously co-creators now, but that's likely because we're both biased (as artists) and because we're parroting the opinions we've heard through osmosis.
Were we blank slates and heard about these scenarios when they happened, we may have very different opinions.
Stan Lee was in the unenviable position of being the patient zero for such authorship claims, as well as being both a creator himself, and a thorough company man.
I think he likely knew from the beginning that all the co-authorship claims were true, but Lee needed to also protect the interests of Marvel - and that meant not giving an inch, and only having it taken.
To give an idea of how complicated this shit can be; authors are now demanding co-authorship for writing on characters they never created, because they wrote aspects of of said character that came to define them.
Do they deserve that co-authorship? Opinion seems quite split, and this was likely the case back in the day with Ditko and Kirby.