
In a move the reeks of opportunism and greed, Jack Kirby’s Estate (a.k.a. his family) have hired Intellectual Property Lawyer Marc Toberoff to sue Disney/Marvel, Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures in an attempt to reclaim copyright ownership of the characters their late father Jacob Kurtzberg created. You may know his name better as Jack Kirby and you are most familiar with his iconic and highly popular comic book creations, The Fantastic Four, Captain America, the X-Men, Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk and The Silver Surfer.
Thanks to the guys over /Film for sharing this with us and to Rich Johnston at Bleeding Cool and Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywod who seem to have gotten the drop on this breaking news. This is not the first lawsuit we’ve seen involving a comic book creator’s estate vs. the current owner and publisher; Just recently we reported and discussed WB/DC’s fight with the heirs of Jerry Siegel and Jerry Schuster over the rights to Superman.
|
|
The Siegel/Shuster heirs have been successful in their legal pursuit to some degree; they now have full access to Superman’s origins with many thanks going to their superstar lawyer (you guessed it) Marc Toberoff. What they are going to do with the just the origins of Superman remains a mystery to me, because after the countless retellings of Superman’s beginnings, I’m pretty sure we weren’t going to see that story again anytime soon.
Back to Jack Kirby: His Estate is currently suing and sending termination of copyrights notifications to each of the big studios that have involvement with any of characters Kirby created. The rest of this article is background information on Jack Kirby and my own observations and opinions. I am not a copyright lawyer, nor do I claim to have extensive background knowledge on U.S. Copyright Laws; so if you see something I misinterpreted, please enlighten me.
This isn’t the first time Kirby and Marvel haven’t seen eye to eye on things. In a very detailed account over at The Comic Journal, Marvel was in a major dispute with Kirby during much of the 80s, regarding his work from the 60s and 70s. At the end of the day (and after Will Eisner got involved), Marvel reluctantly agreed to give Kirby back 1900 pages of his work. That seems like a lot, but it’s actually less than 25% of what Kirby had done.

Kirby was the first illustrator hired when Jerry Iger and Will Eisner formed Eisner & Iger Studios in the 1930s. Until 1978, when the copyright laws were changed, most if not all of the comic creators hired artists under a “work-for-hire arrangement”. In other words: artists didn’t own the rights to whatever they were paid to draw. The same thing is still done today in other business models – electronics and programming are two of the biggest examples.
When a programmer working for Microsoft writes a new program and it turns into the major code behind a new piece of Microsoft software, that programmer doesn’t own the rights to his code. He was paid by Microsoft to write it and has already been fairly compensated for his time and effort. He doesn’t have the right to sue once that program starts making millions of dollars, just because he is jealous.
I don’t claim to know the copyright laws inside and out, but to me it would seem pretty simple: If Jack Kirby was hired under those aforementioned circumstances, then any characters he created should not be his to own. Sure, he will always get “creative credit” for coming up with them in the first place, but it’s not like he thought them up in his garage and then Marvel came along and stole them in the night. From what I understand, Kirby was paid fairly to create those Marvel characters and without the company publishing his work, he would not have gotten them off the ground. Of course the reverse could be (and likely will be) argued – that Kirby created the most iconic characters in Marvel’s repertoire and without him they would have died a slow comic death.




42 Comments
Um, so did they buy the Marvel company or the movie/comic book? I don`t mind them buying X-Men, fantastic 4 or Hulk but all the other characters i really rather they don`t own because i like seeing the fashion they come in if they bought the company and it won`t effect anything to do with Marvel i guess i`m kind of ok except for spiderman cuz they might have to make the movies lighter if it`s from Disney but if they bought the movie instead of the company i`ll be pissed cuz there`s things to be done in the Spiderman series ok no actually no X-Men is one of my favorites as well i think Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men, and Iron Man and maybe captain america and thor aren`t touched by disney other than that i guess i`m happy.
I’m with Richard on this… and I’m frankly astonished how many other posters seem to be siding with the big corporation over the little guy, apparently just because they feel entitled to new corporate product without any concern over creators’ rights.
Copyright, as a legal concept, is a temporary thing. The intention of it is (or was, originally) to allow creators (writers, artists) to benefit from the exploitation of their creations for a reasonable time, the better to encourage new work, and then let those creations pass into the public domain.
Modern corporations have turned all that on its head, and Disney (although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “evil”) has been behind a lot of that. The Mouse was created in 1928, and the legal duration of copyright keeps getting extended enough to keep it covered… not to benefit any actual creative person or even their heirs, but to benefit corporate execs and shareholders.
In the case at hand, Jack Kirby created (or co-created, with Stan Lee) brilliant, enduring characters and concepts that have made *millions* for people who had *nothing* to do with their creation. “Work-for-hire” contracts at the time were little better than indentured servitude. A basic sense of justice suggests that the creator, or in this case his heirs, should at least be entitled to a slice of the pie.
I’m not familiar with the precise legal details in this case (I’m more familiar with the Superman one), but I’m sure nobody (on either side) is suggesting that the properties be hidden away from public view; there would be no point in that. The proposition is merely that the profits generated by bringing them to the public be shared with the family of the man who made it all possible. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Nicely put together Chris M..
ok i only mind if it doesn`t affect anything in the Marvel fashion or the important stories Marvel is planning if this doesn`t affect any of the important villains and settings and plotlines in the marvel franchises that are needed to be used i will be okay but how the hell could they buy iron Man 2 and Spiderman 4 they are writing tons of Spiderman 4 scripts and aren`t they alkready filming for I2 it comes out next year ok even if it doesn`t lower the Pg-13 rating of most movies i still think Spidey and Iron man stay with Marvel for a little while unless i`m sure it doesn`t affect anything to do with those characters at all i`m not sure if i care what they do with Avengers, Thor, etc.
Oh what i mean is, i just want Marvel to put the stories they were planning to put in those movies and nothing disney-related changes the story and that the movies don`t go too goofy
yeah i don`t want anything to extreme to happen in the movies
If anything disneyed makes something happen in the movies I don`t like, I might just cry and leave the movie theatre.
Any time Disney is sued over intellectual property rights is a good thing. I guarantee you the Eisner family isn’t suing Marvel, they’re suing Disney, because they don’t want to see their father’s creativity and hard work be completely swept under the rug like Disney has done with nearly all “their” works.
The Argument of Kirby’s family getting the rights and monies for all the comic characters he created is like me saying that because my great grandfather and Grandmother were slaves I should be able to sue companies, take over those companies and reap their profits. I know, I know its a bad analogy…but you see how dumb it sounds. If said companies are able to be sued for bad business decisions 60 years ago. then who is to say that other companies cant be sued…is there a statue of limitations? and if so when does it end.
Marcus, you admit it’s a bad analogy, so why post it? I don’t even want to touch on the issue of slavery reparations, except to note that nobody is even remotely talking about “taking over” any company.
Is the company in question here still *profiting* from its business decision (not a bad one at all, just an unjust one!) decades ago? Yes, because copyright law still applies… so claims by the creator’s estate are certainly still relevant. When copyright expires and the properties pass into the public domain, then at that point the question of ownership rights becomes moot. Not before.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!