sponsored links
Ads by Google
  • Allen Smith
    In a move that reeks of insensitivity and callousness, the owner of this blog accuses the Kirby family of greed and opportunism. Why now? Because under the terms of current copyright law, Kirby or his estate legally could not pursue a copyright action, an action allowed to them (pending a court decision, of course.) It's a shame that your allegiance to a mindless corporation is so great that you don't want Kirby or his family share in what Jack created.
  • "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."

    No, he was not paid fairly, not like Stan Lee was. Jack Kirby was paid as an artist, not as a co-creator or co-plotter. When Marvel was being bought out in the late 1960's, the new owners were under the impression that Stan Lee was the SOLE creative genius behing the entire company and that all the artists did were draw from the detailed scripts of Stan Lee. Have you ever seen the 2-page typed story idea for Fantastic Four #1? Its been reproduced in the Marvel Vault Book, and its pitifully short and what Jack was able to turn that into a 22-page instant classic. It shows how much Jack had to do with the sucess of that and All the Marvel titles- that he did at least half of the work if not much, much more. Even now most people acknoledge Kirby as the co-plotter for everything he and Stan Lee did. The story for the creation of Galactus goes in the FF is that Stan sent Jack a stry idea that read "Have the FF Fight God.". With that Jack created Galactus and the Silver Surfer, the Power Cosmic and the story.

    If you are not aware of the Marvel Method of comic book creating, it goes like this: The writer gives an idea to the artist, who then takes the idea and makes a 22-page sequential story based on the idea with dialogue and new character designs, the pacing of the story and finishes it and gives it back to the writer who re-writes the dialogue and calls himself the writer and the artist the penciller. Thats how Jack and Stan worked for over a decade. Seems a little one-sided doesnt it?

    When Jack approached one of the new owners and introduced himself as the penciller and co-creator of everything the owner laughed in his face and related to him that Stan did everything and the artists were basically puppets. Upset, Jack left for DC Comics.

    At DC, Jack created his FOURTH WORLD titles, New Gods, Forever People and Mister Miracle. He also created Etrigan the Demon, Kamandi and more. In the 1980's Jack returned to DC where they gave him retro-active royalties from the FOURTH WORLD characters as they pertained to their SUPER POWERS line of comics, toys and cartoons. DC did this on their own, without any lawsuits. They did it because it was the right thing to do, for a man who did so much and recieved so little when it was originally done, but had also made DC alot of money.

    Marvel has always taken care of Stan Lee. He has been paid MILLIONS of dollars over the years for what he and Jack created. Marvel has never tried to repay Kirby.

    Is the timing of this less than ideal? Yes. Would Jack Kirby have filed this suit were he alive today? I don't think so. But if YOU had someone working for you, that created something amazing that you made BILLIONS of dollars on, and this person was being paid nothing in addition to their meager salary, wouldn't you want to share your sucess with this person? Wouldn't you want to celebrate this person who helped you into amazing fiancial sucess? I know I would.
  • 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.
  • MarcusFenix09
    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.
  • Bob Smith
    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.
  • Rogers
    If anything disneyed makes something happen in the movies I don`t like, I might just cry and leave the movie theatre.
  • hli
    yeah i don`t want anything to extreme to happen in the movies
  • John
    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
  • John
    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.
  • the old man
    Nicely put together Chris M..
  • 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?
  • John
    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.
  • 790
    Well said Richard.

    If people were aware of Disney's tactics when I comes to screwing writers, animators, employees, talent, people in general we would all be supporting Kirby and his family...

    I've known about Disney's true colors for years btw!!!
    Disney's corrupt and fascist leaders use Mickey and the wholesome vibe as a powerful facade to deflect suspicion of evil.
    They are the worst most diabolical entertainment giant in the industry, and will stop at nothing to get what they want. ;-). (IMO)
  • Victor
    Its hilarious how people are programmed to automatically defend the corperations who dominate their lives.
    To those saying Kirby's family should get notmoney for what Kirby did...HUH???
    Uh...do you think Paris Hilton had anything to do with starting the Hilton Hotel chain? Or any of the Rockefeller's with the original oil industry? It's called INHERITANCE. Duh. Do you live in a house that your parents built and paid for? Well according to the twisted logic on this thread all children of homeowners should be homeless unless they helped build or pay for their parents homes. ??!! Marvel is the house that JACK BUILT. Period. His children have a right to live in it and profit from it as part of his enduring leagacy and inheritance to THEM. It is how wealth is built in our great nation. We do not have a monarchy but we do have this form of ameritocracy that allows for economic mobility to be transmitted from one generation to the next irrespective of class or privilege. Bill Gates' childen will damn sure own patents to Windows and Kirby's children SHOULD own copyrights to their FATHER'S work. Are you kidding me?
    As for the work for hire argument. The contracts Kirby worked under were for EXISTING media streams and publishing schemes. At the time that was ONE-OFF publishing. In his lifetime and after it DOZENS of new media streams publishing schemes and ancilliary forms of merchandising have emerged. These new forms of selling his creations account for the majority of his creations profits. Marvel has exploited the fact that Kirby did not agree to getting paid for profit from these subsequent markets BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXIST. That is evil. The ethical thing would be to retroactively create and implement a modern contract respective of todays market that is comensurate with Kirby's high profile. Like a contract that someone like Niel Gaiman signs when doing a publishing deal. That would be fair. The loophole is this...While Kirby did not agree to get paid from these non existing markets he never agreed to NOT get paid from them either. Disney/MArvel are the greedy ones. They have NO lawful or legal right to keep Kirby's family from their inheritance. They will lose as surely as DC/Warner lost to the Schusters and Siegle families. The justice system of our nation still WORKS.
    Oh I'm sorry, only the president of Disney is supposed to profit from Kirby's legacy because he helped create Kirby's characters lol.
    And you wonder how America got raped into a recession by billionaires?
    Good grief.
  • Richard
    Stan Lee has received far more credit than his due in the creation process. You just need to look at Stan's "creativity" after Kirby stopped being part of the Marvel "family" to know the truth. Basically, Stan was the nephew of the owner of Marvel at the time Kirby came aboard and at best he was an editor. Read Kirby's interviews in the comic journal for the full story.

    Copyright laws have changed dramatically over the years, otherwise Mickey Mouse would now be in the public domain. Disney spent the campaign contributions wide to the left and right and got a huge extension that was worth billions to them. The original creators were never given anything in
    exchange for the huge additional value their creations now had. Keep in mind the original concept was the artist was being paid for basically a one shot. Reprints did not exist
    in the manner they do now.

    Please do not compare a computer programmers job with an artist. We work under different rules. I'm a programmer, I fully understand how my code will be used and reused. Artists have been ripped off and lied to since day one.

    The original "contracts" for comic book work were stamped on the back of the paychecks. Courts found these contracts
    invalid. Kirby's art (his property) was held hostage by
    marvel until he signed away most his rights so that his
    family would be guaranteed something.

    Kirby and Simon reclaimed the rights to the earliest issues of Captain America years ago. Even Stan Lee does not try to claim any creative ownership over the Silver Surfer, at least not before Kirby was dead and buried. Get the original issues and compare to the reprints. Interesting how at times the credits have been changed.

    Without the core characters created by Kirby, there is no marvel. Sure they could put out a comic staring squirrel girl, but who would buy it? All they would have to do is team up with Image or some other independent and it would be Marvel back in bankruptcy again.
  • John. K
    I think i meant prosperity, whatever
  • John. K
    Disney please, there are things needed to be solved in the Spiderman films, the last thing a superhero franchise that`s messed up as Spiderman needs is to be moved to another company, so dO NOT TAKE HIM INTO YOUR INDUSTRY!!!!!!!!
  • Jeolize
    But i`d really rather they leave Marvel alone until the Spiderman franchise is finished and atleast one of each Marvel superhero franchise is done, i mean i thought they are already writing scripts for much of the upcoming films like all the Iron Man 2, sm4, and avengers films...etc
  • 790
    Jeolize, it won't effect the release dates at all. ;-)
  • Jeolize
    Hey, i have a question. Won`t they have to push back release deates if they do this?
  • Jeolize
    If they lay a hand on Spiderman 4, i can`t even explain how ticked i`ll be.
  • Marvelite
    Jack Kirby's been dead for 15 years. His family should have more respect for him than to drag his name through the mud in hopes of an easy payday from Disney.

    And all of Kirby's creations were collaborative with Stan Lee. What percentage of the creations can be attributed to him? Should his estate really be allowed 100% of the rights to something that he may have only had a 25% hand in creating? And what if all he really did was the designs and looks of the characters? Most of those costumes have changed since the '60s, so is it still his creation, or should credit go to the artist who designed the new look?

    I also don't think the scope of the lawsuit is well thought out. Siegel/Shuster suing Time-Warner/DC is one thing, but the Kirbys are taking legal action against Disney/Marvel, and Sony, and Universal, and Twentieth Century Fox. Do they really think they're going to win against four multi-billion dollar companies and all of their teams of lawyers?

    In the end, who has more rights to the characters? The company who paid the contracted creators for their creation and has continued publishing new stories and materials about them for almost 50 years, or the children of one aspect of the paid creative team?
  • 790
    Good points Old Man, I can't see the Kirby estate wasting thousands on lawyer fees going up against the legal equivalent of Goliath without having some legitimate beef.
    Time will tell on this one,,,
  • the old man
    Well Vic I must admit that I don't know what Kirby, Ditka, or any of the other artists specifics were in their contracts. Copyright law is also a little different from patent law too. Be it as it may, since we're both Monday morning quarterbacking, I think it's only fair that the
    other side of the coin should be stared at occasionally, even if you don't like what you see. I've been on both sides of the table in my life, and while neither side likes to give in, I've found nature most often seeks balance. If you don't HEAR anything I say, at least spend a little coin and read "The Working Life" Joanne B. Ciulla. I think
    you'll find her cogent work revealing.
  • Does Stan Lee have any say in this?

    I always thought it was him that created these characters.
  • @the old man

    If you work for a tech company and patent something - even if the company ends up making millions off it all you get is your salary. That's what you AGREED to when you hired on. If you make a DIFFERENT arrangement for compensation, fine.

    And again, this is his family, not him personally. I call gold-diggers.

    Vic
  • Manowar
    I wonder what's gonna happen after Stan Lee passes away? Is he's family going to do the same?
  • the old man
    Yeah and corporate entities should be able to bend the law to their will so as to be able to hold rights forever. I'm sure someday only big corporations will have that right. Of course corporate greed doesn't have to stop there they can grab moral rights too. It's just a matter of money right. RIGHT!

    I hope the family gets a payday. Karma way to go...
  • Luke and Leia's Love Child
    They will be crushed by Disney's Lawyers......
  • Paul
    Just pay them royalties Disney has the money
blog comments powered by Disqus