sfcityduck

My favorite Jack Kirby work is, surprisingly enough, Boys' Ranch. As I've gotten older I've realized that GA and SA comics are not particularly profound, but they sure can be fun! Boys' Ranch is just a very fun and relaxing read.

I'm really having trouble following your thought process here. You claim that DD proves that Lee couldn't come up with his own ideas without Kirby's help. Yet, your narrative here proves the opposite. Kirby apparently came up with a character sketch that portrayed DD as in another outfit derived from the Captain America style that Kirby was so found of recycling: A cowled unitard with shorts and boots and two contrasting colors. Yet, you say that the best thing that happened in the first 10 issues is Wally Wood dumped Kirby's costume design. Hard to conclude that Stan wasn't capable of creativity given that he apparently rejected Kirby's "acrobat" idea (yet another S&K retreading of Robin) in favor the much better blind attorney concept, and didn't imbue DD with the scientific gadgets that Kirby apparently thought the character had (suggesting that was his concept of the character). Not at all surprising that Lee relied upon radioactivity for the character's origin given this was a prevailing trope in the wake of the Atomic bomb, and one we saw repeatedly used by Marvel with FF, Spiderman, etc. DD's origin, like the GA DD and Spiderman and Wildcat and many other superheroes, was a riff on the Batman origin story - parent/guardian/mentor getting murdered. This also is not surprising. The comic industry was very prone to use character origins and designs that were retreads of prior concepts. What made Marvel special was the characterizations not the character designs or origins - which generally were not at all original. Yes, Marvel was a House of Ideas, but the original ideas were not the Human Torch (revamp of GA character), Mr. Fantastic (Plastic Man ripoff), Invisible Girl (Invisible Scarlett O'Neill) etc., it was the way the stories were told. The characterizations and themes.

How about this?: Daredevil basically sees using sonar. So the sound of her voice would provide a basis for a sonar reading.

Bill Everett was probably the best artist for Timely/Atlas/Marvel from before MC 1 through the 1950s. DD 1 is a great first issue and one of Marvel’s best premises for a superhero. Miller certainly proved that and that Kirby was wrong about the cane. II have always thought DD was “inspired”’ more by DC’s Wildcat than the GA DD, and given Krigstein’s super strong influence on Miller I have always enjoyed the fact Krigstein did GA Wildcat and suspect Miller did too.

Does Joe Simon own the rights to Blue Bolt? If not, how is he leaving anything “unprinted”? In any event Blue Bolt 1 has been reprinted so your assertion is again wrong. Not sure why you attack Joe Simon. Kirby did not. Simon was a good artist who could draw in styles as diverse as Fine and Kirby.

Where do you think young Kirby got these ideas? He did not make them up. He was what, 19?, when he worked on Blue Bolt. He was drawing on pulps and other pop fiction. So were most comic artists and writers of the time. Cyclotrons were not an obscure thing. I think you need more context.

Bucky was just a Robin rip off. Simon’s CA character design sent to Goodman says they plan to include a boy sidekick. Given how closely Simon and Kirby collaborated you can only speculate as to who came up with what name. If they self plagiarized the name Bucky for a Robin rip off that says nothing about who created CA. Blue Bolt certainly does not prove anything about CA. Lots of folks were doing spy and war stories before CA because, after all, CA was himself a Shield rip off.

There is a big difference between speculating on an outcome in 2014 and doing so today. The companies have already won this battle in the Game of Life case. Disney will pay some money for PR. But it isn't Kirby family money. And Kirby family money was around 1 percent of the claimed damages. This boils down to some easy money for he creators or their estates which is material to them, but which is a pittance to Disney. This is in no way a victory for creator rights, but it is very nice recognition that is deserved for some living and dead creators. Steve Ditko has no case. His own words sink him. It doesn't help that Kirby claimed he created Spider-Man - especially if the Ditko Estate Attorney made that claim on behalf of Kirby.

Big switch for Larry from a decade ago when he was on the opposite side of the fence from Toberoff. Likely smart move for Disney, as I'm sure the payoff was helpful to the settling parties and recognition is nice, but likely a shadow of what amount Kirby's family got. Disney avoids bad PR. I'm guessing that Ditko is rolling in his grave.

Got it. I think there's no doubt that if CA was created independent of Timely it was by Joe Simon. Problem for Simon though was that the comments on the initial design could support that Simon created the character in response to a conversation with Goodman. Simon says: "Here's the character...", which implies that he'd discussed a character with Goodman before he sent image over. Could be that Goodman told him to create a character for a new comic. Don't know if Goodman ever testified on this issue. In any event, I think Simon was generous to Kirby by designating him a co-creator since Simon came up with the concept and did the costume design. The initial character sketch that Joe Simon sent to Goodman also stated that Joe was working on a --script and Joe also has said he did layout for the first story. So the concept and character design appear to have been his. So maybe Kirby thought since his introduction was working on the stories for the first issue that it was work for Timely. Maybe he didn't have in mind Simon's actual pre-Kirby work on the concept. Who knows. Kirby clearly was honest when he stated he believed that the work he did for the companies was owned by them because he said that over and over later in his life. He was happy with his deal from the companies which was better than most (which was one reason he was anti-unions) and his understanding was that his work was owned by the companies he worked for. Turns out that according to the Courts for his late 1950s to early 1960s work at Marvel he was right. I'm not sure I'd call Kirby a liar, but he should have known better and deferred to Simon - who after all came up with the idea (ok ok stole the idea from MLJ) and designed the costume (and likely the scripted the first story).

Fair enough. If the lawsuit had proceeded, it might or might not have helped the men at Marvel deemed to be doing "work made for hire." Or it might have helped Disney. We'll never know. Also, I am curious about your comment about Kirby being a company man. Are you talking about the 1969 lawsuit?

They got $30M to $50M. They got recognition for Jack. The Kirby family don't owe "the industry" anything and their case was at best a "win-lose" for a segment of the industry. The case was a dispute between Marvel and the men working in what appeared to be a "work made for hire" arrangements for it during a discrete period of time. So it was not an industry-wide issue or even a Marvel-wide issue. Every case is different so others from that time period can take a shot if they want. But the Kirby family were getting legal advice and knew things that no one here does. So I don't think any of us can second guess them with any level of intelligence.

It is pretty hard to call that a fact when no jury, US District Court, or US Circuit Court of Appeal ever found that assertion to be true.

Let me spell this out: Given the billions at stake, the monetary payment made by Disney was consistent with a 1% litigation risk assessment. Disney reportedly gave up $30,000,000 to $50,000,000. The Kirby’s gave up over a 100x that amount.

Nothing is slam dunk. All litigation involves a risk assessment. If a litigant thinks they face a one percent chance of losing a billion dollar dispute the conservative approach is to be willing to pay up to $10,000,000. A good question is: What did the Kirby’s and Disney respectively give up to reach this deal? I doubt Disney has any concerns about facing a lawsuit from Lieber - one of their Star witnesses - and I don’t know why you mention Heck - Kirby claimed he created IM. Lot of speculation here.

“The Kirby’s didn’t settle”? That is a false statement. There are things called facts. Let’s stick to them. Yes the Kirby’s settled. Yes it was their position to settle. Yes they voluntarily settled. Yes like all settlements it resulted from negotiations. There were offers and demands and a deal was struck that made sense to both sides. The Kirby’s walked away from a lot of money, billions, they might have won if the SCOTUS would have agreed with their invitation to change the law. That is the way civil litigation resolves the vast majority of the time. Very few cases go to trial.

All litigations settle because both sides believe they face downside risk. Here Disney faced the risk of losing on the legal issues even absent any dispute about the facts.

First, let's set aside that the Kirby family chose to settle the case with Marvel before they were to test their legal theories in the Supreme Court. They did this even though the U.S. Supreme Court had, in a decision which shocked the patent bar, granted the Kirby's petition for review of the trial court and Second Circuit rulings against them. They did this even though appellate superstar Tom Goldstein, author of the incredibly respected SCOTUSblog, had signed on to handle the appeal. They did this even though they had received supporting amicus ("friend of the Court") briefs from the former directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Register of Copyrights, as well as a number of labor unions (which Kirby would have called "commies"). But let's ignore that. Instead, let's look at what the case really was about when it settled. The general issue was whether Kirby for Marvel in the late 1950s and 1960s was “work made for hire.” The more specific legal issues were: (1) Whether a court can constitutionally take copyrights to works originally owned and authored by an independent contractor and hand them to a private party by judicially re-designating them “works for hire;” (2) whether “employer” under the Copyright Act of 1909 can be judicially extended beyond conventional employment to independent contractors, when this contradicts its common law meaning, binding Supreme Court precedent and longstanding canons of statutory construction; and (3) whether “work for hire” can be determined based on post-creation contingencies, like discretionary payment, when authorship and ownership of a copyrightable work, including “work for hire,” vests at inception. Importantly, the case was resolved on summary judgment. Summary judgment is not a trial. Evidence is not weighed for credibility. The standard of decision is that there are no disputes regarding the material facts and based on those facts the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A dispute of material fact occurs when a witness for one side says something material to the legal issue and a witness for the other side contradictions that statement. In other words, any dispute in the material facts or testimony warrants denial of a motion for summary judgment. So, to use your example, if Stan lied about something material to the issue and someone on the Kirby side contradicted Stan then summary judgment simply could not be granted. The fact that summary judgment was granted means that trial court and Second Circuit Court of Appeal both agreed that there were no material facts in dispute. Stated differently, this was not a Lee said vs. Kirby said case. If it had been, then the Kirby's would have had a slam dunk appeal (one they likely would not settle). According to Marvel, the Kirby's admitted the key undisputed factual finding in the case, which was: * “Kirby did not create the artwork that is the subject of the Termination Notices until Lee assigned him to do so.” Pet. App. 85. “Lee edited Kirby’s work and reviewed and approved all of his work prior to publication.” Pet. App. 88. In sum, Marvel “control[led] and supervise[d] all work that it published between 1958 and 1963,” including the works at issue here. Pet. App. 91. The evidence cited to support this conclusion notably included statements by the Kirby family: * Kirby’s son Neal, a Plaintiff in this case, testified that his father “didn’t do work on spec[ulation], he was getting paid by the page.” (See N. Kirby Dep. at127:19–128:5.) Although Neal Kirby testified that there were instances where “his father did pitch ideas on spec to Marvel,” he also admitted that his father did not draw a comic book story until he had received approval for that story or was assigned to that story by Lee or Goodman. (N. Kirby Dep. 167:21–168:23.) * If Lee did not approve of the artist’s work, it was not published. (Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 30; see also Steranko Decl. ¶ ¶ 11, 13; Sinnott Decl. ¶ 11.) Kirby was no exception. Lee edited Kirby’s work and reviewed and approved all of his work prior to publication. (Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 58–59.) Lee’s testimony is consistent with the recollection of Kirby’s daughter, Susan Kirby, who testified that Lee asked her father to “redo pages.” (10/25/10 Deposition of Susan Kirby (“S. Kirby Dep.”) 37:23–25.) Neal Kirby testified about one instance where Lee rejected a “cover” created by Kirby. (N. Kirby Dep. 58:8–18.) It also included statements by Romita and Thomas. The Kirby family attempted to rely on "expert opinion" by Mark Evanier but that evidence was tossed because it was without sufficient factual foundation. In short, the legal issues did not hinge only on Lee's testimony.

It was over before anyone agreed it existed!

Spot on! I first heard the term in the late 70s and early 80s and it was developed not to move 70s books but to make the 60s books more desirable. The selling point of the term was that it distinguished the much desired and loved books of the later 1950s and 1960s from the drek that was coming out in the 1970s. Creating a segregated "Silver Age" allowed dealers to keep the books of the 1950s and 1960s from being tainted by associations with or comparisons to the books of the 70s. The SA books were being presented as in a different (higher) class as a collectible than the stuff that came later. My own view is that Bronze Age was a meaningless term when invented, with no real point of demarcation that folks agreed upon or could provide a convincing case for. And the subsequent creation of the copper and modern ages just offers more support for that view. The whole ages thing is pretty useless at this point. The only starting points that make an ounce of comic history sense are Action 1 and Showcase 4 -- and even then everyone argues about the ending points. Angles on the head of a pin.

One other thing to note when we talk about Kirby and his "defenders." Guys like Groth had an agenda. It is hilarious to read the parts of the interview where Kirby refuses to agree with the notion that he was a victim of corporate greed: GROTH: Now. When you did this, you apparently weren’t aware of the financial ramifications — that people were going to make a lot of money on these things. KIRBY: Oh, we were aware of it, but I didn’t know how to do business. I didn’t know where to begin to do business. I was a kid from the Lower East Side who’d never seen a lawyer, who’d never done business. I was from a family that like millions of others where doing business was concerned I was completely naive. GROTH: Had you ever thought of going to the publishers and saying, we think this work is worth more than you’re paying us to produce it? KIRBY: We didn’t know the value of it because Joe got the sales figures. I began to learn about sales figures. Comics were new and spreading very fast. I was just getting paid a page rate. GROTH: Were you aare that the companies were making a lot of money on these, and you were just getting a page rate, just a fixed rate? KIRBY: Yes. I accepted that fact because I was bringing in more money. Don’t get me wrong — the more money the books made, the more money I received, and I was feeling great. My purpose was what my father’s purpose was — to make a living and to have a family. I was going to do the right thing. My dream to me was to have money to support it and to live in the kind of house I liked. GROTH: Did it dawn on you that the publishers you were working for were making a whole lot more money than you were off your work? KIRBY: I didn’t care. I couldn’t conceive what they were doing in those offices. I couldn’t conceive of working with accountants. I couldn’t conceive of working with sales people. I couldn’t conceive of distribution. I couldn’t conceive of it because I couldn’t envision it. I’ve never run a business, I’ve never run a big business, and comics were growing fast. Superman had that kind of a business. They had every kind of accoutrement you could use for a big business. GROTH: Did you resent the publishers? KIRBY: No, I didn’t resent them. In fact, I got along well with them. When I wanted a little more money, they gave me a little more money. ROZ KIRBY: They threw you bones. KIRBY: Yeah, they threw me bones, and the publishers liked me. GROTH: I bet. KIRBY: I got along well with them. .... GROTH: So how did your affiliation with National come about? Did you just drop by the offices and look for work? KIRBY: Yes. I felt National had always been a respectable house, a prestige house. I liked the people who ran the place. I liked the publisher. I liked the people who worked for them. I always liked DC — they were fair, which was very rare in comics. [Laughter.] GROTH: When you say they were fair — you still didn’t get to own the strips you drew... ROZ KIRBY: We thought they were fair. [Laughter.] KIRBY: All right, I’ll qualify it. I’ll just say that nobody in the field had a contract from anybody. And DC wasn’t the only publishing house in the field. There was also Timely and Dell and a lot of others. GROTH: But still at that time they owned everything you did, they paid a low page rate, they kept the original art. KIRBY: Yes. They did. But the idea was the artist came from a poor section of the city... I was happy because I made enough money to give to my parents. I made enough money to get married on. I made enough money to enjoy myself a little more than I would have if I didn’t have enough money. .... KIRBY: Comics have a caste system — an editor has to act in a certain way, an artist has to be humble, right? An artist has to be humble, an editor must be officious, and a publisher must be somewhere out in the galaxy enjoying godhood. It was a caste system, pure and simple. And it was accepted that way. Nobody thought of contracts, nobody thought of insisting on better deals. GROTH: Did you assume when you did a book — any one of the many books you’ve done — did you assume that the publisher owned it? Or did you think about it a little later and think, wait a minute, I did this and I didn’t have a contract, and I don’t see why he should own it 100 percent. KIRBY: No, I was growing up and becoming aware of those things. Joe Simon knew about those things. GROTH: At the time you just assumed that the publisher owned it? KIRBY: Yes. I assumed that he took it, OK? [Laughter.] I assumed that he took it, and I didn’t have the means to get it back. .... GROTH: I understand that sometime in the mid-’50s Bernie Krigstein tried to start a union among comic book creators. Were you aware of that? KIRBY: I was aware of it. It was something that I knew would fail. GROTH: But you didn’t go to any meetings? KIRBY: No, no. Unions almost had the connotation of communism. .... ROZ KIRBY: Also at that time each artist was making his own deal. Jack said, “Well, I make more money than them.” Everybody can’t make the same. KIRBY: I was doing very well — my books were selling. Whatever I drew sold. GROTH: When you say you were doing very well, what does that mean? What was your page rate in the ’50s? KIRBY: Thirty-five to 50 dollars for a complete page. It depended on who you worked for. Some paid less. Some paid more. GROTH: Would that include the writing? KIRBY: Yes, I gave them a complete page. Joe would ink it or someone else would ink it. I’d get somebody to ink it, or I’d ink it myself, and I’d get a certain amount from the publishers. That’s how it was with Challengers of the Unknown. .... GROTH: You were getting a page rate at Marvel? KIRBY: Yes, I was getting a good page rate. GROTH: Did your page rate increase substantially in the ’60s as the work became more popular? KIRBY: Yes, it did. My object was to help the publisher to make sales. That was my job. It wasn’t a job of being a Rembrandt. .... GROTH: The sales of the comics grew faster than they ever did. KIRBY: Yes. And that’s what it depended on. I knew it would depend on the sale of the comics. If sales of the comics began to dwindle, then your salary is going to be stagnant. If sales fall more, they’re going to lower your salary. If it dwindles even further, your salary is going to be a lot lower than you usually make. It goes the other way, too.

I'm not convinced he "short-changed" his artists. They knew the drill under Stan. They got paid more than they would have at other publishers. They also appear to have believed that the "Marvel method" was a personally more satisfying way of working than some of the others. Kirby told Groth in the CJ interview his attitude towards full scripts: KIRBY: I’d try to be innovative. I’d give them my version of it. They’d pass my version along to be completed. Somehow it always worked. ... GROTH: Would the companies give your studio scripts, which you would then illustrate? KIRBY: I never took their scripts. DC would send me scripts, I’d throw them out the window. GROTH: Why was that? KIRBY: I don’t like anything that’s contrived. I conceive, they contrive. OK? Kirby was a Marvel method guy before it even existed. He didn't want a -script and he wasn't trying to claim a writer credit. As for copyright issues, if that's what you are referring to, well the courts have spoken on that.

I get it you want to slant everything as far as possible against Stan. But that really doesn't help comic scholarship in any way. This thread just comes across as bitter beyond belief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Martin Goodman sold out to Martin Ackerman in 1968. Ackerman sold out around 1969/1970 and Sheldon Feinberg became the CEO of the entity then renamed as Cadence. Stan wasn't promoted to editorial director and publisher until 1972. So how did Stan "unseat" Goodman's son? It must have been a very shaky seat if he was still around in 1972. Also, upthread you convincingly document that Martin Goodman treated Stan Lee horribly -- trying to force him out and demeaning him in that effort. And now you assert Stan "would screw over the man who'd kept him employed for 30 years"? Massive cognitive dissonance. Goodman got good work from Stan, that's all Stan owed his employer - especially if that employer was as abusive as you state.

Last Heritage sale. Great for a book that hasn't been auctioned since years ago.

No response?