Aman619

they didnt "want" ownership... they already HAD ownership. When youre getting the milk for free you dont want the cow getting more that they already are. ok, using words differently I guess. Jack wanted "more", so Im sure more profits in the form of higher rates or guaranteed wages would sorta fall under that umbrella. But Maybe Goodman when NOT asked for profits from the things Kirby had created knew he didnt have to do much for Kirby, as Jack had already ceded the most valuable aspect of his push for "more". Im not a fan either. Rode with him for 20 minutes once. He said the phrase "I did..." 50 times. Stan failing to follow through on that promise lies at Goodmans feet. Stan probably shouldn't have promised more than he could deliver. well, Had Jack been half the showman Stan was and comfortable with the press, and Jack a lot more verbal and outgoing (selling mode) we wouldn't even be discussing this. After the reporters moved from Stan to Jack, he was (by their words in the final piece" inarticulate at best. So they turned back to Stan who as more entertaining and GOT what they were there to find out for their story! The press writes about stuff they know nothing about most of the time, so they like and NEED subjects that do their work for them. Im left root wonder had their partnership needed more artists and writers how they would have paid them. At the height of Neal Adams comics battles for artists rights, he produced his play Warp. It was ironic that he asked everyone - even comics people he knew - to sign waivers of ALL rights to their work on it. say what? Goodman again, who as you say, was not a nice guy. I agree.

The answer to your point is obvious. You can’t equate the 50s and 60s comics business with the current mindsets at work. That Image has a great deal with talent just shows that the old model of plantation pay and no benefits just won’t fly anymore. And DC and Marvel share to a greater extent than the old days, so smaller companies go even further to sign up top talent who now fully EXPECT to own their creations. Kirby knew how it worked, and wanted his credit and profit share years AFTER the fact and didn’t get it. Big difference , don’t you think? you are just echoing my earlier point that bosses never give up equity, or bonuses, or anything until and unless they feel they have to.

Just a small nit pick about Kirby’s output. It’s always been described that he was able to create more pencilled pages than anybody a week, or day, because he was faster, NOT because he worked longer hours to accomplish it. I don’t really know if that’s actually true. Maybe he burned the midnight oil for extra dough. But if someone’s natural skills enabled him to make more money than the other artists by virtue of his speed alone, he technically was higher paid PER DAY, if not per page as rates are commonly compared. Bottom line he made a lot more money.

I’m sure he has was it. It was last years new hot addition to the Stan/Jack saga.

I havent read everything, no. The ones I have all had a point of view, and included a lot of hearsay. So my comments here are from the standpoint of a boss as evil as you say Goodman was being just shades worse than all the other bosses who took advantage from their workers whose efforts were paying for the bosses beach house and shrimp cocktails. Even the nice bosses far better than Goodman were selfish, that’s humanity now and forever.

I clearly was talking about the one sided rules in place where owners take advantage of employees. So no gotcha for you here.

And, let’s flip it around. Say he had been more employee friendly etc. gave everyone a piece of their creations. You name it! Now he’s starting over on a low budget. How many of those same creators will be generous and sign on at reduced rates to help Goodman get going? Of course Kirby I hear you saying, but now he’s a partner at Marvel! Sorry Martin, no can do.

You tell me. How well did ANY new comic publisher do in the 70s? Guess you could say his past business practices didn’t endear him to the talent he would have needed to hit the ground running. Or since he did get Adams and a bunch of current talent to do some work, guess the creative vision was lacking what the big 2 were satiating the market with already with known characters etc. you make it sound like business is so easy.

yeah, but thats a good point about human nature: that we all scream bloody murder when someone "steals" an Action 1 etc from the unknowing, yet argue about "business as usual" when its the comics business dealings in question. But theres "fair" and theres reality. Goodman was always the boss. If Kirby didnt show up to save him, as you say (twice!) he would have kept going and things would have turned out differently, better (prob not) but somewhat worse, or Marvel would have closed shop. Who knows? Bosses dont GIVE AWAY equity --- even today --- its just not done out of the goodness of their hearts. Only when forced to, or its makes business sense. All his life in comics Goodman operated by the set of rules that existed. They all did. Its really silly to point and curse them for not being Mother Teresa to the employees. It may suck, but we are animals in a darwinian struggle for survival/success. Stones and glass houses.

A very even handed summary. Yes, they were employees, and for the times, they were paid very well! (Jack especially as he turned out more pages than anyone else) They may have "felt" at some point in the mid 60s that they should get more for creating Marvel Comics, but either they never pressed their case strongly enough, or backed off, or it was just too late in the game and contented them selves with the earnings. (Stan told me he tried to buy Marvel after Goodman, and tried putting together the money, but failed. Probably because he was fine to keep doing what he was doing without risk. But he said it wistfully. Jack of course fell slighted by Stan, and in a weaker position than Stan, and a bit of a hothead... so he walked... over to DC as his solution. As you said, Stan was the company man, and the face and therefore always valuable to Marvels owners. No one was going to "give" them a stake in the company! If there was ever a chance it would have been as they created FF. Walking in with it and demanding a piece of it. But that comic was not imaginable as the beginning of something. Rather just the next piece of monthly carp to get to the printers on time. Same as all the other stories -- and characters -- they were pumping out weekly. As you stated, as time wore on, Kirby just wasn't as important as he was in the beginning. Its like if he had created the CAR for Henry Ford, 10years later they were fine-tuning the concept with a horde of other creators. The ship had sailed. Marvel was filled with bodies pumping out new concepts every month. And revamping Jacks ideas. Bottom line, Jack Kirby legend will live for centuries. His family is now financially set. Would it have been even better had he lived to see it? Yes. But not so bad compared to how all the rest of us bozos live out our forgettable lives.

...and a time machine. Right now I wish I bought a heck of a lot MORE back in the day.

yeah.. Artists would have to first prove that they in fact owned the art created as work for hire, or probably that work for hire was merely "implied" but never officially there status.... Only then would they have a say or stake in the stolen artwork... and probably end up settling with Marvel for negligence at a fraction of the value, or seek to repossess the art from whoever owns it today as with Nazi stolen artworks.

its not that we are not agreeing that the artists like Kirby got screwed out of what TURNED OUT to be a windfall.... Just that legally, when you acquiesce for YEARS to a business arrangement, no court will look back and get you the rights you failed to ask for or demand decades earlier.

but according to work for hire, that theft is between the rightful owners of the art (publishers) and the thief.

yes, upset but with no legal recourse.

of course the artists were peeved. but unfortunately that doesn't change the circumstances under which they were hired and paid for their work at the time. And no one would have cared about the art -- even the artists - - if the characters hadn't become a gold mine of unforeseen value. Which led to the hard feelings and anger and frustration.

don't think there were contracts ib the beginning except for a few artists and writers who went in demanding a contract. At some point to enforce the "work for hire" deal, weren't the checks from Marvel etc stamped with a clause on the back that said "endorsing the check constitutes agreement that the work was performed as work for hire?" Sounds legal in a way, but I dont recall if anyone challenged it in court besides Kirby who settled before the legality of the "check contract" dodge was affirmed by a court.

well, you were there well in good time to take advartage of the god times we see for comics today.... but you made made choices to buy the books you loved at prices that made sense for you. Unfortunately many of those have remained esoteric items (cool 50s DCs) still not absorbed into the mainstream that the new big money guys covet.

to feel better and climb down of the ledge, figure out how many of the books you sold are now selling for LESS than years ago. or the same. (hint; DCs) Takes SOME of the sting out of letting stupid 9.8 Marvel #1s go for $100 a pop years ago, and see them go for $1800 now. Im talking to YOU She-Hulk, Nova and the rest of your common as dirt spawn younger guys pay big $$ for today.

Thanx for the explanation. I’ve wondered about this.

That’s a beauty. I’ve wondered about all the overhang on pulps. That clean pulp is beautiful. If such books exist does it imply that the printers were just inconsistent? That plenty of books came out without overhang? Or was the overhang present on all pulps in some eras, and nonexistent in more modern periods??

Yeah. Someone will know the answer….

just let Valiantman sort it out as he does for comics census. He'll have it up on his site in a week because he is familiar with the CGC database protocols already

Whats everyones take on the sale at Heritage this past week (62K)? and also, just how many known copies are in circulation, or in collections that are known to exist? and which is the copy considered to be the highest graded? thanx

well. THAT was weird! any idea what caused it?