• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Slightly OT - Marvel sues Kirby Estate

Started by jjonahjameson1,

28 posts in this topic

Shark

Shark

Posted
Posted
I can't confirm it one way or the other but it wouldn't surprise me. Seems like there are a lot of people out there nowadayas who are nothing but a bunch of money grabbers.

 

who exactly do you think the money grabbers are???

 

Jack Kirby's heirs of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted
I can't confirm it one way or the other but it wouldn't surprise me. Seems like there are a lot of people out there nowadayas who are nothing but a bunch of money grabbers.

 

who exactly do you think the money grabbers are???

 

Jack Kirby's heirs of course.

 

sadly, that is correct..

 

I'm lucky to have known Jack a little and had breakfast once with he and Julie Schwartz before heading in to man my booths.. and while I will not claim to know what he would think, like everyone else, we can't deny that Jack's work for Marvel and other companies before he went to DC in the 70s was entirely "work for hire"

 

he never signed any document during the time he worked at any of those companies (aside from Crestwood where he and Joe Simon had a financial interest) that gave him one iota of copyright ownership in any character he may have created.

 

Of course, I'm sure that no one ever considered how valuable these character may have been because until the Marvel Cartoons of the 1960s, in reality very few comic characters made the transition to films where the big money was.

 

Jack did not protect himself and so he is left out in the cold.

 

Even further, when Jack signed the document to get his art returned, he also signed a document relinquishing any interest in the characters.

 

was it immoral that Jack was asked to sign a document that no other Marvel artist was to get his art.. Well yeah.... But it was legal.

 

would I like to see his heirs get an interest?? To be honest.. I don't think I have an opinion one way or another.

 

Youprotect yourself in life.. not many others will do so for you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shark

Shark

Posted
Posted
I can't confirm it one way or the other but it wouldn't surprise me. Seems like there are a lot of people out there nowadayas who are nothing but a bunch of money grabbers.

 

who exactly do you think the money grabbers are???

 

Jack Kirby's heirs of course.

 

sadly, that is correct..

 

I'm lucky to have known Jack a little and had breakfast once with he and Julie Schwartz before heading in to man my booths.. and while I will not claim to know what he would think, like everyone else, we can't deny that Jack's work for Marvel and other companies before he went to DC in the 70s was entirely "work for hire"

 

he never signed any document during the time he worked at any of those companies (aside from Crestwood where he and Joe Simon had a financial interest) that gave him one iota of copyright ownership in any character he may have created.

 

Of course, I'm sure that no one ever considered how valuable these character may have been because until the Marvel Cartoons of the 1960s, in reality very few comic characters made the transition to films where the big money was.

 

Jack did not protect himself and so he is left out in the cold.

 

Even further, when Jack signed the document to get his art returned, he also signed a document relinquishing any interest in the characters.

 

was it immoral that Jack was asked to sign a document that no other Marvel artist was to get his art.. Well yeah.... But it was legal.

 

would I like to see his heirs get an interest?? To be honest.. I don't think I have an opinion one way or another.

 

Youprotect yourself in life.. not many others will do so for you.

 

 

Very well stated. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I can't confirm it one way or the other but it wouldn't surprise me. Seems like there are a lot of people out there nowadayas who are nothing but a bunch of money grabbers.

 

who exactly do you think the money grabbers are???

 

Jack Kirby's heirs of course.

 

sadly, that is correct..

 

I'm lucky to have known Jack a little and had breakfast once with he and Julie Schwartz before heading in to man my booths.. and while I will not claim to know what he would think, like everyone else, we can't deny that Jack's work for Marvel and other companies before he went to DC in the 70s was entirely "work for hire"

 

he never signed any document during the time he worked at any of those companies (aside from Crestwood where he and Joe Simon had a financial interest) that gave him one iota of copyright ownership in any character he may have created.

 

Of course, I'm sure that no one ever considered how valuable these character may have been because until the Marvel Cartoons of the 1960s, in reality very few comic characters made the transition to films where the big money was.

 

Jack did not protect himself and so he is left out in the cold.

 

Even further, when Jack signed the document to get his art returned, he also signed a document relinquishing any interest in the characters.

 

was it immoral that Jack was asked to sign a document that no other Marvel artist was to get his art.. Well yeah.... But it was legal.

 

would I like to see his heirs get an interest?? To be honest.. I don't think I have an opinion one way or another.

 

Youprotect yourself in life.. not many others will do so for you.

 

 

 

I am unfamiliar with Stan's position and agreement with Marvel throughout the years.

 

Is there someplace I can look that explains to me why he has been entitled to so much from Marvel from the beginning to today?

 

Regarding the document Jack had to sign to get back his own artwork, the artwork he was entitled to and was being illegally withheld from him in the first place, if he was not adequately advised as to the document's contents or advised to retain an attorney to explain it to him it might have been a whole that worse than just immoral.

 

Also, if the artwork was his in the first place, and it was supposed to be returned to him regardless, there is no legal basis for an agreement whereby he relinquishes his rights to the characters to get the artwork back. Basically, there is no consideration for him relinquishing control, without consideration there's no contract and that document may not be sound.

 

And returning 2,100 of over 10,000 pages to Jack seems like nothing short of grand theft.

 

I would love to read all the documents to put the time line together. It sounds like another corporation taking advantage of another talent.

 

Jack deserves as much credit as Stan for these creations. Stan wasn't writing novels, he was writing comics. The visuals are an integral and key part to that creation. Drawing, penciling, inking, and plotting comics takes every bit as much (if not more ) talent and skill as writing.

 

And from 1962 to 1969 Jack CARRIED Marvel on his back. Without Kirby, Marvel closes their doors. That's just a fact. The man was creating 5-6 covers and hundreds of pages every month. How did they pay him back, withhold his artwork, make almost 9.000 pages "disappear", then when the time came to do the right thing, they took the characters he created too. Classy all around.

 

I think it's a crime how Jack was treated and every year Stan cashes another million dollar check for the characters upon which he and Jack collaborated.

 

Treating talent like cattle just rubs me the wrong way. They deserve better.

 

Best,

Chris

 

 

EDIT: PS....With Several BILLION in movie ticket sales, merchandising, licensing, and other revenues off of these characters, the powers that be at Marvel could have made this right several times over and NEVER felt a dent in their bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Peck

Brian Peck

Posted
Posted

You can say that about alot of Silver Age artists. At the time they returned the artwork there wasn't much of a market. Few knew there was original art used to produce the comic and those that did it was a small market, Its like many things either collectibles or the stock market. Just think if everyone still had stock they had bought back in the 80's for Microsoft or Apple. They would be millionaires as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CollectingFool

CollectingFool

Posted
Posted
Is there someplace I can look that explains to me why he has been entitled to so much from Marvel from the beginning to today?

 

I don't know if this explains it but it does give you a bit of background:

 

http://www.ehow.com/about_5367293_stan-lee.html

 

In the end I think it amounts to two things. Lee was a loyal employee to Goodman and at times practically the only person in the shop. Then when Marvel exploded again in the '60s and '70s Lee was the ultimate huckster and became the face of Marvel. Promoting Marvel and himself at the same time. He would always be quick to say "Spiderman was my idea" or "I write the Fantastic Four". In reality it's more like "I told Steve Ditko to make up a character with the powers of a spider and he came back with the whole teenage angst-ridden reluctant hero that teenagers identified with". Or "Jack would draw these phenomenal stories with just one line of guidance from me like 'make this a big space epic' then I would drop in the dialog to conform to Jack's story and notes."

 

The most telling story about Jack and Stan's relationship to me is the FF/Surfer story. I'm paraphrasing here from memory but as I remember it went something like this:

 

Stan tells Jack "We should do something big and cosmic. World in jeopardy and a cool villain". Jack comes up with Galactus and the Silver Surfer. Stan actually didn't like the Surfer and told Jack so. He thought it was too goofy. After the Silver Surfer became a sensation, Stan started saying it was his favorite character. John Buscema has a similar story when he started working on the Silver Surfer comic. When he handed in Silver Surfer #4, Stan kept finding fault with it because it wasn't enough like Kirby's Surfer. Years later, Stan is on the phone with John and says "You know what book I we did that I always loved, that Silver Surfer vs Thor book you drew. Man that was great." John hung up on him. I don't think Stan is malicious, I think he just talks off the cuff and from the gut a lot and forgets what he says. Others don't.

 

I believe Stan was a major component in Marvel's success. His bigger-than-life public persona and delight in being in the spotlight made him synonymous with Marvel in the public consciousness and therefore more important to the company and the shareholders. Much more than the reclusive artists that were the workhorses that made the company what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted
Regarding the document Jack had to sign to get back his own artwork, the artwork he was entitled to and was being illegally withheld from him in the first place, if he was not adequately advised as to the document's contents or advised to retain an attorney to explain it to him it might have been a whole that worse than just immoral.

 

this is entirely INCORRECT

 

Jack did not legally own any of the art, nor did any other artist who worked for Marvel.

 

The artwork was the property of Marvel from the moment that Jack (and all the other artists) were paid for the work.

 

There was never any agreement with Marvel at the time of production that any artist signed giving them ownership of any of the material and that was the crux of Marvel's position until they decided on their own to return the art to the artists.

 

To go further, no artists ever tried to get teh art from Marvel until such a time as the art became valuable and if Marvel had chosen to sell the art on their own, they would have been completely within their rights to do so.

 

Bill Gaines was much smarter on this subject from the go.

During the 50s when EC's were being published, his contracts with the artists stated specifically that EC became the owner of any art they published with the single exception of the Frazetta illustration for WSF #29 which Frazetta would not let him publish without it being returned.

 

Again, Gaines (just as Marvel) would have been completely within his rights to sell the art & keep all of the proceeds, but he chose to give the artists a percentage of that money based on the relationships that he had with them. I think that amount was 30%. But Gaines kept the lion's share.

 

Until the 1970s, very few artists demanded their art back from the publishers, largely because it was perceived to have no value and they did the art for a paycheck. Also, the concept of getting the art back & trying to sell it was seen as a problematic chore.

 

One legal concept is that a lack of interest in getting back the art was tantamount to "abandonment", leaving the art in the possession of the companies that contracted the art. This is why so much art was destroyed by the companies who had no use for it.

 

So it was no more than immoral and only if Marvel was also returning art to other artists. If Marvel didn't decide to return a single page to any one of them.. Then it doesn't even rise to the level of immorality.

 

sometimes reality sucks.. but that's the way it is

 

Rich

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
oh.. one more thing.. Jack had attorneys working on his behalf all along during the time he wanted to get the art back.. get the facts

 

 

Oh.. You'll notice the placement question marks and the words "if" placed at various places throughout the post which would be a request for an answer and a potential likelihood based on the answer given.. read the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

Is it ok if I use your font and lettering? Based on what I know and have read about Kirby's claims to the artwork, and what other companies have gone through over the years and finally, Marvel's own actions your post is not "entirely correct" either.

 

The only piece of the puzzle that I was missing was how the deal went down where Kirby gave up copyright to the characters in exchange for the artwork. The rest of it was pretty clear to me.

 

 

this is entirely INCORRECT

 

Jack did not legally own any of the art, nor did any other artist who worked for Marvel.

 

The artwork was the property of Marvel from the moment that Jack (and all the other artists) were paid for the work.

 

There was never any agreement with Marvel at the time of production that any artist signed giving them ownership of any of the material and that was the crux of Marvel's position until they decided on their own to return the art to the artists.

 

Actually the legalities of ownership were very much in doubt for a long period of time, DC's own issues with the same matter over the concept of the ownership of the originals, absent a fully detailed agreement transferring ownership, automatically transferring to the publisher is something pressed by publishers as a fact but is not black and white by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Marvel held strong to their position that it was always theirs. I agree. I didn't make their position correct, it just made it their position.

 

When they decided, in 1974, to start returning the artwork to artists, they sought to portray the action as gratuitous and magnanimous. This was an attempt, in my opinion, to look good and to attempt to avoid creating a duty. The problem is, once you create a pattern of dealing, a "custom and practice" if you will, rights were created on behalf of all the talent at Marvel.

 

 

 

To go further, no artists ever tried to get teh art from Marvel until such a time as the art became valuable and if Marvel had chosen to sell the art on their own, they would have been completely within their rights to do so.

 

More than one source claims that Kirby had been actively trying to get his art returned beginning in 1964-1965.

 

Marvel chose NOT to sell the artwork because the actual ownership and legal issues surrounding the artwork were no where near this clear cut. That and the fact that there were several ownership changes in those early years combined with your aforementioned lack of value put untangling the potential legal issues on the back burner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One legal concept is that a lack of interest in getting back the art was tantamount to "abandonment", leaving the art in the possession of the companies that contracted the art. This is why so much art was destroyed by the companies who had no use for it.

 

Being that Jack, by several accounts, was trying from the early 60's to get his artwork back "abandonment" is a moot point.

 

But I will point you to the legal concept of "Custom and Practice". Being that, starting in 1974, Marvel began returning artwork to other artists they created a right for all artists based on this "custom and practice". Where no right exists in writing, a right may be inferred based on the custom and practice of the parties.

 

Basically, once Marvel starting giving the art to the artists they started to create a pattern of dealing that, in sum total, created a legal right for everyone to be treated the same way.

 

Once the other artists at Marvel were getting their art back in 1974, they held out on Jack for 13 years. Now why would they do that? Would it be to force Jack to sign over copyrights? Was this how all the other artists were treated? 13 years of delay and denial for Jack when other artists were getting their pieces back from the warehouse.

 

Unless every single one of them was also required to sign over their copyrights as well, and if Marvel had established a duty to their talent to return the artwork under "custom and practice" , I don't know under what legal theory they would have thought it justifiable to withhold his artwork until he signed over his rights.

 

So it was no more than immoral and only if Marvel was also returning art to other artists. If Marvel didn't decide to return a single page to any one of them.. Then it doesn't even rise to the level of immorality.

 

sometimes reality sucks.. but that's the way it is

 

Rich

 

 

Well then it must be immoral if Jack wanted his art back from the early-mid 60's, if Marvel started returning artwork in 1974 to their artists, and if they made Jack wait 13 years while all the other talent got their art returned and if Jack only got his back after fighting for it and then only after giving up his copyrights.

 

Frankly, it seems that Marvel started doing art returns because no one was really sure of the legal status of these pages. They didn't want to get into a massive battle over the artwork so they started giving it back. If they didn't do it voluntarily they would have had a fight on their hands. It was a fight Marvel (for all their iron clad bravado and stance that it was theirs) was not sure it could win.

 

Simply put Jack always wanted his art, never abandoned his claim, was made to wait over 30 years to get his art back and 13 years longer than the other talent at Marvel and then only got it back in exchange for something completely egregious. Something that it is unclear if the other artists at Marvel were forced with which to comply.

 

Best,

Chris

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Rather than bore everyone with my semi-literate ramblings, here's a letter from one of the big two that says everything I wanted to add:

 

http://www.collectingfool.com/articles/article-15.jpg

 

 

 

 

Exactly... :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing