Slightly OT - Marvel sues Kirby Estate

[Aman619]

well, the Levitz letter was also a publicity ploy to shame Marvel and take the high road as it came right at the height of the Marvel Kirby fracass of the 80s. Im not so sure that it is a statement of legality as much a tooting of DCs horn for having made the decision to give artwork back to the artists, which, in reality, cost DC nothing at all. Tweaking Marvel (and vice versa) was always fun.

 

also, wasnt there a sales tax issue raised about the transfer of ownership of the art, that, had they kept it, they would have been guilty of failing to pay sales tax for it as tangible personal property...? If so, that was yet another good reason behind DCs "magnanimous" gesture.

[Kevin76]

DC isn't exactly innocent either...since when do you go to work and the company you work for gives you anything more than a pat on the back for a job well done? Same thing. Back in the early 60's people didn't think about their like nowadays. Back then comics were just well.. "stupid children's comics" Stan Lee was given alot of credit cause he actually has a personality while alot of the artists back then just stood in the shadows and Stan Lee said many times he has no problem being called co-creator. You can't blame Stan Lee for cashing in on all this while Marvel makes a mint cause when you create a character for Marvel or DC you sign away all those rights when you get hired....Why do you think there aren't any new characters being created these days? Everyone is scared less if it were to ever take off...

[blowout]

Why do you think there aren't any new characters being created these days? Everyone is scared less if it were to ever take off...

 

I'm sure there are plenty of new characters being created in comic books these days, trouble is no one is reading them.

[AKA Rick]

It's like singers and songwriters. Songwriters usually get credits as well as royalties. Both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as well as any other "creator" should at minimum be given credits, as DC has done for Superman, but also out of respect, given all that the creators have contributed to the development of certain financial powerhouses, a percentage, even small is simply profit sharing, so giving a little bit of something means you're making a lot of bit of something. I think it's good will towards the people who built the foundation of certain empires. I think it's good publicity and will encourage other new talent to work for these companies to share their ideas, knowing that not only they have a marketing company with deep pockets and the ability to give their ideas the right development and exposure, but they'll be compensated if the projects make money, then they make money. Inherant in the gamble are failed projects that these companies may invest in such as a "Howard the Duck" Movie or the "Bloodshot" comic character - - so, in the same breath the creative forces also have to be reasonable in their expectations on compensation and somehow reach an agreement of what each side feels is "fair"

[*paull*]

It's like singers and songwriters. Songwriters usually get credits as well as royalties. Both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as well as any other "creator" should at minimum be given credits, as DC has done for Superman, but also out of respect, given all that the creators have contributed to the development of certain financial powerhouses, a percentage, even small is simply profit sharing, so giving a little bit of something means you're making a lot of bit of something. I think it's good will towards the people who built the foundation of certain empires. I think it's good publicity and will encourage other new talent to work for these companies to share their ideas, knowing that not only they have a marketing company with deep pockets and the ability to give their ideas the right development and exposure, but they'll be compensated if the projects make money, then they make money. Inherant in the gamble are failed projects that these companies may invest in such as a "Howard the Duck" Movie or the "Bloodshot" comic character - - so, in the same breath the creative forces also have to be reasonable in their expectations on compensation and somehow reach an agreement of what each side feels is "fair"

 

Keep in mind that singers and songwriters typically make all their money from royalties, not on a per-song basis. Would comic book artists be willing to give up their page rates for royalties exclusively?

[comix4fun]

It's like singers and songwriters. Songwriters usually get credits as well as royalties. Both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as well as any other "creator" should at minimum be given credits, as DC has done for Superman, but also out of respect, given all that the creators have contributed to the development of certain financial powerhouses, a percentage, even small is simply profit sharing, so giving a little bit of something means you're making a lot of bit of something. I think it's good will towards the people who built the foundation of certain empires. I think it's good publicity and will encourage other new talent to work for these companies to share their ideas, knowing that not only they have a marketing company with deep pockets and the ability to give their ideas the right development and exposure, but they'll be compensated if the projects make money, then they make money. Inherant in the gamble are failed projects that these companies may invest in such as a "Howard the Duck" Movie or the "Bloodshot" comic character - - so, in the same breath the creative forces also have to be reasonable in their expectations on compensation and somehow reach an agreement of what each side feels is "fair"

 

Keep in mind that singers and songwriters typically make all their money from royalties, not on a per-song basis. Would comic book artists be willing to give up their page rates for royalties exclusively?

 

Don't several comic creators receive royalties now, in addition to their page rates?

[dem1138]

I believe the writer and the artists receive royalties in addition to page rates based on sales. You don't have to be a comic creator to receive royalties, but, for example, Bendis probably makes more royalties on sales from his ICON line titles than he does from Ultimate Spider-man and New Avengers.

[irchooker]

I believe the writer and the artists receive royalties in addition to page rates based on sales.

 

This is true, but the way they rejigged the royalty levels, I'd be surprised if anyone really did well. The sales are too low. 20 years ago, people were getting cheques for $500k - 1M per issue.