From Stan Lee to Jerry Bails 1963

[rodan57]

 

 

From 20th Century Danny Boy.

[KirbyJack]

Really great seeing that. Should be in a museum or archived somewhere.

[Aman619]

awesome letters. whose lawsuit were these evidence in?

 

[Korvac Saga]

Wow, what a letter!! As one of the Founding Fathers Of Fandom(cough, cough), I'm not surprised Jerry got the letter, but still WOW!! Great historical piece, thanks for sharing!! "Not surprised if ASM turns into a winner", classic!!

[rodan57]

awesome letters. whose lawsuit were these evidence in?

 

The Kirby Family is suing for ownership of Marvel characters.

 

20th Century Danny Boy

 

[Mr 9.8]

awesome letters. whose lawsuit were these evidence in?

 

The Kirby Family is suing for ownership of Marvel characters.

 

20th Century Danny Boy

 

 

RIIIIGHT! That'll happen.

[Daniel Best-migration]

If you use this link: http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/search/label/Marvel%20vs%20Kirby then you'll find a host of documents that have surfaced during the Marvel vs Kirby case.

[Aman619]

the Kirby case seems to be that since no one said the words "work for hire" to him in the 50s and 60s, it WASNT work for hire. But if it quacks like a duck etc etc.

 

Nowhere does he say or claim that he created heroes, stories, issues etc and THEN tried to sell them to Marvel etc. The new copyright law that the Superman creators used successfully protects ONLY those who created THEN shopped and sold their creations (i.e. Superman + Action 1). And they only won back ideas that appeared in that very first Superman story.

 

I dont see how the Kirby estate can follow suit. Damages for the lost artwork yes, perhaps. I see XMen 1 art listed as missing/not returned. I wonder how current owners feel about that. If Holocaust families can get their ancestors artworks returned to their heirs, seems a simple form of restitution might be along these lines, not copyrights to the characters them selves.

[rodan57]

But it is interesting how someone who isn't a salaried employee can invent new characters that become the property of the comic book publisher by virtue of their inclusion in the book.

 

It's as if introducing a character to the Marvel Universe makes it Marvel property. Makes you wonder if by using the image of a US president in a comic book, Marvel might then claim ownership of the presidency. Heck, Marvel could claim ownership of 'New York City" as a character.

 

A very complex issue that interweaves history (established practice) with various philosophies of intellectual property and ownership.

[namisgr]

It's as if introducing a character to the Marvel Universe makes it Marvel property. Makes you wonder if by using the image of a US president in a comic book, Marvel might then claim ownership of the presidency. Heck, Marvel could claim ownership of 'New York City" as a character.

 

Not at all. Introducing fictional characters into the Marvel Universe can't be compared with their use of real characters and locations.

[AtlasFan]

awesome letters. whose lawsuit were these evidence in?

 

The Kirby Family is suing for ownership of Marvel characters.

 

20th Century Danny Boy

 

This letter seems like it would better help Ditko regarding the creation of Dr. Strange.

[Aman619]

It sounds unfair--and of course was unfair in many ways-- but the laws try to protect all fairly. Problem has always been that laws protecting the little guys play catchup. It's the businesses that first can afford and seek laws tonprotect themselves. Only when they go clearly too far--and there is sufficient widespread harm to individuals do lawmakers seek to protect the individual's rights

 

But to answer your question. Absent a contract that protected Kirbys creations that he was adding to his assigned work, I can't see how he could own a character he wrote into a story he was assigned to work on

 

Kirby wrote that he created his pages and Marvel didn't have to buy them. As if he there was no assignment from Marvel. Like he worked on spec. And we all know that he was assigned every book he worked on all those years. He couldn't decide one day to draw say Daredevil instead of FF. Or even totally on his own create a new book and shop it back to Marvel

 

Well actually he COULD have... But he never did.

 

Makes you wonder why he accepted the same working arrangement back at DC with his New Gods books. There he could have owned them as DC was hot to get him. He had leverage to use in negotiating but settled for a higher page rate and to be free of Stan Lee.

 

I know that back then the creators has little power against the publishers and these deals weren't on the table until Mcfarlane etc pushed back 25 years later. But they own their characters because they structured Image that way from the get go

 

Makes you wonder how Stan and Jack never managed to breakaway together with an investor to start their own thing together? But, here's the thing-- if they had, they would have turned around and employed ditko Sinnott ayers et al as workers for hire just as the Image guys did! In other words flee: the plantation to rule their own plantation down the road a piece.

[bluechip]

But it is interesting how someone who isn't a salaried employee can invent new characters that become the property of the comic book publisher by virtue of their inclusion in the book.

 

It's as if introducing a character to the Marvel Universe makes it Marvel property. Makes you wonder if by using the image of a US president in a comic book, Marvel might then claim ownership of the presidency. Heck, Marvel could claim ownership of 'New York City" as a character.

 

A very complex issue that interweaves history (established practice) with various philosophies of intellectual property and ownership.

 

You can be a freelance and still be working for hire. Kirby and others drew things and created characters that were not used by Marvel, but still got paid. If the heirs could produce evidence that they had ever been instructed to do work and then not paid for it, that would indicate the freelance atmosphere was more like the proverbial "sweepstakes" process, wherein salaried execs take suggestions and even give notes and instructions, but only pay the creaive if and when the material is used.

 

 

[thehumantorch]

 

Great letter. Thanks.

[ComicConnoisseur]

It sounds unfair--and of course was unfair in many ways-- but the laws try to protect all fairly. Problem has always been that laws protecting the little guys play catchup. It's the businesses that first can afford and seek laws tonprotect themselves. Only when they go clearly too far--and there is sufficient widespread harm to individuals do lawmakers seek to protect the individual's rights

 

But to answer your question. Absent a contract that protected Kirbys creations that he was adding to his assigned work, I can't see how he could own a character he wrote into a story he was assigned to work on

 

Kirby wrote that he created his pages and Marvel didn't have to buy them. As if he there was no assignment from Marvel. Like he worked on spec. And we all know that he was assigned every book he worked on all those years. He couldn't decide one day to draw say Daredevil instead of FF. Or even totally on his own create a new book and shop it back to Marvel

 

Well actually he COULD have... But he never did.

 

Makes you wonder why he accepted the same working arrangement back at DC with his New Gods books. There he could have owned them as DC was hot to get him. He had leverage to use in negotiating but settled for a higher page rate and to be free of Stan Lee.

 

I know that back then the creators has little power against the publishers and these deals weren't on the table until Mcfarlane etc pushed back 25 years later. But they own their characters because they structured Image that way from the get go

 

Makes you wonder how Stan and Jack never managed to breakaway together with an investor to start their own thing together? But, here's the thing-- if they had, they would have turned around and employed ditko Sinnott ayers et al as workers for hire just as the Image guys did! In other words flee: the plantation to rule their own plantation down the road a piece.

You make good points, here are a few other thoughts.

1.Although Jack Kirby didn`t team up with Stan Lee, he did team up with Joe Simon and they did breakaway and start their own art/writing company.

2.Kirby also was involved in a few lawsuits before in the 1950`s that had nothing to do with Marvel,so their is a history of Kirby suing his former employers that no one seems to bring up.

3.Also another reason why a lot of these Marvel/DC characters have not gone the way of Doc Savage and Buck Rogers popularity wise is because Marvel/Disney/Stan Lee and DC/Warner have spent millions of dollars in promoting the films/videogames and action figures.

4. Finally,the Superman heirs case is vastly different from the Kirby vs. Marvel case, if people would take the time to read and dig into the dispositions they would be aware of this. Just some food for thought.

[rodan57]

2. Kirby also was involved in a few lawsuits before in the 1950`s that had nothing to do with Marvel,so their is a history of Kirby suing his former employers that no one seems to bring up.

 

I am not aware of any lawsuits launched by Kirby against former employers.

 

In 1958, Kirby was sued by Jack Schiff who was demanding royalties for brokering a meeting between Kirby and the George Matthew Adams Service that had led to the syndication of Kirby and Dave Wood's Sky Masters of the Space Force comic strip.

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

2. Kirby also was involved in a few lawsuits before in the 1950`s that had nothing to do with Marvel,so their is a history of Kirby suing his former employers that no one seems to bring up.

 

I am not aware of any lawsuits launched by Kirby against former employers.

 

In 1958, Kirby was sued by Jack Schiff who was demanding royalties for brokering a meeting between Kirby and the George Matthew Adams Service that had led to the syndication of Kirby and Dave Wood's Sky Masters of the Space Force comic strip.

You correct about that. me badd thanks for clarifying that.

Also for some reason I think I read somewhere Joe Simon saying him and Kirby either both got sued or maybe they sued somebody?

[markseifert]

Also for some reason I think I read somewhere Joe Simon saying him and Kirby either both got sued or maybe they sued somebody?

 

Simon has sued Marvel over Captain America rights twice, and Marvel settled with him both times.

[Juswuh]

Kirby wrote that he created his pages and Marvel didn't have to buy them. As if he there was no assignment from Marvel. Like he worked on spec. And we all know that he was assigned every book he worked on all those years. He couldn't decide one day to draw say Daredevil instead of FF. Or even totally on his own create a new book and shop it back to Marvel

 

Well actually he COULD have... But he never did.

 

Makes you wonder why he accepted the same working arrangement back at DC with his New Gods books. There he could have owned them as DC was hot to get him. He had leverage to use in negotiating but settled for a higher page rate and to be free of Stan Lee.

 

 

I don't think he could have. Kirby had to hedge his bets. If he demanded more than DC were willing to give and they backed off, and meanwhile he burned his bridges with Marvel, he'd be unemployed.

 

Also DC wanted to get him as much for the damage they anticipated doing to Marvel as for his own value to them. Part of the reason he was soon classed as a failure at DC is because Marvel kept on selling.

[Aman619]

strictly a negotiation. Presumably Kirby did not force the issue when DC made their stance NO WAY to ownership. But he might have gone to the edge and bluffed them back. I think his eagerness to stick it to Stan blinded him to seeking a better deal at DC. Who knows? DC probably would not have set such a precedent, even for the King.

 

No, I was there every month at the newsstands. Kirby was considered a failure because only his most ardent "Kirby can do no wrong" fans kept reading his new books. They were very hard to read with Jack's stilted dialogue that Stan used to muffle so effortlessly. Sales dwindled quickly after huge launches.

 

As many of us now argue, in the Lee vs Kirby debates, it was Jacks raw scripting revealed that tilted the tables back in Stan's favor as the architect of Marvel Comics.

 

 

finally, Jack made his deal THEN left Marvel. No bridges were burned. Jack had an apparently immense ego -- but he werent stupid.