KIRBY ESTATE Marvel Copyright Appeal Denied Again

[Ares]

http://www.newsarama.com/19359-kirby-estate-marvel-copyright-appeal-denied-again.html

 

Another appeal filed by the heirs of Jack Kirby to challenge the ruling that Marvel and Disney own copyrights to the works Jack Kirby created for the company has been denied.

 

The New York City federal Court of Appeals denied the latest petition for a rehearing of the judgement that the heirs have no right to issue copyright termination notices to Marvel Comics. The entire appeal judgement reads, simply:

 

"Appellants Lisa R. Kirby, Neal L. Kirby, Susan N. Kirby, and Barbara J. Kirby, filed petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. The panel that determined the appeal has considered the request for panel rehearing, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for rehearing en banc.

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied."

 

This was essentially a last-ditch effort, an appeal of an appeal of a judgement. The initial termination notices sent by Kirby's estate in 2009 have now been found to be sent without any rights to termination, a decision held up in appeal in August and reaffirmed by this denial today.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel Universe with writer/editor Stan Lee, including but not limited to the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, the Avengers, and others, all of whom have hundred million to billion dollar film franchises. In April of this year, a similar judgement was passed down in favor of Warner Bros against the heirs of Jerry Siegel in a battle for rights to Superman and Superboy.

[Shaven Kev-migration]

Moral and legal are often two different things it seems.

[Prince Namor]

It's sad Marvel doesn't do something, even just for PR reasons. I guess they just feel they don't need to.

Jack's gone and Stan continues to wave the banner.

Kirby created successful Universes before and after Stan Lee.

Stan Lee didn't create much of anything before or after Kirby.

 

[Tony S]

It's sad Marvel doesn't do something, even just for PR reasons. I guess they just feel they don't need to.

Jack's gone and Stan continues to wave the banner.

Kirby created successful Universes before and after Stan Lee.

Stan Lee didn't create much of anything before or after Kirby.

 

+1. The CEO at Marvel should be dropping by the Kirby house with a bag of cash every couple of months.

[joecgcmaniac]

It's sad Marvel doesn't do something, even just for PR reasons. I guess they just feel they don't need to.

Jack's gone and Stan continues to wave the banner.

Kirby created successful Universes before and after Stan Lee.

Stan Lee didn't create much of anything before or after Kirby.

 

+1. The CEO at Marvel should be dropping by the Kirby house with a bag of cash every couple of months.

 

Yeah, I can see the stockholders and board members of Disney being real thrilled with taking less profit than they were going to get.

 

 

[bb8]

It's sad Marvel doesn't do something, even just for PR reasons. I guess they just feel they don't need to.

Jack's gone and Stan continues to wave the banner.

Kirby created successful Universes before and after Stan Lee.

Stan Lee didn't create much of anything before or after Kirby.

 

+1. The CEO at Marvel should be dropping by the Kirby house with a bag of cash every couple of months.

 

Yeah, I can see the stockholders and board members of Disney being real thrilled with taking less profit than they were going to get.

 

 

 

Could be worth it for PR purposes. The bottom line is affected by public perception after all.

[Prince Namor]

That's just it, as long as they have Stan Lee doing a victory tour every year through as many conventions as possible, paying lip service to the 'talented artists he's had the pleasure to work with' while creating the Marvel Universe, and plenty of people who believe it, there's no bad PR for them.

The people speaking out for Kirby and Ditko can't compete with the Stan Lee brand.

[joecgcmaniac]

That's just it, as long as they have Stan Lee doing a victory tour every year through as many conventions as possible, paying lip service to the 'talented artists he's had the pleasure to work with' while creating the Marvel Universe, and plenty of people who believe it, there's no bad PR for them.

The people speaking out for Kirby and Ditko can't compete with the Stan Lee brand.

 

+ infinity

 

Outside of the comics world, when people see Stan Lee, they see the man who created everything about Marvel. They don't know who Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko were, because since the late 70's, Stan was the face of Marvel. Right or wrong, that is the perception of the non-comic buying public. As long as Stan is front and center, Marvel doesn't have a P.R. problem.

 

Most of my friends know nothing about comics, yet they know who Stan Lee is from the movies and all the press about him over the years.

[bb8]

That's just it, as long as they have Stan Lee doing a victory tour every year through as many conventions as possible, paying lip service to the 'talented artists he's had the pleasure to work with' while creating the Marvel Universe, and plenty of people who believe it, there's no bad PR for them.

The people speaking out for Kirby and Ditko can't compete with the Stan Lee brand.

 

+ infinity

 

Outside of the comics world, when people see Stan Lee, they see the man who created everything about Marvel. They don't know who Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko were, because since the late 70's, Stan was the face of Marvel. Right or wrong, that is the perception of the non-comic buying public. As long as Stan is front and center, Marvel doesn't have a P.R. problem.

 

Most of my friends know nothing about comics, yet they know who Stan Lee is from the movies and all the press about him over the years.

 

One of the greatest self promoters of all time. And I don't say that as a good or bad thing. Just an observation.

[Doc McCoy]

That's just it, as long as they have Stan Lee doing a victory tour every year through as many conventions as possible, paying lip service to the 'talented artists he's had the pleasure to work with' while creating the Marvel Universe, and plenty of people who believe it, there's no bad PR for them.

The people speaking out for Kirby and Ditko can't compete with the Stan Lee brand.

 

+ infinity

 

Outside of the comics world, when people see Stan Lee, they see the man who created everything about Marvel. They don't know who Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko were, because since the late 70's, Stan was the face of Marvel. Right or wrong, that is the perception of the non-comic buying public. As long as Stan is front and center, Marvel doesn't have a P.R. problem.

 

Most of my friends know nothing about comics, yet they know who Stan Lee is from the movies and all the press about him over the years.

 

Exactly, couldn't have said it better. (thumbs u

[MK Ultra]

Let's all boycott Avengers 2. We'll do it world wide so Disney has no choice but to capitulate to our demands!

[Tony S]

That's just it, as long as they have Stan Lee doing a victory tour every year through as many conventions as possible, paying lip service to the 'talented artists he's had the pleasure to work with' while creating the Marvel Universe, and plenty of people who believe it, there's no bad PR for them.

The people speaking out for Kirby and Ditko can't compete with the Stan Lee brand.

 

+ infinity

 

Outside of the comics world, when people see Stan Lee, they see the man who created everything about Marvel. They don't know who Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko were, because since the late 70's, Stan was the face of Marvel. Right or wrong, that is the perception of the non-comic buying public. As long as Stan is front and center, Marvel doesn't have a P.R. problem.

 

Most of my friends know nothing about comics, yet they know who Stan Lee is from the movies and all the press about him over the years.

 

I'm not concerned about Ditko. He is still alive and could earn a fortune charging for his autographs and/or making appearances if he wanted. He is not interested. Kirby passed away before the money got really big and didn't get the opportunity to be compensated to the degree that most would consider fair. Legal, yes. Fair, no. .

[namisgr]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In disagreements between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

[Doc McCoy]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In any disagreement between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

 

Not taking into account their own brands, Disney owns the Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel. Disregarding the bottom line of their stock holders to appease a few die-hard comic fans by throwing some money the Kirby's way isn't going to bring them any further brand enhancement. Their brand is about as enhanced as it can get, unless they suddenly purchase the WB and gain access to DC and Harry Potter. Recognizing Jack's legacy in any public manner what-so-ever would probably only open them up to further litigation. Unfortunately it's up to fellow artists and fans to carry on and recognize Kirby's legacy.

[Ares]

It's sad Marvel doesn't do something, even just for PR reasons. I guess they just feel they don't need to.

Jack's gone and Stan continues to wave the banner.

Kirby created successful Universes before and after Stan Lee.

Stan Lee didn't create much of anything before or after Kirby.

 

+1. The CEO at Marvel should be dropping by the Kirby house with a bag of cash every couple of months.

 

Why? What did his familly do to earn the money.

They money should have been given while he was alive

[fantastic_four]

Recognizing Jack's legacy in any public manner what-so-ever would probably only open them up to further litigation. Unfortunately it's up to fellow artists and fans to carry on and recognize Kirby's legacy.

 

Yep. I don't think people are looking at the big picture here--if a person working for a large company had a copyright on everything they created while working under contract or on a salary from that company, they could leave that company and the company would in many cases cease to exist. Kirby was free to be an entrepreneur and create comics all by himself, but that's pretty difficult to do on a venture as large and complex as creating comics, manufacturing them on a large scale, and distributing them around the world. Since he chose not to be such an entrepreneur--nor to work partial ownership into his contract like Stan Lee eventually did--then he's out of luck. Odds are pretty good that Kirby had very little leverage circa 1960 and had even tried to work ownership into his contract that Goodman would never have used him.

 

I like Kirby's art and the contributions he made to the characters, but it was a highly collaborative process by Stan's design, and there are other artists who could have helped Stan develop the characters he came up. It's easy to try to take credit from Stan, but remember that the reason Kirby and Ditko contributed so much to the Marvel characters is because Stan specifically set up the process to be collaborative to bring the best ideas out of everyone involved. That's probably Stan's biggest contribution to comics--a highly collaborative creation process.

[namisgr]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In any disagreement between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

 

Not taking into account their own brands, Disney owns the Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel. Disregarding the bottom line of their stock holders to appease a few die-hard comic fans by throwing some money the Kirby's way isn't going to bring them any further brand enhancement. Their brand is about as enhanced as it can get, unless they suddenly purchase the WB and gain access to DC and Harry Potter. Recognizing Jack's legacy in any public manner what-so-ever would probably only open them up to further litigation. Unfortunately it's up to fellow artists and fans to carry on and recognize Kirby's legacy.

 

Marvel's brand, not Donald Duck's or Kermit's.

 

And a settlement with the Kirby heirs could cost them essentially nothing to their bottom line while precluding any further litigation from them as part of the terms.

 

 

[Doc McCoy]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In any disagreement between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

 

Not taking into account their own brands, Disney owns the Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel. Disregarding the bottom line of their stock holders to appease a few die-hard comic fans by throwing some money the Kirby's way isn't going to bring them any further brand enhancement. Their brand is about as enhanced as it can get, unless they suddenly purchase the WB and gain access to DC and Harry Potter. Recognizing Jack's legacy in any public manner what-so-ever would probably only open them up to further litigation. Unfortunately it's up to fellow artists and fans to carry on and recognize Kirby's legacy.

 

Marvel's brand, not Donald Duck's.

 

And a settlement with the Kirby heirs could cost them essentially nothing to their bottom line while precluding any further litigation from them as part of the terms.

 

 

Unfortunately or Fortunately, depending on how you view Disney, they are one in the same. There is no getting around that. And as the OP stated, they don't have to provide any kind of settlement. If you believe that a publicly traded company acknowledging creator rights to a former work-for-hire employee, even as a gesture of good faith, isn't going to impact their bottom line in a major way, you've got your blinders on. How many others will line up with their hands out for that gesture of good faith next?

 

It's a sad situation, Jack deserved his due while he was with us, but the law isn't going to change and neither are the corporations that profit from it.

[Tony S]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In any disagreement between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

 

Not taking into account their own brands, Disney owns the Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel. Disregarding the bottom line of their stock holders to appease a few die-hard comic fans by throwing some money the Kirby's way isn't going to bring them any further brand enhancement. Their brand is about as enhanced as it can get, unless they suddenly purchase the WB and gain access to DC and Harry Potter. Recognizing Jack's legacy in any public manner what-so-ever would probably only open them up to further litigation. Unfortunately it's up to fellow artists and fans to carry on and recognize Kirby's legacy.

 

Marvel's brand, not Donald Duck's.

 

And a settlement with the Kirby heirs could cost them essentially nothing to their bottom line while precluding any further litigation from them as part of the terms.

 

 

Unfortunately or Fortunately, depending on how you view Disney, they are one in the same. There is no getting around that. And as the OP stated, they don't have to provide any kind of settlement. If you believe that a publicly traded company acknowledging creator rights to a former work-for-hire employee, even as a gesture of good faith, isn't going to impact their bottom line in a major way, you've got your blinders on. How many others will line up with their hands out for that gesture of good faith next?

 

It's a sad situation, Jack deserved his due while he was with us, but the law isn't going to change and neither are the corporations that profit from it.

 

I'm not a lawyer - but it appears either the law did change or the publisher's changed their practices. Creators now are treated more fairly by publishers

[Prince Namor]

I know it seems to be all about the money, but I think it's also about an artist's legacy.

 

Jack Kirby co-created much of the Marvel universe, and the heroes and villains that permeate today's movie screens. It's wrong that he is being slowly forgotten for this, and there should be public gestures by Marvel/Disney that cement his legacy for generations to come. Even a paltry fraction of the franchise profits would go a long way to help recognize for all time Kirby's seminal contributions. As for Marvel/Disney, whatever tiny amount this would cost them would more than be made up by the brand enhancement that would come with fully and publicly recognizing the genius that it took to create this mythos.

 

In disagreements between management and talent, I nearly always side with the talent.

 

+1