KIRBY ESTATE Marvel Copyright Appeal Denied Again

[revat]

What if Marvel Comics was still just a modest company, printing just Avengers and Fantastic Four comics (nothing else) every month, with lets say $2million in revenue annually? Would you still think Jack Kirby's heirs deserve a piece of the pie? What if it was $200K revenue, or $20K revenue annually (and giving any money would cripple them)? What if Marvel had sold the rights to DC a long time ago and DC made the Avengers movie? Would they owe Kirby money?

 

The things that tug at our hearts are simply just not always in line with the laws and the behaviors and obligations of companies, and they simply cannot be.

 

Sentimentality and the perception of mistreatment cannot dictate law.

 

For Disney/Marvel to acknowledge Kirby in the midst of lawsuits or throw them a direct financial bone would be utterly counterproductive from the standpoint of their corporation. If I were Disney, I would however try to hire someone qualified from the Kirby family for a position at Marvel, if at all possible, and pay them a lot of moneys.

[Doc McCoy]

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

 

I don't know if that is a direct result of some changes in the law or a direct result of creators seeing how those that came before them were treated and being more savvy about protecting themselves and their creations when working for corporations. I would guess a combination of the two.

[krighton]

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.

 

Wasn't Stan responsible for the No Prize.

[Dr. Balls]

The things that tug at our hearts are simply just not always in line with the laws and the behaviors and obligations of companies, and they simply cannot be.

 

Sentimentality and the perception of mistreatment cannot dictate law.

 

 

I agree. However, the argument springs up from Marvel's mistreatment of Jack Kirby - they constantly dogged him, dragged thier feet, misdirected him and used a variety of underhanded tactics to maneuver him into getting what they want. Not saying they held a gun to Jack's head, but they didn't make it easy for him to conduct his business. He wasn't making millions while he was working there - he still had a wife, a life and kids to take care of - and Marvel kept making it harder and harder for him to improve his life with his work.

 

Nowadays, that would have been 27 different kinds of lawsuits. It's not legal to treat people in the workplace in that way anymore.

 

The real sad part is that Jack Kirby died - and I think it's hard to press this issue when the guy who was mistreated is gone.

 

It's kind of a mix of emotion and realism - definitely a blurry line.

[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.

 

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.

 

A settlement is not an acknowledgement of creator rights.

 

It IS, however, an acknowledgement of creator contribution and a way to solidify creator legacy, and in Kirby's case that's why I'd like to see Disney do it.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

No one asked for a copyright. Back before he left Marvel, Jack just wanted a contract. He wanted Goodman to make good on his PROMISES.

Later on he just wanted his artwork back.

 

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.

 

Yeah. Ok.

 

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.

 

Stan didn't work 'partial ownership' into his contract. You don't know what you're talking about. That's not how it worked, that's not how it happened.

 

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.

 

Stan Lee is a copycat. That's his ONLY creative ability. Stan created NOTHING before he worked with Jack Kirby, and he created NOTHING after he worked with Jack Kirby.

It only stands to reason he didn't create anything while working with Jack Kirby.

Even something like the Fantastic Four if you want to give Stan 50/50 credit, let's look at where the ideas came from:

Stan wanted to make a team like the Justice League to compete with DC.

Jack wanted to take the team ideas he'd already created (Challengers of the Unknown) and expand upon them.

Which team is the early FF more comparable to?

wWhat exactly did Stan contribute?

 

Ideas for 'The Spider' were around, and used as a part of comics and ideas for comics for years. Stan and Jack's idea for it had a web gun and sounded like a traditional superhero. Ditko is what made it what it is.

 

For 20 years Stan created nothing in the business, and in the 40 years since has created nothing in the business. He was a supernova burst of ideas for 10 years and then just decided to give it up?

 

Stan is a man of very meager creative talent. Period. But he is a great showman.

Take Kirby and Ditko out of the equation and what did Stan ever create of substance with or without anyone else?

It doesn't even have to be something that sold tremendously well, it could be something that was critically well received.

What did he create?

 

It's easy to try to take credit from Stan

,

 

Yes. It is. Because he can't draw.

And no matter how many ideas he comes up with, they are just words until an artist brings them to life.

 

In film, do we celebrate the writer? Or the director?

 

The director of course, it's his vision that brings the film to life.

The writing we consider separate from it, and there are great writers for film.

But because the director makes changes, and creates the vision of the written word, and makes small (or large) changes to the story or dialogue to fit that vision... we celebrate the DIRECTOR as the creative visionary of film.

 

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.

 

It's been established, from Stan himself, that sometimes, he would just say, "Let's bring Dr. Doom back!", and the artist would go and layout (i.e. write and draw) the entire story.

Yeah. Highly collaborative.

What that 'collaborative' process is all about, is making the artist do the majority of the work, so the writer can 'tweak it' and then say it's 'collaborative'.

There's a reason Kirby and Ditko fought for writing credit. Because they didn't feel Stan's input was really of much use.

It wasn't.

His 'editing' was. But not his writing.

 

Even his whole 'bullpen' 'fan club' schtick isn't something he came up with. He took a lot of ideas from the heyday of EC Comics, including the showcasing of the artists', and answering letters, 'bullpen' 'fan club' etc.

 

Stan collaborated by accident. He was there. He was in charge.

Jack was a creative bulldozer, he would've created anyway.

Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed as it is.

Without Jack Kirby the Marvel Universe would've never existed at all.

[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.

 

Wasn't Stan responsible for the No Prize.

 

Yeah, he named it for what they ended up giving Jack Kirby.

[Prince Namor]

The things that tug at our hearts are simply just not always in line with the laws and the behaviors and obligations of companies, and they simply cannot be.

 

Sentimentality and the perception of mistreatment cannot dictate law.

 

 

I agree. However, the argument springs up from Marvel's mistreatment of Jack Kirby - they constantly dogged him, dragged thier feet, misdirected him and used a variety of underhanded tactics to maneuver him into getting what they want. Not saying they held a gun to Jack's head, but they didn't make it easy for him to conduct his business. He wasn't making millions while he was working there - he still had a wife, a life and kids to take care of - and Marvel kept making it harder and harder for him to improve his life with his work.

 

Nowadays, that would have been 27 different kinds of lawsuits. It's not legal to treat people in the workplace in that way anymore.

 

The real sad part is that Jack Kirby died - and I think it's hard to press this issue when the guy who was mistreated is gone.

 

It's kind of a mix of emotion and realism - definitely a blurry line.

 

+1

And it's all consistent with who Martin Goodman was and how he did business.

[Doc McCoy]

[A settlement is not an acknowledgement of creator rights.

 

It IS, however, an acknowledgement of creator contribution and a way to solidify creator legacy, and that's why I'd like to see Disney do it.

 

Agree to disagree there.

 

I don't believe Marvel, or by extension, Disney, has ever failed to acknowledge Kirby's contributions. Martin Goodman on the other hand . . . .

[Dr. Balls]

I can see fantastic_four's viewpoint - however, if you read about Jack Kirby's treatment at Marvel - and I'm talking about they way they treated him as a professional - it might change that viewpoint.

 

And +1 to Chuck's discussions here - always enjoy reading this Kirby stuff.

[shadroch]

Kirby's Fantastic Four, without Lee, would have been less successful than his Third World books, none of which lasted more than a dozen issues.

To say Lee did nothing weakens your argument tremendously.

Does Lee get more credit than he is due? Without a doubt. But he is the one who had the foresight to have his aunt marry the publisher.

[revat]

[A settlement is not an acknowledgement of creator rights.

 

It IS, however, an acknowledgement of creator contribution and a way to solidify creator legacy, and that's why I'd like to see Disney do it.

 

Agree to disagree there.

 

I don't believe Marvel, or by extension, Disney, has ever failed to acknowledge Kirby's contributions. Martin Goodman on the other hand . . . .[/quote

The things that tug at our hearts are simply just not always in line with the laws and the behaviors and obligations of companies, and they simply cannot be.

 

Sentimentality and the perception of mistreatment cannot dictate law.

 

 

I agree. However, the argument springs up from Marvel's mistreatment of Jack Kirby - they constantly dogged him, dragged thier feet, misdirected him and used a variety of underhanded tactics to maneuver him into getting what they want. Not saying they held a gun to Jack's head, but they didn't make it easy for him to conduct his business. He wasn't making millions while he was working there - he still had a wife, a life and kids to take care of - and Marvel kept making it harder and harder for him to improve his life with his work.

 

Nowadays, that would have been 27 different kinds of lawsuits. It's not legal to treat people in the workplace in that way anymore.

 

The real sad part is that Jack Kirby died - and I think it's hard to press this issue when the guy who was mistreated is gone.

 

It's kind of a mix of emotion and realism - definitely a blurry line.

 

I don't doubt the mistreatment and the lies, and resulting sad story. But when dealing with this type of thing as it relates to law and/or settlements etc, I think you can only look at what was the law at the time, and what would be provable should things go to trial or court.

 

Its easy to just look at the sad result, but what if the ending result was different? What if Jack Kirby came from money originally? or ended up creating another character and making a ton of money for having created Booster Gold for DC or something? Or later on somehow led the IMAGE revolution? Would people still think Marvel should give him money? The laws are in place (and certainly not always perfect) but are meant to be consistently implied and preserve the integrity of the contract and situation, not the integrity of the people involved.

 

[Prince Namor]

Kirby's Fantastic Four, without Lee, would have been less successful than his Third World books, none of which lasted more than a dozen issues.

To say Lee did nothing weakens your argument tremendously.

Does Lee get more credit than he is due? Without a doubt. But he is the one who had the foresight to have his aunt marry the publisher.

 

I'm not saying Lee did nothing. He contributions as an entertainer, a showman, an editor, a creative thief, and a schmoozer are legendary.

And the FOURTH world continues to this day. Good enough concepts that DC has kept them around for 40 years.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

[

 

Stan Lee is a copycat. That's his ONLY creative ability.

 

I agree with A LOT of your post, but at the same time what you say here isn't all that unusual in art. What Ditko and Kirby created and their hand in the process shouldn't be discredited, but, at the same time, without Lee taking their ideas to the next level they may have never lasted and endured.

 

Also, and this isn't to take away from others, Shakespeare was a huge "copycat". Many of his ideas came from others, but he perfected them. I'm not saying Lee is Shakespeare, but he did do something magical when working with Ditko and Kirby. It isn't fair to take that away from him, in my opinion.

[Dr. Balls]

Its easy to just look at the sad result, but what if the ending result was different? What if Jack Kirby came from money originally? or ended up creating another character and making a ton of money for having created Booster Gold for DC or something? Or later on somehow led the IMAGE revolution? Would people still think Marvel should give him money? The laws are in place (and certainly not always perfect) but are meant to be consistently implied and preserve the integrity of the contract and situation, not the integrity of the people involved.

 

Personally (as if it matters), I don't think I am as concerned about Jack Kirby's estate being given millions for his creations as I am Marvel actually making an admittance that they acted in poor conduct when it came to Jack Kirby's contracts and most importantly, his original art.

 

There are many things that Marvel could do in Jack's name to atone for their mismanagement, give everyone a warm fuzzy about it and honor the guy who helped build their empire. They have yet to do that, and that is what is shameful and embarrassing.

[shadroch]

Kirby's Fantastic Four, without Lee, would have been less successful than his Third World books, none of which lasted more than a dozen issues.

To say Lee did nothing weakens your argument tremendously.

Does Lee get more credit than he is due? Without a doubt. But he is the one who had the foresight to have his aunt marry the publisher.

 

I'm not saying Lee did nothing. He contributions as an entertainer, a showman, an editor, a creative thief, and a schmoozer are legendary.

And the FOURTH world continues to this day. Good enough concepts that DC has kept them around for 40 years.

 

Thats correct. Kirby created an awesome concept with his Fourth World, but his execution of it was so bad, the books died rather quickly. It was left for others to take his work and bring it to its potential. Just like what happened at Marvel.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Its easy to just look at the sad result, but what if the ending result was different? What if Jack Kirby came from money originally? or ended up creating another character and making a ton of money for having created Booster Gold for DC or something? Or later on somehow led the IMAGE revolution? Would people still think Marvel should give him money? The laws are in place (and certainly not always perfect) but are meant to be consistently implied and preserve the integrity of the contract and situation, not the integrity of the people involved.

 

Personally (as if it matters), I don't think I am as concerned about Jack Kirby's estate being given millions for his creations as I am Marvel actually making an admittance that they acted in poor conduct when it came to Jack Kirby's contracts and most importantly, his original art.

 

There are many things that Marvel could do in Jack's name to atone for their mismanagement, give everyone a warm fuzzy about it and honor the guy who helped build their empire. They have yet to do that, and that is what is shameful and embarrassing.

 

What would you like to see them do? I'm just curious as I feel they've always given both Ditko and Kirby their credit...

[revat]

Its easy to just look at the sad result, but what if the ending result was different? What if Jack Kirby came from money originally? or ended up creating another character and making a ton of money for having created Booster Gold for DC or something? Or later on somehow led the IMAGE revolution? Would people still think Marvel should give him money? The laws are in place (and certainly not always perfect) but are meant to be consistently implied and preserve the integrity of the contract and situation, not the integrity of the people involved.

 

Personally (as if it matters), I don't think I am as concerned about Jack Kirby's estate being given millions for his creations as I am Marvel actually making an admittance that they acted in poor conduct when it came to Jack Kirby's contracts and most importantly, his original art.

 

There are many things that Marvel could do in Jack's name to atone for their mismanagement, give everyone a warm fuzzy about it and honor the guy who helped build their empire. They have yet to do that, and that is what is shameful and embarrassing.

 

To that end, they should set up a Jack Kirby Scholarship Foundation to put underprivaledged kids through art school, hiring one or two Jack Kirby family members to sit on the board (and be compensated for it).

 

Press Release:

"As we look forward toward this new multi-media era for Marvel, we are reminded of the past, of visionaries like Jack Kirby, who contributed to the wonder and magic of comics in immeasurable ways with his immense talent and work ethic. In honor of Mr. Kirby, Marvel would like to establish Jack Kirby Scholarship Foundations, which will support talented, underpriviledged students in achieving their artistic dreams. We are honored to have Mr. or Ms. XXXX Kirby, the XXXXX (relative) of Jack the King Kirby, as our CHairperson, and XXXXX Kirby, as one of our board members. The legacy of Jack Kirby is something we will all enjoy together forever, and we feel this scholarship foundation embodies that legacy for future generations of artists."

 

BAM solved the whole thing. ANd its not even lunch yet.

[Prince Namor]

Kirby's Fantastic Four, without Lee, would have been less successful than his Third World books, none of which lasted more than a dozen issues.

To say Lee did nothing weakens your argument tremendously.

Does Lee get more credit than he is due? Without a doubt. But he is the one who had the foresight to have his aunt marry the publisher.

 

I'm not saying Lee did nothing. He contributions as an entertainer, a showman, an editor, a creative thief, and a schmoozer are legendary.

And the FOURTH world continues to this day. Good enough concepts that DC has kept them around for 40 years.

 

Thats correct. Kirby created an awesome concept with his Fourth World, but his execution of it was so bad, the books died rather quickly. It was left for others to take his work and bring it to its potential. Just like what happened at Marvel.

 

For people who think comics should all be written like 1960's Marvel Comics, the Fourth world books probably seemed alien to them. The only one who fumbled the execution of them was DC.

[Marvel Zombie]

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.