KIRBY ESTATE Marvel Copyright Appeal Denied Again

[namisgr]

What else would you recommend short of paying his heirs, which sets them up for a lawsuit from any artist who ever created an original character for them?

 

I don't understand this comment. A modest financial settlement with the Kirby family, without any admission of wrong-doing, would do nothing to set Disney up for lawsuits. Marvel's settlement with Stan certainly didn't.

[Dr. Balls]

What else would you recommend short of paying his heirs, which sets them up for a lawsuit from any artist who ever created an original character for them?

 

I don't understand this comment. A modest financial settlement with the Kirby family, without any admission of wrong-doing, would do nothing to set Disney up for lawsuits. Marvel's settlement with Stan certainly didn't.

 

Taking it a step further - I would love to see a fully-funded (with at trust to ensure longevity) Jack Kirby museum in New York City donated by Marvel - I think a gesture of this magnitude could finally but the bitterness to rest, and pay a deserved and proper tribute to his work and life.

 

But, that's just fantasy, I'm sure.

[Prince Namor]

What else would you recommend short of paying his heirs, which sets them up for a lawsuit from any artist who ever created an original character for them?

 

I don't understand this comment. A modest financial settlement with the Kirby family, without any admission of wrong-doing, would do nothing to set Disney up for lawsuits. Marvel's settlement with Stan certainly didn't.

 

Taking it a step further - I would love to see a fully-funded (with at trust to ensure longevity) Jack Kirby museum in New York City donated by Marvel - I think a gesture of this magnitude could finally but the bitterness to rest, and pay a deserved and proper tribute to his work and life.

 

But, that's just fantasy, I'm sure.

 

Pure fantasy. There are no heroes in the business of making stories about heroes.

[Dr. Balls]

What else would you recommend short of paying his heirs, which sets them up for a lawsuit from any artist who ever created an original character for them?

 

I don't understand this comment. A modest financial settlement with the Kirby family, without any admission of wrong-doing, would do nothing to set Disney up for lawsuits. Marvel's settlement with Stan certainly didn't.

 

Taking it a step further - I would love to see a fully-funded (with at trust to ensure longevity) Jack Kirby museum in New York City donated by Marvel - I think a gesture of this magnitude could finally but the bitterness to rest, and pay a deserved and proper tribute to his work and life.

 

But, that's just fantasy, I'm sure.

 

Pure fantasy. There are no heroes in the business of making stories about heroes.

 

Yeah - it's pretty sad. Makes you wonder where the inspiration comes from.

[Dick Pontoon]

Unfortunately I have to agree.

 

The Kirby Museum is soldiering on though, with donations to the brick and mortar campaign:

 

Kirby Museum Popup Campaign.

 

And with a prototype in a week or so:

 

Storefront prototype.

 

[fantastic_four]

What else would you recommend short of paying his heirs, which sets them up for a lawsuit from any artist who ever created an original character for them?

 

I don't understand this comment. A modest financial settlement with the Kirby family, without any admission of wrong-doing, would do nothing to set Disney up for lawsuits. Marvel's settlement with Stan certainly didn't.

 

Why is Kirby any different than any other artist or writer who has ever worked for Marvel? Why can't Len Wein and/or Herb Trimpe sue Marvel for income on Wolverine? Or why can't Wein and/or Cockrum sue for income on most of the new X-Men? I could list a hundred other examples--name a popular hero at DC or Marvel and their creators have a similar case to Kirby's.

 

If you work on contract or as a salaried employee for a company, you don't own the rights on the work you did there. The only reason Simon and Schuster, Kirby, Lee, or most other artists have much of a case related to ownership of original works created under contract is that the law related to this changed in the 1960s, so before 1970 or so, it all comes down to how clearly individual contracts were worded. Kirby did sign agreements giving up his rights, but lawyers argued the clarity of those agreements without success to date. I find it difficult to believe that Kirby didn't know what he was signing was intended to mean when he was signing though.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

FWIW...

 

Marvel/Disney recently made undisclosed settlements with both Mike Gary Friedrich & Bob Layton. Those lawsuits are over.

 

DG

[fantastic_four]

FWIW...

 

Marvel/Disney recently made undisclosed settlements with both Mike Friedrich & Bob Layton. Those lawsuits are over.

 

I have always been interested in copyright law, so the facts of these cases interest me. I looked into the Kirby facts a year or so ago but forget the details now--most of what I said earlier was a summary of what I can recall about those details. I looked at the details of the copyright suit against Marvel by Gary Friedrich who sued over the rights to Ghost Rider--his case was that he created key elements of the character on a gig prior to working at Marvel, and Marvel decided to settle.

 

I'll look into the Mike Friedrich and Bob Layton suits if they're related to major characters--any ideas what they sued over and what their angle was? Or did you mean Gary Friedrich instead of Mike?

[dgarthwaite-migration]

FWIW...

 

Marvel/Disney recently made undisclosed settlements with both Mike Friedrich & Bob Layton. Those lawsuits are over.

 

I have always been interested in copyright law, so the facts of these cases interest me. I looked into the Kirby facts a year or so ago but forget the details now--most of what I said earlier was a summary of what I can recall about those details. I looked at the details of the copyright suit against Marvel by Gary Friedrich who sued over the rights to Ghost Rider--his case was that he created key elements of the character on a gig prior to working at Marvel, and Marvel decided to settle.

 

I'll look into the Mike Friedrich and Bob Layton suits if they're related to major characters--any ideas what they sued over and what their angle was? Or did you mean Gary Friedrich instead of Mike?

 

Yes, I did mean Gary. Duh! I have his business card very near to my computer mouse and I still wrote it wrong.

 

Bob's case involved War Machine or a secondary character used in the Iron Man movies. I hadn't even heard of the lawsuit until after Bob posted something on Twitter that it was settled.

 

DG

[bluechip]

 

My great -grandfather owned slaves when he lived in America for a few years. Should I reach out to their descendants and offer them money? An apology?

Martin Goodman and his family screwed Jack. Not Disney.

 

Not the same situation. Wrongs committed by individuals against other individuals don't carry over, but legal responsibilities do. Especially when they involve money and contractual obligations. And it's big business which most wants it that way, so that they can sell individual debt to other companies

 

 

[bluechip]

We all seem to agree Kirby got screwed over. Why can't we agree Marvel ought to make it right, even if not legally required to do so?

 

I'm not aware of how he got screwed over. Dr. Balls alluded to it, but I haven't heard the details he was referring to.

 

He got professionally screwed over. He had a wide variety of handshake deals and verbal agreements with people and just about in every instance - they plssed backwards on them. And that is the root of the issue - he didn't get legally screwed over, because that would require contracts. He got professionally and morally screwed over numerous times and Jack Kirby's crime was seemingly hoping for people to honor their word and letting his professionalism come before self-servitude.

 

For the details, I would highly recommend reading 'Tales to Astonish' by Ronin Ro for the full extent of how Goodman and Marvel royally screwed over Jack Kirby for decades in the most douchbaggiest way possible. (There are other books as well, but I liked how this one read) If you are a skeptic, and you only believed 10% of the story, you would still be shocked at how he was treated by Marvel.

 

Marvel should apologize and make a gesture. It's the right thing to do for Kirby's legacy, because right now as it stands: Marvel should be ashamed.

 

There's actually plenty of people at Marvel who sympathize with Kirby and other artists (Bob Eisner's name doesn't resemble Will Eisner's name out of coincidence).

 

But money is something they don't like to part with, and their lawyers warn them all the time about precedents. They give Kirby credit on things such as the new Shield series, but it doesn't cost them any money.

 

With both Goodman and Kirby long deceased (along with Kirby's wife, Roz). it's all about what Kirby's heirs are legally entitled to. And about what Goodman's assigns are legally responsible for.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Bob's case involved War Machine or a secondary character used in the Iron Man movies. I hadn't even heard of the lawsuit until after Bob posted something on Twitter that it was settled.

 

I Googled around but as far as I can tell, no details of why he thought he owned parts of James Rhodes/War Machine were released. I'm quite surprised he got a settlement given that War Machine is an intentional rip-off of Iron Man, i.e. the fact that the War Machine armor was inspired by the Iron Man suit is explicitly a part of the story.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Bob's case involved War Machine or a secondary character used in the Iron Man movies. I hadn't even heard of the lawsuit until after Bob posted something on Twitter that it was settled.

 

I Googled around but as far as I can tell, no details of why he thought he owned parts of James Rhodes/War Machine were released. I'm quite surprised he got a settlement given that War Machine is an intentional rip-off of Iron Man, i.e. the fact that the War Machine armor was inspired by the Iron Man suit is explicitly a part of the story.

 

It *may* have to do with incentives that Marvel started offering in that period. I think Marvel had monetary incentives for creating new characters written into their contracts with creators.

 

DG

[shadroch]

Although todays story has Jim Rhodes together with Stark from the beginning, the character wasn't created until 1978 or 1979 and Layton was the artist and plotter at the time.