Marvel & Jack Kirby Heirs Settle Legal Battle Ahead Of Supreme Court Showdown

[shadroch]

When Kirby died, he was living in a million dollar home, with an inground pool.

Is it Lee's fault that Jack died before he was able to cash in like Stan did?

Does anyone here doubt that Kirby, had he lived would have cashed in for many, many millions of dollars in the last twenty years? That he died too early wasn't Stans fault.

One guy took care of himself, walked everywhere and lived long enough to get rich. The other didn't.

It's nice to see Disney stand up and do the right thing. Why not let it go at that.

They didn't screw Kirby out of anything. Kirby never worked a day in his life for Disney.

[media_junkie]

It's nice to see Disney stand up and do the right thing. Why not let it go at that.

They didn't screw Kirby out of anything. Kirby never worked a day in his life for Disney.

 

+1

[loadstone]

Not enough time to read the whole thread but have any of the terms of the settlement been leaked? I can't see them settling for less than $500 million or a strong percentage of royalties and usage rights on all characters Kirby had a hand in, or some combination of the two like $100 million and 10%. The article seems to imply that they actually had quite a strong case in their favor. If that was the case, the settlement has to have been worth quite a bit and one that all the other movie studios and rights owners would probably want to help Marvel pay to have them just go away.

 

I wish their family the best.

[rjrjr]

Not enough time to read the whole thread but have any of the terms of the settlement been leaked? I can't see them settling for less than $500 million or a strong percentage of royalties and usage rights on all characters Kirby had a hand in, or some combination of the two like $100 million and 10%. The article seems to imply that they actually had quite a strong case in their favor. If that was the case, the settlement has to have been worth quite a bit and one that all the other movie studios and rights owners would probably want to help Marvel pay to have them just go away.

 

I wish their family the best.

 

Disney/Marvel definitely settled because of the ramifications of this going to the Supreme Court and the case going against them. I imagine a number of properties would have been subject to a new ruling and Disney/Marvel, DC, and other publishers need to protect their intellectual properties. Lucky for them, many of the creators whose work founded these companies are dying off and in a generation, they'll have these properties wrapped up pretty tight with regards to these lawsuits. Then they just need to figure out how to keep these characters out of the public domain.

 

I'm always fascinated when these court cases and legal wranglings are brought to light. It is very reminiscent of the legal battles over intellectual properties in the software industry.

[silverweb]

I'm just glad to think Jack can look down on all of this and feel his family is being taken care of due to what he created.

That's all he ever wanted.

 

 

RIP King Kirby

[bluechip]

Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich. He chose the freedom of free agent.

 

Wrong.

 

True

Comics alliance interview with Stan Lee

http://comicsalliance.com/stan-lee-interview-playboy-jack-kirby-steve-ditko-marvel-artwork-disney-movies-controvery-wealth/

On the lingering controversy surrounding Lee’s work with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko:

 

“There was never a time when it just said ‘by Stan Lee.’ It was always ‘by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’ or ‘by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.’ I made sure their names were always as big as mine. As far as what they were paid, I had nothing to do with that. They were hired as freelance artists, and they worked as freelance artists. At some point they apparently felt they should be getting more money. Fine, it was up to them to talk to the publisher. It had nothing to do with me. I would have liked to have gotten more money too. And twice, not once, I offered a job to Jack Kirby. I said to him, ‘Jack, why don’t you work for Marvel with me?’ I was the art director at the time. I said, ‘You be the art director. I’ll just be the editor and head writer, and you’ll have that security.’ He wouldn’t do it. He didn’t want a staff job. With him, as with Ditko, I don’t see where they were unfairly treated. Jack was a great guy and so is Steve. I’m sorry anybody feels there’s any acrimony. I loved them both.”

 

As usual, Stan is playing fast and loose with the way things truly were.

Art Director at Marvel wasn't a 'money' position, it was a way to get artists who were great at layouts and breakdowns to do that work for free.

Romita, who DID accept the job of art director, regretted it, because he didn't get paid for layouts for other artists or breakdowns, as he was now 'staff'.

Jack got paid for that work. Until Marvel didn't want to pay him for it anymore, so he stopped doing it.

'Art Director' was just a way to try and get him to 'think' he was being rewarded, when in reality it was a way to pay him less.

 

And Romita certainly didn't go on to be 'equally as rich'.

 

Kav's quote: "Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich."

 

Your posts began on a much more positive and far less antagonistic note. Saying Jack has what he'd wanted, a deal that helped his family.

 

Just because a guy makes a statement that you think exaggerates the likelihood that Jack could have been "equally rich" is that a reason to devolve into "Stan (was) playing fast and loose." Stan's not the one who said Kirby could have been "equally rich"

 

And then moments later we're hearing that despite the deal made and Kirby's family happy we have to hear that because Stan's recollections are inconsistent that means he was a lying SOB (and the fact that Jack's recollections were also consistent? Well, that means nothing at all...)

 

 

[Prince Namor]

Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich. He chose the freedom of free agent.

 

Wrong.

 

True

Comics alliance interview with Stan Lee

http://comicsalliance.com/stan-lee-interview-playboy-jack-kirby-steve-ditko-marvel-artwork-disney-movies-controvery-wealth/

On the lingering controversy surrounding Lee’s work with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko:

 

“There was never a time when it just said ‘by Stan Lee.’ It was always ‘by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’ or ‘by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.’ I made sure their names were always as big as mine. As far as what they were paid, I had nothing to do with that. They were hired as freelance artists, and they worked as freelance artists. At some point they apparently felt they should be getting more money. Fine, it was up to them to talk to the publisher. It had nothing to do with me. I would have liked to have gotten more money too. And twice, not once, I offered a job to Jack Kirby. I said to him, ‘Jack, why don’t you work for Marvel with me?’ I was the art director at the time. I said, ‘You be the art director. I’ll just be the editor and head writer, and you’ll have that security.’ He wouldn’t do it. He didn’t want a staff job. With him, as with Ditko, I don’t see where they were unfairly treated. Jack was a great guy and so is Steve. I’m sorry anybody feels there’s any acrimony. I loved them both.”

 

As usual, Stan is playing fast and loose with the way things truly were.

Art Director at Marvel wasn't a 'money' position, it was a way to get artists who were great at layouts and breakdowns to do that work for free.

Romita, who DID accept the job of art director, regretted it, because he didn't get paid for layouts for other artists or breakdowns, as he was now 'staff'.

Jack got paid for that work. Until Marvel didn't want to pay him for it anymore, so he stopped doing it.

'Art Director' was just a way to try and get him to 'think' he was being rewarded, when in reality it was a way to pay him less.

 

And Romita certainly didn't go on to be 'equally as rich'.

 

Kav's quote: "Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich."

 

Your posts began on a much more positive and far less antagonistic note. Saying Jack has what he'd wanted, a deal that helped his family.

 

Just because a guy makes a statement that you think exaggerates the likelihood that Jack could have been "equally rich" is that a reason to devolve into "Stan (was) playing fast and loose." Stan's not the one who said Kirby could have been "equally rich"

 

And then moments later we're hearing that despite the deal made and Kirby's family happy we have to hear that because Stan's recollections are inconsistent that means he was a lying SOB (and the fact that Jack's recollections were also consistent? Well, that means nothing at all...)

 

 

I called him a lying SOB? Where was that?

 

And the reason I mentioned him is because Ares posted his interview in which he was quoted.

 

If I offer YOU a job, licking mud off my boots and call the position the 'Executive Prime Minister', with a decrease in pay, and you DECLINE my offer... and I go on to tell people, "Well, you know I DID offer him the Executive Prime Minister position and he TURNED it down.... I tried to do all I could for him...", I'm maybe not a lying SOB, but I am playing fast and loose with the facts.

 

I don't think Stan's a lying SOB. I DO think he plays fast and loose with the facts.

 

Even his closest supporters in the industry, who spin it a different way, pretty much agree.

 

I'm not trying to be negative toward Stan. I'm really not.

[kav]

I think that's called the Straw Man argument

[bluechip]

Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich. He chose the freedom of free agent.

 

Wrong.

 

True

Comics alliance interview with Stan Lee

http://comicsalliance.com/stan-lee-interview-playboy-jack-kirby-steve-ditko-marvel-artwork-disney-movies-controvery-wealth/

On the lingering controversy surrounding Lee’s work with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko:

 

“There was never a time when it just said ‘by Stan Lee.’ It was always ‘by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’ or ‘by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.’ I made sure their names were always as big as mine. As far as what they were paid, I had nothing to do with that. They were hired as freelance artists, and they worked as freelance artists. At some point they apparently felt they should be getting more money. Fine, it was up to them to talk to the publisher. It had nothing to do with me. I would have liked to have gotten more money too. And twice, not once, I offered a job to Jack Kirby. I said to him, ‘Jack, why don’t you work for Marvel with me?’ I was the art director at the time. I said, ‘You be the art director. I’ll just be the editor and head writer, and you’ll have that security.’ He wouldn’t do it. He didn’t want a staff job. With him, as with Ditko, I don’t see where they were unfairly treated. Jack was a great guy and so is Steve. I’m sorry anybody feels there’s any acrimony. I loved them both.”

 

As usual, Stan is playing fast and loose with the way things truly were.

Art Director at Marvel wasn't a 'money' position, it was a way to get artists who were great at layouts and breakdowns to do that work for free.

Romita, who DID accept the job of art director, regretted it, because he didn't get paid for layouts for other artists or breakdowns, as he was now 'staff'.

Jack got paid for that work. Until Marvel didn't want to pay him for it anymore, so he stopped doing it.

'Art Director' was just a way to try and get him to 'think' he was being rewarded, when in reality it was a way to pay him less.

 

And Romita certainly didn't go on to be 'equally as rich'.

 

Kav's quote: "Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich."

 

Your posts began on a much more positive and far less antagonistic note. Saying Jack has what he'd wanted, a deal that helped his family.

 

Just because a guy makes a statement that you think exaggerates the likelihood that Jack could have been "equally rich" is that a reason to devolve into "Stan (was) playing fast and loose." Stan's not the one who said Kirby could have been "equally rich"

 

And then moments later we're hearing that despite the deal made and Kirby's family happy we have to hear that because Stan's recollections are inconsistent that means he was a lying SOB (and the fact that Jack's recollections were also consistent? Well, that means nothing at all...)

 

 

I called him a lying SOB? Where was that?

 

And the reason I mentioned him is because Ares posted his interview in which he was quoted.

 

If I offer YOU a job, licking mud off my boots and call the position the 'Executive Prime Minister', with a decrease in pay, and you DECLINE my offer... and I go on to tell people, "Well, you know I DID offer him the Executive Prime Minister position and he TURNED it down.... I tried to do all I could for him...", I'm maybe not a lying SOB, but I am playing fast and loose with the facts.

 

I don't think Stan's a lying SOB. I DO think he plays fast and loose with the facts.

 

Even his closest supporters in the industry, who spin it a different way, pretty much agree.

 

I'm not trying to be negative toward Stan. I'm really not.

 

If I'd said you had literally called him a lying SOB I would have put it in quotes. I meant that to sum up what you were implying, figuratively.

 

Saying that somebody plays "fast and loose with the facts" is not so far different from calling them a lying SOB. It's only a matter of piling on adjectives and name-calling. The important part is the "lying" accusation. And the point I was making was that Jack himself was inconsistent and hyperbolic and insulting about Stan, so it seems inconsistent on your part to say that Stan deserves your continued approbation because he "changed" his story, etc. Jack also changed his story, and you don't fault him.

 

So I would defend that the phrase lying SOB is representative of what you were implying, even if you hadn't responded by equating Stan's offer of the art director job as being equivalent to Stan offering Kirby a job "...licking mud off (his) boots..."

 

Even in the afterglow of the Kirby family triumph you can barely restrain your virtriol for Lee and cannot refrain from applying double standards about story-changing, based entirely on who it is who changed their story.

 

[kav]

How rich was Stan when Kirby died-that's the only comparison that's valid. Not that it matters. If Kirby was still alive he'd be raking in the bucks.

[Prince Namor]

Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich. He chose the freedom of free agent.

 

Wrong.

 

True

Comics alliance interview with Stan Lee

http://comicsalliance.com/stan-lee-interview-playboy-jack-kirby-steve-ditko-marvel-artwork-disney-movies-controvery-wealth/

On the lingering controversy surrounding Lee’s work with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko:

 

“There was never a time when it just said ‘by Stan Lee.’ It was always ‘by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’ or ‘by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.’ I made sure their names were always as big as mine. As far as what they were paid, I had nothing to do with that. They were hired as freelance artists, and they worked as freelance artists. At some point they apparently felt they should be getting more money. Fine, it was up to them to talk to the publisher. It had nothing to do with me. I would have liked to have gotten more money too. And twice, not once, I offered a job to Jack Kirby. I said to him, ‘Jack, why don’t you work for Marvel with me?’ I was the art director at the time. I said, ‘You be the art director. I’ll just be the editor and head writer, and you’ll have that security.’ He wouldn’t do it. He didn’t want a staff job. With him, as with Ditko, I don’t see where they were unfairly treated. Jack was a great guy and so is Steve. I’m sorry anybody feels there’s any acrimony. I loved them both.”

 

As usual, Stan is playing fast and loose with the way things truly were.

Art Director at Marvel wasn't a 'money' position, it was a way to get artists who were great at layouts and breakdowns to do that work for free.

Romita, who DID accept the job of art director, regretted it, because he didn't get paid for layouts for other artists or breakdowns, as he was now 'staff'.

Jack got paid for that work. Until Marvel didn't want to pay him for it anymore, so he stopped doing it.

'Art Director' was just a way to try and get him to 'think' he was being rewarded, when in reality it was a way to pay him less.

 

And Romita certainly didn't go on to be 'equally as rich'.

 

Kav's quote: "Jack could have taken art director job and been equally rich."

 

Your posts began on a much more positive and far less antagonistic note. Saying Jack has what he'd wanted, a deal that helped his family.

 

Just because a guy makes a statement that you think exaggerates the likelihood that Jack could have been "equally rich" is that a reason to devolve into "Stan (was) playing fast and loose." Stan's not the one who said Kirby could have been "equally rich"

 

And then moments later we're hearing that despite the deal made and Kirby's family happy we have to hear that because Stan's recollections are inconsistent that means he was a lying SOB (and the fact that Jack's recollections were also consistent? Well, that means nothing at all...)

 

 

I called him a lying SOB? Where was that?

 

And the reason I mentioned him is because Ares posted his interview in which he was quoted.

 

If I offer YOU a job, licking mud off my boots and call the position the 'Executive Prime Minister', with a decrease in pay, and you DECLINE my offer... and I go on to tell people, "Well, you know I DID offer him the Executive Prime Minister position and he TURNED it down.... I tried to do all I could for him...", I'm maybe not a lying SOB, but I am playing fast and loose with the facts.

 

I don't think Stan's a lying SOB. I DO think he plays fast and loose with the facts.

 

Even his closest supporters in the industry, who spin it a different way, pretty much agree.

 

I'm not trying to be negative toward Stan. I'm really not.

 

If I'd said you had literally called him a lying SOB I would have put it in quotes. I meant that to sum up what you were implying, figuratively.

 

Saying that somebody plays "fast and loose with the facts" is not so far different from calling them a lying SOB. It's only a matter of piling on adjectives and name-calling. The important part is the "lying" accusation. And the point I was making was that Jack himself was inconsistent and hyperbolic and insulting about Stan, so it seems inconsistent on your part to say that Stan deserves your continued approbation because he "changed" his story, etc. Jack also changed his story, and you don't fault him.

 

So I would defend that the phrase lying SOB is representative of what you were implying, even if you hadn't responded by equating Stan's offer of the art director job as being equivalent to Stan offering Kirby a job "...licking mud off (his) boots..."

 

Even in the afterglow of the Kirby family triumph you can barely restrain your virtriol for Lee and cannot refrain from applying double standards about story-changing, based entirely on who it is who changed their story.

 

My 'vitriol for Lee'?

 

You're applying that here?

 

Whatever.

 

 

[TupennyConan]

Pretty nice of Disney to settle with the Kirby's considering all he did was ride Stan's coat tails.

 

 

 

I kid! I kid!

 

Chuck

 

Now offer something controversial about Star Wars.

 

Greedo shot first!

 

 

I liked Hayden at the end of Jedi.