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

[bronze_rules]

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/marvel-jack-kirby-heirs-settle-171016236.html

 

If anyone hasn't taken the time to watch 'Flash of Genius' (Greg Kinnair). It's a heartfelt re-enactment of a little guy who tried to sue Ford for outright stealing of his idea. Every step along the way, they tried to settle for relatively cheap and avoid court hearings, but he absolutely refused to give in. Even the lawyers were pressuring and insulting him to 'take the million dollar offer and run and be happy -- you'll never get any admission of truth or a penny more' Well, he had his day in court, and they ended up paying him north of $60 million for the theft.

 

Not that it's apples to apples, but I can't help thinking of that story, when I read this.

 

Very moving movie, for anyone that's an 'little guy' inventor (or anyone else in general).

 

 

[Marvelfangirl]

There's was no way Kirby's Heirs would beat the powerhouse Disney.

 

Don't with the Mouse

[Bosco685]

There's was no way Kirby's Heirs would beat the powerhouse Disney.

 

Don't with the Mouse

 

By the family signing a settlement agreement with Marvel/Disney that now brings financial value to the family, didn't they just catch the mouse?

 

[Bosco685]

Today’s deal between the parties has to come as a victory for Kirby main lawyer Marc Toberoff. Long a fighter for heirs and estates for rights, the LA-based attorney was more successful here than in his work representing the heirs to the Superman creators in their long copyright battle with WB and DC. R. Bruce Rich led a team from NYC’s Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP representing Marvel.

 

[chrisco37]

The attorneys always win.

[jaeldubyoo]

I'm glad the heirs of Jack Kirby were able to get a piece of what Kirby helped create. But it really hasn't settled anything other than the Kirby family received some compensation. What if Ditko decided to pursue the co-ownership of Spider-Man. Or other creators of characters claiming a piece of the pie from the Big 2? Will this settlement pave the way for other creators to get more compensation for their creations?

 

I wondered if Disney/Marvel conferred with Warner Bros./DC before settling? If it had gone to trial, the outcome would have impacted DC.

[jsilverjanet]

I just want to know if my Kirby books will now go up in value?

 

 

[Doc McCoy]

Even though the Kirby heirs had lost every step along the way, there was no way that Marvel/Disney could take the risk of letting the Supreme Court define "work-for-hire", the ramifications could have been disastrous. Whatever they paid out is still a pittance compared to what securing the rights to those characters brings them.

[Dr. Balls]

Eagerly awaiting Chuck Grower's post...

[topofthetotem]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

[bronze_rules]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

[revat]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

 

They got paid based on potential for bad PR, and the risk of the Supreme Court adversely interpreting a rule.

 

FOR example, lets say Marvel lawyers thought there was a 2% chance of an adverse ruling. AND lets say Marvel forecasters thought that litigation and payouts from that ruling would cost $1B over the next 10 years (and possibly much more in legal costs and bad PR). 2% of $1B = $20M. Makes more sense to pay the family $1M a year for the next 15 years or something.

 

** all number included above are purely estimates, but don't seem THAT unreasonable to me.

[Shrevvy]

FOR example, lets say Marvel lawyers thought there was a 2% chance of an adverse ruling. AND lets say Marvel forecasters thought that litigation and payouts from that ruling would cost $1B over the next 10 years (and possibly much more in legal costs and bad PR). 2% of $1B = $200M. Makes more sense to pay the family $2M a year for the next 15 years or something.

 

** all number included above are purely estimates, but don't seem THAT unreasonable to me.

 

2% of $1 billion is $20 million, not $200 million.

[revat]

FOR example, lets say Marvel lawyers thought there was a 2% chance of an adverse ruling. AND lets say Marvel forecasters thought that litigation and payouts from that ruling would cost $1B over the next 10 years (and possibly much more in legal costs and bad PR). 2% of $1B = $200M. Makes more sense to pay the family $2M a year for the next 15 years or something.

 

** all number included above are purely estimates, but don't seem THAT unreasonable to me.

 

2% of $1 billion is $20 million, not $200 million.

 

Whoops?

 

Fine $1M per year for the next 15

[topofthetotem]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

I still don't know how you can inherite work for hire which it was.

Kirby got a raw deal sure enough but he was paid for his services.

[rjrjr]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

And following that line of reasoning, what did the current employees at Marvel and Disney create?

[bronze_rules]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

I still don't know how you can inherite work for hire which it was.

Kirby got a raw deal sure enough but he was paid for his services.

 

If your contention isn't so much about the kids getting something for nothing, but that Kirby himself should have not received anything, then I tend to agree. Not so much that it's fair, but because everyone else gets hosed by those rules in life as well.

 

Anyone who works for a corporation rarely gets to own squat of their own work-- as they sign away that right as a contingency to getting hired (don't like it, too bad, go somewhere else, that' s how we all play). From that perspective, as I pointed out before, I have no idea why (on earth) artists should get an exception. What about those musicians who started out as nobody and sold out performance residuals to American Bandstand, should they all get money retroactively after they made it big?

Fat Chance.

 

I see work for hire artists getting retroactive comps as an insult to all individuals who contribute creative work to corporations.

 

*Now if there was somehow a mistake in the original contract, since Marvel wasn't such a powerhouse back then, and the wording did not explicitly state, something along the lines of ...'we own your butt.' (like 99.99% of corporations do), then the fault 'could' lie with the original contracts -- in which case, I would argue, way to go KIrby, they messed up and you got a less raw deal than 99% of ever other working stiff. Lucky you.

 

Life is anything but fair. Be that as it may, I'm more driven to treating everyone under the same rules that are laid out.

 

 

[rjrjr]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

I still don't know how you can inherite work for hire which it was.

Kirby got a raw deal sure enough but he was paid for his services.

 

If your contention isn't so much about the kids getting something for nothing, but that Kirby himself should have not received anything, then I tend to agree. Not so much that it's fair, but because everyone else gets hosed by those rules in life as well.

 

Anyone who works for a corporation rarely gets to own squat of their own work-- as they sign away that right as a contingency to getting hired (don't like it, too bad, go somewhere else, that' s how we all play). From that perspective, as I pointed out before, I have no idea why on earth artists should get an exception. What about those musicians who started out as nobody and sold out performance residuals to American Bandstand, should they all get money retroactively after they made it big?

Fat Chance.

 

I see work for hire artists getting retroactive comps as and insult to all individuals who contribute creative work to corporations.

 

So, either everyone gets something or nobody gets anything? Except the corporations, correct?

 

As a software developer who creates code for a corporation, I don't see this as an insult.

[bronze_rules]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

I still don't know how you can inherite work for hire which it was.

Kirby got a raw deal sure enough but he was paid for his services.

 

If your contention isn't so much about the kids getting something for nothing, but that Kirby himself should have not received anything, then I tend to agree. Not so much that it's fair, but because everyone else gets hosed by those rules in life as well.

 

Anyone who works for a corporation rarely gets to own squat of their own work-- as they sign away that right as a contingency to getting hired (don't like it, too bad, go somewhere else, that' s how we all play). From that perspective, as I pointed out before, I have no idea why on earth artists should get an exception. What about those musicians who started out as nobody and sold out performance residuals to American Bandstand, should they all get money retroactively after they made it big?

Fat Chance.

 

I see work for hire artists getting retroactive comps as and insult to all individuals who contribute creative work to corporations.

 

So, either everyone gets something or nobody gets anything? Except the corporations, correct?

 

As a software developer who creates code for a corporation, I don't see this as an insult.

 

I can see that, but imagine you as a software designer for microsoft, were 100% responsible for invention, design, development, and implementation of some product called Windows Office. As compensation, you continued to receive 50k annual salary the next two years, and were subsequently laid off (bad times)... while revenue for that product was in annual Billions. Some court case comes up, where a similar working stiff designed the first television for Zenith 50 years ago, and because of loose contracts those days (along with the fact that his heirs and numerous onlookers cried that it just wasn't fair to such a nice guy). the company settled with that guy and paid out 100Million to his surviving heirs -- you wouldn't feel insulted by that? I would.

 

* I should re-phrase and clarify the prior comment. "I see work for hire artists getting HUGE retroactive comps because some of their older work suddenly exploded in value as an insult to all individuals who contribute creative work to corporations."

[rjrjr]

I dont understand why the heirs get anything at all, they didn't create bull squat.

 

True, though not to sound facetious, but isn't that the point of inheritance... to inherit any estate of value that was accumulated by others (esp. parents)? Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet or Mars Bars founders. While some might not see it as 'fair,' per se, it should be carried out equally for everyone.

I still don't know how you can inherite work for hire which it was.

Kirby got a raw deal sure enough but he was paid for his services.

 

If your contention isn't so much about the kids getting something for nothing, but that Kirby himself should have not received anything, then I tend to agree. Not so much that it's fair, but because everyone else gets hosed by those rules in life as well.

 

Anyone who works for a corporation rarely gets to own squat of their own work-- as they sign away that right as a contingency to getting hired (don't like it, too bad, go somewhere else, that' s how we all play). From that perspective, as I pointed out before, I have no idea why on earth artists should get an exception. What about those musicians who started out as nobody and sold out performance residuals to American Bandstand, should they all get money retroactively after they made it big?

Fat Chance.

 

I see work for hire artists getting retroactive comps as and insult to all individuals who contribute creative work to corporations.

 

So, either everyone gets something or nobody gets anything? Except the corporations, correct?

 

As a software developer who creates code for a corporation, I don't see this as an insult.

 

I can see that, but imagine you as a software designer for microsoft, were 100% responsible for design, development, and implementation of some product called Windows Office. As compensation, you continued to receive 50k annual salary the next two years, and were subsequently laid off (bad times)... while revenue for that product was in annual Billions. Some court case comes up, that where a similar working stiff designed the first television for Zenith 50 years, and because of loose contracts those days, the company settled with that guy and paid out 100Million to his surviving heirs -- you wouldn't feel insulted by that? I would.

 

There was no one individual responsible for the design of Windows Office AFAIK. But I understand what you are saying.

 

I don't begrudge anyone for being more successful than me. I've work on many projects over the years where some of my peers made more than me, even though I feel we both contributed the same. I don't have any sour grapes because of it. I had a chance to negotiate my salary or renegotiate if necessary. I learned that pay raises come by leaving an organization, not staying put. I'm not insulted by the CEO who makes millions while the employees do all the actual work. This is how capitalism works. I could have gone to school and trained to be a CEO if I wanted.

 

So, who are you insulted by? The person who successfully won the settlement or the organization that paid out the settlement? Why are you insulted by the person who won the settlement if you worked at a different organization with a different circumstance?

 

Seems petty to want to keep someone else down just because you didn't get yours. But maybe that is just me.