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

[mackenzie999]

Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet

 

Nope. My father in law is buds with Buffet, his kids have to earn their money. He's helping them out for sure, but he's not handing it all over to them when he goes. Doesn't want them to be trust fund @$$holes

[bronze_rules]

Same could be said for the kids of Warren Buffet

 

Nope. My father in law is buds with Buffet, his kids have to earn their money. He's helping them out for sure, but he's not handing it all over to them when he goes. Doesn't want them to be trust fund @$$holes

 

Right. But was just taking an obvious case to make the point. While Buffet chose to not give them all the money, he had the right, by law, to do so. I doubt most here are familiar with the MARS bar family heirs.

[Phantalien]

It's about time. From all the articles I read, Kirby worked til the day he passed, and deserved a whole lot more than what was given to him. However, there are so many comic artists from the past who should have been paid a lot more than they did as well. Unfortunately for them they did not create the likenesses of some of the most popular characters in comics.

[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 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.

 

 

The 100% concept isn't that far a stretch from reality. Go watch 'Pirates of Silicon Valley,' where they cover the story that B. Gates paid some consultant 40k for the original DOS code and turned around and flipped it to IBM for millions. I digress.

 

Maybe, insulted is a little far fetched, and I was thinking about removing it all (but can't now ). I just feel that, on the topic of fairness, it isn't right that all of these proponents of artists continue to moan that some artists who previously 'worked for hire (under a contract and giving up rights to their IP, presumably)' and years later had a huge surge in demand for their work; should deserve commensurate compensation retroactively. The fact that somehow a small niche of comic artists are more deserving than creative individuals in other fields seems inconsiderate of all the other creative working stiffs who are just as deserving.

 

Aggg... it's Friday... maybe there is a little sour grapes there...

[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.

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.

 

 

The 100% concept isn't that far a stretch from reality. Go watch 'Pirates of Silicon Valley,' where they cover the story that B. Gates paid some consultant 40k for the original DOS code and turned around and flipped it to IBM for millions. I digress.

 

Maybe, insulted is a little far fetched, and I was thinking about removing it all (but can't now ). I just feel that, on the topic of fairness, it isn't right that all of these proponents of artists continue to moan that some artists who previously 'worked for hire (under a contract and giving up rights to their IP, presumably)' and years later had a huge surge in demand for their work; should deserve commensurate compensation retroactively. The fact that somehow a small niche of comic artists are more deserving than creative individuals in other fields seems inconsiderate of all the other creative artists who abide by the rules.

 

Aggg... it's Friday... maybe there is a little sour grapes there...

 

This is a topic that will be argued in some form or another ad nauseum forever. I think its ok to feel one way or the other, but in the end, its very tough for me to expect any company or courts to do anything beyond that which they are required to do by law.

Companies must ultimately answer to their shareholders and employees, and if I'm at Marvel and I choose to give Kirby's grandkids a million bucks but raise the price of health insurance for my poor custodians...well it might not be either/or, but in principle it could be, and there's a lot more to consider...

[ComicConnoisseur]

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.

I wonder if the Kirby heirs will now sue DC? After all he did create one of DC `s great villains Darkseid.

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

The attorneys always win.

 

That is so true. My wife works in medical malpractice and they get north of 40%. By the time you take in all the other fees, people really don't get all that much.

 

Of course, it does allow my wife's law firm to do a lot of probono they might not otherwise be able to do.

[Prince Namor]

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.

I wonder if the Kirby heirs will now sue DC? After all he did create one of DC `s great villains Darkseid.

 

 

DC paid royalties to Jack while he was alive and even paid him for the art they used on the Super Powers toy line.

[Prince Namor]

 

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.

 

[shadroch]

Until we get an idea of the money involved, this is a non-story for me. I'd like to see Jacks family get something, but doubt this will be much more than a small payout.

The bottom liner is that Jack was a horrible businessman who always took the safe road. He gave up a lot to ensure a steady paycheck and now his kids want more.

[Mr Sneeze]

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.

 

+1 to that!

 

[shadroch]

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.

 

+1 to that!

 

Yeah, its too bad no one markets a product that would do that. Imagine if you could buy something, a policy or something, that would provide for your family when you are unable to.

[ComicConnoisseur]

The attorneys always win.

 

That is so true. My wife works in medical malpractice and they get north of 40%. By the time you take in all the other fees, people really don't get all that much.

 

Of course, it does allow my wife's law firm to do a lot of probono they might not otherwise be able to do.

Car accidents as well. The usual take is a third.

 

[cousin itt]

Very cool pic in this article (picture #6)... he's working on one of the covers to tales of suspense. Can anyone tell which cover it is? I wonder where that cover is now... and is that even the original art? It has the logo on it, which is something I would just assume is added later, not on top of the OA. Maybe just a facsimile or something that he's tweaking.

 

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/marvel-settles-dispute-over-superhero-rights-with-jack-kirby-estate/#/5

[Unca Ben]

TOS #76

[cousin itt]

Yep

[Aman619]

I'm guessing the Kirby family will get something close to Stan's deal now... Makes sense to not give Kirby a better deal. But Toberoff would have had to be paid off in a big way too, so he probably made his own deal to go away, like millions plus all fees . But he needed this win too after botching the handling of the Seigel/Superman case so he might have grabbed the win at any price.

 

Can't wait for the details.

[Ares]

The attorneys always win.

 

That is so true. My wife works in medical malpractice and they get north of 40%. By the time you take in all the other fees, people really don't get all that much.

 

Of course, it does allow my wife's law firm to do a lot of probono they might not otherwise be able to do.

Car accidents as well. The usual take is a third.

 

Yes lawyers take money up front but and cases like that on contingency.

They have a load of expenses and if they lose they are out all that money

[dupont2005]

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

Neither did Disney executives and shareholders

[Calidream'n]

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.

and if most of his original art wasn't stolen, his family could have made a pretty penny selling it today. I think that would have pizzed me off more than anything else, the theft of all his art.