Joe Simon vs Marvel?

[murph0]

Just watched a segment on Celebrity Justice regarding Simon's law suit over the rights to Captain America. I've always been amazed at the number of people Marvel has seemingly ripped off over the years. Wonder what impact this will have on whether or not there's a Cap movie!

 

Brian

[shadroch]

Back when they were making the Captain America movie, a traier appeared claiming Stan Lee was the creator. It was quickly removed. These companies were following accepted business practices of the times. Books would never have seen the light of day if royaltees and such had been involved.

[Aman619]

ripped off is a harsh judgement...but it does ring true in the way things turned out. But there were no guarantees that these comicscharacters would last a year let alone 60 years, and the creators were well paid back in the days they created the stories.

 

Should there have been provisions for continued income going forward? Yes. But those rights just werent on the table. Its like saying Joe Dimaggio was ripped off because he played long before free agency.

[garthgantu]

ripped off is a harsh judgement...but it does ring true in the way things turned out. But there were no guarantees that these comicscharacters would last a year let alone 60 years, and the creators were well paid back in the days they created the stories.

 

Should there have been provisions for continued income going forward? Yes. But those rights just werent on the table. Its like saying Joe Dimaggio was ripped off because he played long before free agency.

 

Your point about free agency in baseball is interesting, but:

1) to say the "creators were well paid back in the days they created the stories" is a bit off, I'd say. Most of those guys got a few dollars per page for art, and probably considerably less for story-writing.

2) Dimaggio owned his "image" and made far more money endorsing products like the ol' Mr. Coffee than he did for actually playing.

 

I would say "ripped off" is right on the mark, at least by today's standards. And since the court that would decide a lawsuit like this is operating under today's laws, that's what counts, right?

[Aman619]

Im not goint argue that they werent the victims of gross injustice. Thats too callous and the playing field was way too one-sided. But, the top creators got very good money for the times they worked. The top guys were living well, upper middle class lives. True most of the other guys got a few bucks per page, but we are talking about the creators of th echaracters that became worth billions...not every artist/writer/inker who ever worked on a cmics page.

 

As for my comaparison to Joltin Joe, I picked a baseball player from before free agency. If Joe isnt a good comparison, then substitute some really good player who was forced to stay on teams against his will when another would have paid him more, and who wasnt a superstar with the ability to get those endorsement contracts after his playing time was over. Thats also why Joe was a bad choice. In comics, only Stan got lots of commercials. Unfortunately none of the other creators were ever "known" like Stan was and toiled in anonymity. They do "own" their own images...theyre just not worth anything. (Which was ALSO part of the problem, I know).

 

The creators got screwed. However I argue that they lived well, and that who could have known how successful these things would become.

[shadroch]

Another thing to consider is that the MarvelComics of today has changed hands many times since the Golden Age.

Heck, I owned several hundred shares of Marvel before they went bankrupt and the new management has no responsibility for them. This was in the 1990s. Should Marvel make a good faith offering to Mr Simon? I'd say yes. But he made a choice to leave Timely and work for other companies also. Why is Marvel more indebted to him than the long defunct companys. Because Marvel survived while others failed,does that make them more guilty?

[garthgantu]

Only reason Marvel would be - or rather, IS - liable in this case is that they allegedly own the rights to Captain America. It wouldn't make much sense for Simon to sue DC over this...

 

But Marvel acquired the rights from Timely - and as such is liable for any copyright infringements or other contesting of those copyrights. It's like acquiring a company that has outstanding debts; you take on those debts as part of the deal.

 

I'm guessing Simon either wins the case, or settles out of court. I'm no lawyer - though I've been tempted to play one on TV - but there's a lot of precedent for this type of lawsuit, with the plaintiff winning a significant amount of the time.

 

I believe there are even precedents in the area of comic books...? Someone with a better memory help me out here. Didn't Jack Kirby win certain concessions and remuneration from Marvel 15-20 years ago?

 

 

[Aman619]

I dont believe Kirby ever won anything except his pages back....

 

As for Simon. If I remember correctly. his current lawsuit stems from the copyright law amendment of about 10 years ago. The same one that allowed the Siegel family to alert DC/Warner/AOL that they intended to exercise their rights to 50% of Superman within the time period allowable to them. This new copyright law stipulated that any creative work that was created PRIOR to sale of publishing rights could revert back to the creators or their heirs if they alerted the "owners" of their intenion to do so within a fixed notification period. (Shuster has no heirs, and his wife passed away already so all DC can lose is 1/2 of Superman, etc)

 

It is well known that S&S created (wrote and drew) the complete first Superman comic strip and THEN brought it around NY for sale. Joe Simon's case states that he did the same, or was hired to 'come up with a superhero' and created Cap for Timely with no specific direction from Timely.

 

Working against Simon's case however is an agreement with marvel in the 60s (?) in which he sold all right to Cap for a sum of money. The courts may decide that that agreement supercedes this new copyright law.

[shadroch]

Kirby was suppossed to be given back all his artwork as the result of a settlement, but strangely enough most of it turned up missing. Just as the IRS was used to get Capone, Marvel was tripped up by the fact that siince they never paid sales tax on the original art, they couldn't prove ownership. I'm sure that somewhere out there, there is a signed contact giving up all of Mr. Simons rights to any and all his creations. Any money he recieves will be due to Marvel seeking to avoid a public trial.

[500Club]

This is a case that was settled in a court of law once already, with Marvel the winner.

 

However, there was a recent revision to copyright law that has allowed Simon to once again challenge for the rights to the character.

 

It's easy in hindsight to argue Marvel's indebtedness, but the truth remains that, at the time of Cap's creation, two entities entered into a work-for-hire contract.

[garthgantu]

Mmm-Hmm... and Morris Levy co-wrote "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" with Frankie Lymon... lmao

 

Simon will win. He may not deserve to win in your eyes, but in the court of public opinion/sympathy, he'll get all the votes.

 

Marvel will either pay him off or lose in court, that's my guess.

 

Funny how Disney just has to make a phone call, and voila! the copyrights on Mickey and the gang are magically renewed for another generation, beyond the stipulated legal limit.

[Paladin]

Maybe if Simon wins will get a Cap comic worth reading. I left after #1 of the latest incarnation and have looked back maybe one or two times.

[500Club]

Simon will win. He may not deserve to win in your eyes, but in the court of public opinion/sympathy, he'll get all the votes.

 

Marvel will either pay him off or lose in court, that's my guess.

 

A few thoughts:

 

Not understanding copyright law, and, more specifically, the revision that has allowed Simon to again mount a legal challenge, I'm not willing to guess an eventual outcome.

 

Funny how the flip side of this argument never comes about. A work for hire contract is completed, the project is a flop, and the publisher loses money. I don't see restitution sought in this case.

 

The 'court of public opinion' and votes therein, carry no weight in a court of law. The case will be tried and settled according to copyright law.

 

And yes, I agree with the comment about the current run of Cap. The writing is terrible - a step back from when Jurgens was on the book.

[Aman619]

Not understanding copyright law, and, more specifically, the revision that has allowed Simon to again mount a legal challenge, I'm not willing to guess an eventual outcome.

 

Funny how the flip side of this argument never comes about. A work for hire contract is completed, the project is a flop, and the publisher loses money. I don't see restitution sought in this case.

 

The 'court of public opinion' and votes therein, carry no weight in a court of law. The case will be tried and settled according to copyright law.

 

And yes, I agree with the comment about the current run of Cap. The writing is terrible - a step back from when Jurgens was on the book.

 

agree. agree.. agree... disagree

The court of public opinion didn't do squat for Marv Wolfman in his suit over Blade. Reading the transcripts in Comics Journal, it was clear that his side had made their case that Wolfman had created Blade on his own in his self published work years before starting on Tomb of Dracula. He even sketched out the costume. And added 'Blade' when asked by the editor to come up with something for the next storyline. Ironically, it was gene Colan who undercut his claim, when he testified that he had gotten the scripts and brief notes on the costume and then HE had drawn/created Blade's "look".

 

I dont think Simon will/can win in light of his contract 30 years ago in which he settles for a cash payment for the rights to the character. Thats a lot more cut and dry than saying to a court that he was robbed by virtue of a work-for-hire arrangement.

 

The disagree was for your dislike of th current Cap titles. Im still liking the new direction. I also liked the Jurgens run, but this is different and fresh, and seems "serious", while Jurgens run was 'just' good ol superhero comics. This may get tiring soon, but Im liking the artwork and the storyline, especially that idea Cap was frozen/betrayed by the US government so he wouldnt prevent them from using the Hiroshima bomb to end the war.