Not signed in (Sign In)

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

General Comics Chat: Kirby kin after Marvel moolah...

Bottom of Page

1 to 13 of 13

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorLee
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2010 edited
     
    Good bit of Stan Lee-style wordplay there, I thought?

    Anyway, here's a link to the NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/business/21marvel.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc
  2.  
    There's an article regarding this issue in the latest edition of JKCollector, giving more background on the matter rather than featuring the lawyer.

    However you look at it, and if they can keep personalities out of it, this case will have far reaching ramifications for creator's rights.
    • CommentAuthorLee
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     
    Corporations usually win. Going forward it'll probably mean astonishingly comprehensive contracts or creators retaining ownership but getting paid loads less...

    I'm not sure if I have a massive amount of sympathy for the Siegels and Kirbys et al. I'm sure there are reasonable and generous reasons why it'd be nice to cut them in on the action, but they were paid to do a job and were happy at the time. They probably created some rubbish too, but they also got paid for that.

    I've no humanity.
    • CommentAuthorMidnighter
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     
    I don't fully understand the ins and outs of it legally, but I agree with Lee, they were paid for it at the time while working for a company, to me this means the company automatically own the characters and work.

    That doesn't change the fact that old Marvel could have been a bit nicer to Kirby with regards to returning original artwork in the past, but now it just seems like his family want money out of it and it's nothing really to do with any kind of creator rights.
    • CommentAuthorCaptain Si
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010 edited
     
    Difficult to judge at the time though isn't it? Do you take the steady wage or gamble on royalties from creator ownership? With hindsight, its easy to say the Siegels and so on were mad just to take a one off fee or whatever, but then how are they (or the company) to know what's going to be succesful and what's not.

    That said, If a large corporation has become minted off the back of something that the individual in question has had a hand in creating, then I can see how you might feel a little short changed. I have a spiffy Fantastic Four lunch box with a piece of Kirby art plastered all over it, for example.

    I don't know how it works with film stars, but don't some of them put in to have a share of receipts as well as a wage of sorts? Would that be a way forward? Would it be feasible? Like, I dunno, something that says they get a wage for the work and then a share of any receipts if the character is exploited for other media.
    • CommentAuthorMidnighter
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     
    I think actors of a certain fame can choose either set fee or a percentage of profits. If the film bombs they get bugger all, but if it's a hit they get loads more money than they would if it was a set fee.

    Creating characters for a shared universe and then expecting to keep the rights would cause all sorts of problems for the company involved. In the middle of a huge storyline a creator decides to take his character elsewhere.... doing that isn't any good for the company or the readers.

    If you create a character for a company while working for that company then you should expect diddly squat other than your wages, UNLESS you sign something that says you either part own the character (not gonna happen with Marvel) or that you get a certain amount of money (more likely).

    These days people like Millar and Ellis have the right idea, do a load of work for Marvel to pay the rent and then do a load of creator owned stuff for fun and eventual profit (and even more money when the film adaptation comes along).
  7.  
    Whilst I accept that Jack & Roz have passed away, what you do have to bear in mind is that Marvel have apparently stopped all reprint payments to the Kirby family.

    And regards creating a character, Stan Lee is these days more than willing to give equal dues to the likes of Kirby & Ditko. I'm not saying I agree with the action or the work for hire ethic, but Marvel have created an empire valued at $4billion primarily on the back of work produced by Lee & Kirby. Maybe if they had treated Kirby with a tad more respect financially things would not have gotten to this.

    The one quiet voice amongst all this is that of Lee himself. Didn't he receive a large stipend from the company a few years ago?
    •  
      CommentAuthorOK Comics
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     
    Most of these guys must have been really glad just to have jobs through the depression
    If their families are planning to use the money to fund a comic art museum, or literacy in schools programme or something then more power too them, but I suspect it's not that altruistic.
  9.  
    "The one quiet voice amongst all this is that of Lee himself. Didn't he receive a large stipend from the company a few years ago? " Did you, Lee? Did you? Oh I see, Stan Lee.

    I could have got any of this, or all of this wrong, but I believe this is how it breaks down:

    Firstly, Kirby's heirs are behaving entirely legally. According to the old US Copyright Law all rights would revert to the Public Domain after 56 years. Of course certain parties argued for an amendment as the deadlines to their ownership of certain properties drew near (hullo Disney!) and Copyright Law was by Congress extended to 95 years. However at the 56 year mark the seller's heirs (The Kirby's) get the chance to reclaim the rights, although I believe they are only after a half interest.

    Also this only applies to Kirby's work prior to 1972. After 1972 Kirby was legally provable (not just assumed) to have been producing under Work For Hire. Prior to 1972 it is a grey area. The outcome will rest on proving Kirby's work for Marvel was indeed Work for Hire prior to 1972. One would have thought that if Marvel (hello, Disney!) could do so then Marvel would have already done so. They haven't yet. Kirby's heirs are only seeking that to which they are legally entitled.

    If they win what they do with the money is up to them. After all, what do Marvel do with all that money Kirby's work brings in? Maybe they do loads of altruistic stuff, I don't know. But really, I mean, no reprints payments for the kirby's? Seriously?
  10.  
    Also:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/21/business/21marvel_CA0.html

    There's some High-Waisters action going on there big time!
  11.  
    "Pow! Wham! Another high-profile copyright fight broke out in Hollywood"

    *Groan* They just can't help themselves can they?
  12.  
    LC ~ eloquent as ever. Have you read JKC 54?

    The one thing that needs reiterating is that it isn't full copyright that the Kirby estate is after. If I remember right it's a legal filing to reclaim Jack's share of the copyright of 45 characters he is (alleged) to have created or co-created at Marvel, which if upheld by a judge would revert to the Kirby estate over the next ten years (although how you reclaim something which has not been legally recognised as yours puzzles me slightly). I doubt that it would be half, more probably 25% (you have to factor in the owner, Marvel, & Kirby's co-creator Lee).
  13.  
    Haven't seen JKC 54, Mr. NT. There's a recession on donchaknow!
    But, my fellow Americans, I promise you this I will make a special effort to read The Jack Kirby Collector Special Legal Victory Special when it comes out (which it won't ever, but, hey!). I like the way you refer to Stan Lee by his surname but Jack Kirby gets his forename tickled. Nice one. Subtle is the Nimbus and deadly his bite!

1 to 13 of 13

  1.