Jack Kirby Sues Everyone and their mom

[Webhead2006]

totally its jack kirby's estate(4 kids/2 grand kids) who are sueing marvel/disney. So it should be titled that. Though it makes me wonder why his estate is just going after his marvel copyrights? wouldnt they want to go after his DC ones too, unless those copyrights are under different legal status. Cause after the marvel disney deal it does look like for us fans that the heirs are just after money. Unless its something kirby and/or his heirs been trying to do for years before/after his death. But it just hasnt been public knowledge.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

This whole story kinda puts a black eye on Jack Kirby and his legacy.

During his life, he never sued nor did Jerry Siegel.

I'd say their families are being a bit greedy, but hopefully this matter will be settled out of court and everything can go on as planned.

Like webhead2006 above me said, unless this is something that Jack Kirby was trying to do before his death, but I'd doubt that. To me, it seems like Jack Kirby's estate saw what Siegel's estate did and how they won, and have decided to get some money of their own.

One of the articles state that Kirby did want to sue but didn't think it would come of anything especially at his age.

I thought Siegel and Shuster both sued back during the 50s?

 

[conan69]

I dont know, Marvel and Stan Lee have made a fortune off of of ideas from Kirby.

Why shouldnt his family profit from it when Kirby was treated unfairly?

Hasnt Stan Lee profitted? Didnt Stan Lee sue to get paid?

Heres the thing, if "Work for Hire" is something that was established under the 1976 Copyright Act, then it certainly wouldnt apply to the work Jack did with Stan before that. Did Kirby do all that work at Marvel with the understanding he wouldnt own any rights to any of it? Or did Kirby work with Stan assuming it was a "partnership"?

Creative people always have and always will be taken advantage of by business people. Always have, always will. We've seen this countless times in music.

What you most likely had here was 2 creative guys in the 50s and 60s who wanted to make comic books with creator rights being a afterthought. Stan Lee should have done the right thing at the outset. Kirby helped him build Mavel, so he should have profitted the way Lee did. IMHO Stan Lee was the one who was greedy.

This is one of the things that discouraged me and made me give up comic book work after I got out of Kuberts. I didnt want to work for Marvel or DC. I didnt want to create characters in a work for hire system and didnt want to do all the work involved with self publishing. I just wanted to draw, not run a business.

Heres a list of characters that Kirby can take credit for helping create in partnership or by himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Characters_created_by_Jack_Kirby

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Conan69, you went to the Kubert school? Cool!

Yeah, this isn't like the Siegel-Shuster situation where they brought the idea to the company. Kirby was working for Timely/Marvel, but since he never signed the new work-for-hire contracts, the original contract might have given him some ownership once the copyright expired. The corporations really didn't care back in the golden age.

 

[Webhead2006]

like i and oters said hopefully this can get settled out or court and wont end up as a troublesome as superman case is going for wb. Thouh we do have to look at this on one side. Disney was the company that changed the copyright laws in congress, so hopefully with disney's pull marvel wont loose the characters(articles have said the trademarks etc... are all marvel owned due to work for hire stuff). Crossing fingers this wont be messy cause kirby did draw/help create so many characters for marvel let alone dc and other sole created stuff.

 

[Evil Twin]

I really can't believe fanboys.

Apparently the centuries old concepts of copyright law, intellectual property, and inheritance mean nothing in the face of fanboy entitlement.

Here's what's going to happen. Either the megacorporation wins outright based on contracts or they write regular substantial checks to the Kirby family after they reach a settlement agreement. And their will be much fanboy gnashing of teeth in the meantime because the fanboys don't realize that it's merely about splitting the revenues fairly rather than outright stopping Marvel from using those characters. And Marvel will get to use those characters, they own Stan Lee's contributions and the trademarks.

Considering how poorly Marvel treated Kirby other than lip service when he lived, it's hard to feel any sympathy for them now. The guy had to fight tooth and nail just to get his original artwork back. And Marvel's reprint fee policy is a joke. Kirby played a big part in making that company what it is today, apparently worth $4 billion, and received a meager fraction in compensation in his lifetime along with many broken promises. There's no reason the Kirby family should look all that kindly at Marvel. Heck, Marvel's had decades to come to some sort of preemptive settlement with the Kirby family, even while Jack was still alive, and did nothing.

As for why the family isn't suing DC. 1. Kirby's 70s creations are another decade out from the window of filing. The copyright isn't close to expiring on those. 2. The Kirby family has a much better relationship with DC which reportedly pays regular reprint fees on his work, even when they don't have to.

 

[Evil Twin]

like i and oters said hopefully this can get settled out or court and wont end up as a troublesome as superman case is going for wb. Thouh we do have to look at this on one side. Disney was the company that changed the copyright laws in congress, so hopefully with disney's pull marvel wont loose the characters(articles have said the trademarks etc... are all marvel owned due to work for hire stuff). Crossing fingers this wont be messy cause kirby did draw/help create so many characters for marvel let alone dc and other sole created stuff.

How is the Superman case being really troublesome for DC? They're in settlement talks, Smallville is on the air, Superman comics are being published, Superman merchandise is being sold, etc.

The only real trouble with the Superman case are that 1. WB is eventually going to have to start writing some fat checks and 2. Fanboys are getting worked up over things that haven't happened and aren't likely to happen. If Superman wasn't worth it, they'd just give him back.

One of the things to realize is that we're in relatively uncharted territory here. Things used to just drop into the public domain. Now, there's a reclamation clause. And Superman is probably the first huge intellectual property to get into this conflict. Of course it's going to be the most difficult to settle, there's no blueprint or precedent. It will be a lot easier for most creations after the Superman settlement happens and there's a map to follow.

 

[conan69]

"Kirby was working for Timely/Marvel, but since he never signed the new work-for-hire contracts, the original contract might have given him some ownership once the copyright expired. "

Again, this was later, when they held his artwork hostage trying to coerse him into signing(a completely *****e and scumbag tactic). Wouldnt apply to work done a decade earlier.

Yes I attended Kuberts back in 89.

edit: Agree with Evil Twin. Broken promises, intellectual property and inheritance is exactly right. This could have been avoided if the right thing was done a long time ago.So whos the greedy ones here??

Kirby is entitled to the profits Marvel is and has seen for a long time. Since hes no longer with us, his family should reap the benefits.

Im sorry, but I dont have much respect for Stan Lee. Its no way to treat a friend, especially one who helped make you rich. Simply,theres right and wrong.

This was a result of Marvel and other companies work for hire policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator's_Bill_of_Rights

 

[bubbadoom]

I do not expect the Kirby estate to "own" his characters when this is all said and done, but it would be nice if they got some sort of payments, even if it's a token one. Stan has been compensated, and rightly so; it's now time that Jack [and Steve] were given the same consideration.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Damn I am sick and tired of these law suits and litigations... whatever comes about this. Guess we are never in equillibrium unless both companies (Marvel/DC) are in a similar bind.

 

[The Guard]

Oh, I think Marvel's a lot worse off in these "troubles" when all is said and done. Superman is, after all, only one character. Kirby created and impacted quite a few characters and mythologies.

 

[Webhead2006]

evil twin i understand all the stuff about the legal things. I dont know all the rules and laws in the copyright/trademark/etc... stuff. Sure i agree the creator and/or their heirs are and should be allowed to get the credit/money they are owned. I full well know in the early days alot of the guys were screwed badly. As for what i was saying with superman i might all the legal stuff on who ons this aspect over this aspect on the character.

I also get in the end either things will get settled and its just about how much money has to be given out and all that. Or things could go into the hands of who ever legally owns said property presently. Its just us fanboys dont know all the finer details of the laws and us worrying the wrost case senerios and all that.

 

[Tony Stark]

I really can't believe fanboys.

Apparently the centuries old concepts of copyright law, intellectual property, and inheritance mean nothing in the face of fanboy entitlement.

Here's what's going to happen. Either the megacorporation wins outright based on contracts or they write regular substantial checks to the Kirby family after they reach a settlement agreement. And their will be much fanboy gnashing of teeth in the meantime because the fanboys don't realize that it's merely about splitting the revenues fairly rather than outright stopping Marvel from using those characters. And Marvel will get to use those characters, they own Stan Lee's contributions and the trademarks.

Considering how poorly Marvel treated Kirby other than lip service when he lived, it's hard to feel any sympathy for them now. The guy had to fight tooth and nail just to get his original artwork back. And Marvel's reprint fee policy is a joke. Kirby played a big part in making that company what it is today, apparently worth $4 billion, and received a meager fraction in compensation in his lifetime along with many broken promises. There's no reason the Kirby family should look all that kindly at Marvel. Heck, Marvel's had decades to come to some sort of preemptive settlement with the Kirby family, even while Jack was still alive, and did nothing.

As for why the family isn't suing DC. 1. Kirby's 70s creations are another decade out from the window of filing. The copyright isn't close to expiring on those. 2. The Kirby family has a much better relationship with DC which reportedly pays regular reprint fees on his work, even when they don't have to.

I guess it takes a fanboy to know one.

Look it comes down to this. Marvel is a corporation, when I went to work for my company, I had to sign a intellectual property rights agreement the day I started. It basically says any ideas that I create while working for the company or software that I write, belongs to my company outright. This protects the company from someone going to a direct competetor and using programs I write for my company.

This is pretty standard in any company and Marvel is no different. Kirby worked for Timely/Marvel and created all of those characters under said company. Whatever deal he signed with DC has nothing to do with what he was under contract with Marvel.

Yes, Jack Kirby was a big part of Marvel's success. But let's be honest here, the flagship character of the company is one that Kirby had little input on artistically, although he did the cover art for the Amazing Fantasy issue, but based on Ditko's design not his.

I'm not saying this negates all the great work he did. The man was a artistic genious, and certainly was one of the top artists in the field.

 

[Tony Stark]

I do not expect the Kirby estate to "own" his characters when this is all said and done, but it would be nice if they got some sort of payments, even if it's a token one. Stan has been compensated, and rightly so; it's now time that Jack [and Steve] were given the same consideration.

I wouldn't be suprised if this was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. No way will they gain copyrights of the characters. As I mentioned above, he had no stake to them on the basis that all the characters he worked on were co-created, by many different people, and secondly that he was a Marvel employee and there's decades of case law showing that empolyers have the right to retain intellectual property of their employees for work they did for the company.

 

[Evil Twin]

I guess it takes a fanboy to know one.

Look it comes down to this. Marvel is a corporation, when I went to work for my company, I had to sign a intellectual property rights agreement the day I started. It basically says any ideas that I create while working for the company or software that I write, belongs to my company outright. This protects the company from someone going to a direct competetor and using programs I write for my company.

This is pretty standard in any company and Marvel is no different. Kirby worked for Timely/Marvel and created all of those characters under said company. Whatever deal he signed with DC has nothing to do with what he was under contract with Marvel.

Actually, there's a good bet that Marvel is different. At least anything pre-1976 is unlikely to be relevant to current copyright law, extensions, and reclamation rights.

This really can't be stated enough. It's impossible to have an opinion on what rights Jack Kirby did or did not give up unless you've read the actual contract. Crying "work for hire" doesn't necessarily make it so. Especially since the exact definition of "work for hire" under current law wasn't really defined until 1976. It's very possible that whatever contract Kirby signed wasn't a "work for hire" contract as currently understood.

In any event, if Marvel has a valid "work for hire" contract, they'll win. If they don't, the Kirby heirs will win. The law is very clear on this.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The fact is Kirby hasn't made these characters and their universes multi million dollar properties. Marvel and their other writers have in the years since he wrote the characters.

What happens to all the writers who have written these characters since Kirby? They have fleshed out the characters and brought them to life more than he has.

Kirby wasn't responsible for bringing these characters to the big screen and in animated shows and what not.

Therefor the Kirby estate shouldn't get no where near what they are asking for.

 

[Ring Deacon]

There is by no means that Kirby's estate can or will gain 100% rights to any Marvel character. Everything he worked on at Marvel was as a co-creator or just as an artist for someonelse's work. The most they would be able to get is half of the rights. As long as the other creator (Stan Lee) wants the characters to stay with Marvel they will. Bottom line this is about greed. I say if Kirby wanted the rights so bad he should have went after then when he was alive. I know he didn't want to burn bridges or cause trouble, but still. If he felt in his heart he had a case then he should have went for it. The worse thing that could have happened is Marvel wouldn't give him work anymore. He still had a good thing going with DC and would have been fine. This right now has nothing to do with Kirby, it is all about his kids and grandkids trying to make a fast buck.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Certainly complicated by the fact that some of the characters have been changed so much, since other writers have worked on them.

I wonder, will the Kirby Estate also go after DC?

 

[Ring Deacon]

Certainly complicated by the fact that some of the characters have been changed so much, since other writers have worked on them.

I wonder, will the Kirby Estate also go after DC?

From what I understand DC already pays his family royalties for the stuff he worked on and created for them. I am not sure if it is just out of respect for him or if that is how his contract read.

 

[Hmarrs]

He wrote MOST of them.

Lee scripted and co-wrote, Jack drew and co-wrote.

Jack co-created much of the Marvel Universe, and in some cases [like the Silver Surfer] he did it all by himself. Stan made the mistake of admitting this in print in the mid-60's - and he never did that again!

Jack deserves a piece of the pie, just like Stan got.

Stan didn't get a piece of the Pie he got the whole freakin bakery.
Kirby was the mastermind behind the whole thing that's why Marvel has stunk ever since then.The best age of Marvel was the Silver era everything else after that has be been vain repetition on the same stories retold over and over again!!!!!!

 

[conan69]

Evil wrote:

" At least anything pre-1976 is unlikely to be relevant to current copyright law, extensions, and reclamation rights."


"Crying "work for hire" doesn't necessarily make it so. Especially since the exact definition of "work for hire" under current law wasn't really defined until 1976. It's very possible that whatever contract Kirby signed wasn't a "work for hire" contract as currently understood."


Correct.

 

[Hmarrs]

Evil wrote:

" At least anything pre-1976 is unlikely to be relevant to current copyright law, extensions, and reclamation rights."


"Crying "work for hire" doesn't necessarily make it so. Especially since the exact definition of "work for hire" under current law wasn't really defined until 1976. It's very possible that whatever contract Kirby signed wasn't a "work for hire" contract as currently understood."


Correct.

I bet he thought "Hey me and Stan are on to somthing and he saw an opportunity to be than an Artist"but since Stan knew more about the business he gave him the shaft!!!

 

[chris moore]

Bottom line is that the Kirby's are being selfish tools. Jack (and to a degree his Wife) deserve a slice of those characters he directly created or co-created. Napkin layouts or anything remotely like that, do not in all common sense (legality notwithstanding) mean its your creation. His children, and especially his grandchildren - not so much, but I can accept it if they'd done it for the sake of doing it rather than pulling this out their arses the second the movies become almost guaranteed to rake in a tonne.

They aren't doing it for honourable reasons. They aren't doing it to ensure their father/grandfather gets the recognition he deserves. They aren't doing it to protect the characters for their father/grandfather. They are doing it for money, and their actions are just risking screwing up the characters and their movie for those who have waited, in some cases, decades to have their heroes portrayed properly and favourably.

 

[TheVileOne]

Just curious, did Kirby ever own his Marvel creations?

 

[Evil Twin]

Bottom line is that the Kirby's are being selfish tools. Jack (and to a degree his Wife) deserve a slice of those characters he directly created or co-created. Napkin layouts or anything remotely like that, do not in all common sense (legality notwithstanding) mean its your creation. His children, and especially his grandchildren - not so much, but I can accept it if they'd done it for the sake of doing it rather than pulling this out their arses the second the movies become almost guaranteed to rake in a tonne.

They aren't doing it for honourable reasons. They aren't doing it to ensure their father/grandfather gets the recognition he deserves. They aren't doing it to protect the characters for their father/grandfather. They are doing it for money, and their actions are just risking screwing up the characters and their movie for those who have waited, in some cases, decades to have their heroes portrayed properly and favourably.

So, you're giving all your inheritance to charity right? If not, you're a hypocrite. Dishonourable and greedy.

The Kirby family received their inheritance from Jack which is the right to reclaim the copyright on work that doesn't fall strictly under "work for hire" and profit from that. It's a delayed inheritance considering that if Marvel had treated Kirby in all due consideration for his contributions, Jack could have left them a pile of money in the first place.

And, I say again, there's ZERO percent chance that Marvel will not be publishing Kirby's creations. They own Stan Lee's copyright. They own the trademarks. At worst, the Kirby family will receive royalties, either through a settlement agreement or a court ruling.