Jack Kirby Sues Everyone and their mom

[Webhead2006]

that is a good question vile, i wonder that too myself. As for the whole case it would be in marvel's and disney best interest ot get it settled out of court. Cause if they go up against that same judge the siegels have for their superman case. Things could easily go very south on marvel's part.

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

I understand that, however even pre 1976 which that law was mainly written to ratify already agreed upon international standards of the UCC, the fact is the "work for hire" concept was true even before 1976.

You think that people working for IBM back in the 60's own copyrights for some of the systems they were developing back then? Or Bell Labs?

This only has to do with existing case law and if Kirby was a Marvel employee and they were the undisputed holder of the copyright then the estate is going to have a bear of a time proving their case.

Again you cannot compare this to the Siegel/Schuster case which is very different and also ties back to the binding agreement WB made with them in the 1970's.

 

[Tony Stark]

Another thing that stinks to high heaven in this lawsuit is the Hollywood reporter has confirmed that Spider-man was included in the list of characters in the lawsuit.

http://io9.com/5363689/who-created-spider+man

Dispite many on this board who have falsely claimed that Spider-man was a Kirby creation, you can see from the link above the claims are dubious at best.

Kirby deserves all the credit in the world for putting Marvel on the map, but I get so sick and tired of hearing people have to trash Stan Lee to praise Kirby. The fact is, like the Beatles and John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the two needed each other.

A good example is the Silver Surfer. There's no doubt even by Lee's admission that Kirby created the Silver Surfer by himself, with no input from Stan Lee. But it was Stan Lee and John Buscema that MADE the Silver Surfer who he is.

This is all things to be considered in the lawsuit, and to me the Kirby estate doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/20...-characters-like-iron-man-thor-and-the-x-men/




So, this is bad, right?

I drew a picture of Spider-Man on my Trapper Keeper one time. I hope he don't sue me.

 

[Evil Twin]

I understand that, however even pre 1976 which that law was mainly written to ratify already agreed upon international standards of the UCC, the fact is the "work for hire" concept was true even before 1976.

You think that people working for IBM back in the 60's own copyrights for some of the systems they were developing back then? Or Bell Labs?

This only has to do with existing case law and if Kirby was a Marvel employee and they were the undisputed holder of the copyright then the estate is going to have a bear of a time proving their case.

Again you cannot compare this to the Siegel/Schuster case which is very different and also ties back to the binding agreement WB made with them in the 1970's.

There's a very big difference between Kirby and an employee of Bell Labs. Kirby was basically an independent contractor, not a salaried employee.

Let's also not get too carried away with the idea that Marvel was a sophisticated company back in 1960. They basically were on the verge of shutting their doors. Standard practice used to be a statement on the back of a check, a practice that's since been ruled non-binding. You can bet that nowadays the contracts signed for "work for hire" are much lengthier and well thought out than in those days.

Again, it's pointless to declare victory either way since none of us is likely to have read the contracts of the day. That said, I wouldn't assume that a contract by a little company on the verge of bankruptcy in 1960 takes into account every change in the law to come.

Really, this is contract law. And everything in contract law depends on what's in the actual contract. If there is one. But, frankly, I expect 1. the Judge to rule whether the Kirbys have the right to reclaim and exactly what they reclaim 2. they move to settlement talks, if necessary, and as encouraged by the Judge. And this is all years out.

 

[Tony Stark]

There's a very big difference between Kirby and an employee of Bell Labs. Kirby was basically an independent contractor, not a salaried employee.

Let's also not get too carried away with the idea that Marvel was a sophisticated company back in 1960. They basically were on the verge of shutting their doors. Standard practice used to be a statement on the back of a check, a practice that's since been ruled non-binding. You can bet that nowadays the contracts signed for "work for hire" are much lengthier and well thought out than in those days.

Again, it's pointless to declare victory either way since none of us is likely to have read the contracts of the day. That said, I wouldn't assume that a contract by a little company on the verge of bankruptcy in 1960 takes into account every change in the law to come.

Really, this is contract law. And everything in contract law depends on what's in the actual contract. If there is one. But, frankly, I expect 1. the Judge to rule whether the Kirbys have the right to reclaim and exactly what they reclaim 2. they move to settlement talks, if necessary, and as encouraged by the Judge. And this is all years out.

I agree with the last part of what you said, but honestly I hope this case is thrown out since they named Spider-man in the lawsuit. That tells me this is nothing but a bunch of money grubbing.

I'll grant you, Kirby was part of the creative process of inventing Spider-man, but ultimately his vision was outright rejected, and only a slim few ideas were retained. Spider-man was all Lee and Ditko, period.

And let's face it, Spider-man has always been the face of Marvel. Sure Kirby's work was extremely important to Marvel, but it was Spider-man that put Marvel on par with characters like Superman and Batman, and I say that as a Iron Man fan.

 

[The Guard]

I'll grant you, Kirby was part of the creative process of inventing Spider-man, but ultimately his vision was outright rejected, and only a slim few ideas were retained.

Can you elaborate?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think the ultimate downfall of this is going to be that the Kirby's are asking way too much here. Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Hulk, etc. are one thing, but Spider-Man who isn't even a Kirby creation. That's absurd.

And going after Paramount and Universal when they don't even have the film rights to Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor. They just merely have the distribution rights and only make 8% of the film gross for distribution fees (just like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Dreamworks Animation). Going after them makes little sense compared to 20th Century Fox, Marvel Studios, and Sony Pictures who actually own the film rights and make the bulk of the money.

Not only that but the Kirby estate wouldn't even have full copyright. Stan Lee would have most of the other halves and he's perfectly content with his characters remaining at Marvel. It isn't like with Superman where the Siegels and Schuster Estate both want to terminate the copyright.

 

[chris moore]

Evil Twin: Its the timing. They didnt exactly inherit all this last week. I would totally exercise my right claim the copyrights if inherited them. But to wait till now - just bad manners. Any difficulties with their "share" of royalties through courts and whatnot could delay some of the movies, or even cause crew members to back out because they don't want to be involved in complex disputes.

 

[Ring Deacon]

I bet they go after George Lucas too. Star Wars is loosely based on New Gods.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I say we declare Royal Rumble.

The Kirbys vs Disney and Everybody. Who wins?

Sure as hell not the Kirbys. This steps on far too many people's toes for them to really get away with it.

 

[Hmarrs]

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.

How do you know???
Bottom line is this the more money they make of off your Father's or Grandfather's the more upsetting it gets.
He has past away and they are still making money off of him.
Heck yeah!!Why should someone else benifit off of all of that money made of off your Father's or Grandfather's sweat.Why should Stan's children have all they need we don't know what the situation is finiancetially for the Kirby family for them or their children but that doesn't even matter right is right but I bet Stan's Children and Grandchildren go to bed cozy.Their benifiting from Stan aren't they?Why shouldn't Kirby's kids benifit from him.After all Kirby fought for those right's for years.Why?Because he wanted somthing to leave behind for his family.And you know what they robbed him of it.So why shouldn't they fight for what is their's.
Whatever the reason is it doesn't matter what the reason is.
It belongs to them they don't need a reason it's part of their inheritance.
They certainly don't need to give us a reason.
Period.

 

[Hmarrs]

I say we declare Royal Rumble.

The Kirbys vs Disney and Everybody. Who wins?

Sure as hell not the Kirbys. This steps on far too many people's toes for them to really get away with it.

Get away with what???
People on here nothing personel to you.People on here are talking like the Kirby's are theives or somthing.Your not a thief if you are fighting for what is yours!!!!

 

[Obi-Ron]

I bet they go after George Lucas too. Star Wars is loosely based on New Gods.

Among about a dozen other sources.

 

[chris moore]

Get away with what???
People on here nothing personel to you.People on here are talking like the Kirby's are theives or somthing.Your not a thief if you are fighting for what is yours!!!!

I'm not saying they're thieves or that they don't deserve it. I just think their timing sucks because its not until the properties have become potentially so much more profitable since the disney announcement that the Kirbys have made the move to reclaim the copyrights that are rightfully theirs. And cetainly not until they saw how much the Siegels got from hiring their lawyer.

 

[Hmarrs]

I'm not saying they're thieves or that they don't deserve it. I just think their timing sucks because its not until the properties have become potentially so much more profitable since the disney announcement that the Kirbys have made the move to reclaim the copyrights that are rightfully theirs. And cetainly not until they saw how much the Siegels got from hiring their lawyer.

AND>....So what???If somthing is yours it's yours period!!!I'm sure Stan The Man didn't think about cutting Kirby out until the comics got popular at the time of it's conception they were partners but when the comics and the characters got popular and Kirby wasn't seeing any residuals Stan cut him off.I remember how it went down it was so sad Kirby couldn't even get his original pencils back.Kirby died broke.It was sad.

If I had a distant relative who passed I don't care if Donald Trump took over the Estate and made it the New Ceasors Palace if it's mine I'm taking it back.
If it's mine and I got shafted what do I care who turned it into an Empire.
All I'm going to say is Thank You and not even that.
Bottom line is what goes around comes around period.

You guys really don't think Marvel didn't see this coming.
WAKE UP why do you think they sold to Disney!!!!!

They know the Kirby's have a case so they sold out to the biggest corporation in America they are going to let Disney and all of their corporate powers and attorneys handle this case.

However I know the Kirby's will win it is high time they got their's.
It will be the biggest case of David versus Goliath.

Oh and let's not forget several years earlier Stan the Man himself selling Marvel and getting out while the getting was good.

Guys,Guys don't be so neive.

 

[chris moore]

That... pretty much addresses nothing to do with the timing I was talking about. You just stated again and again how much you support the Kirbys, which is completely fine.

It just seems more likely (unless you know something the rest of us don't) that Disney got interested in Marvel, the Kirby's heard about it (they arent completely disjointed from Marvel), and took this as the prefect time to exercise their right to reclaim - not last year, not back when Jack himself died, now.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea but they couldnt get the full rights on characters like FF/xmen/thor/ironman with others holding the copyright like lee/simon/etc.... right? They have to factor into things too right? At most the kirby heirs could get rights to certain parts of said characters. Like how the siegels now own certain aspects of the origins of superman/krypton stuff.

I said it before i dont know all the law stuff reguarding copyrights and trademarks. But hopefully things dont go south. Yes we have no clue what the family does, and why they are sueing now. They have their reasons, though with the timing after the disney deal it does make them look they are just after money. Now in the end they could be just after more dough but we dont know.

Cant wait to see what happens with all this. Hopefully if its just money marvel/disney just cuts them a higher percentage made off of said characters and everything is all good. Though i doubt they can get to much. Since they dont have full rights on majority of the characters and marvel still holds the trademarks on the characters.

 

[Hmarrs]

That... pretty much addresses nothing to do with the timing I was talking about. You just stated again and again how much you support the Kirbys, which is completely fine.

It just seems more likely (unless you know something the rest of us don't) that Disney got interested in Marvel, the Kirby's heard about it (they arent completely disjointed from Marvel), and took this as the prefect time to exercise their right to reclaim - not last year, not back when Jack himself died, now.

It has everthing to do with timing in the fact that what your saying is
or your argument is about the timing.What I am telling you is that it has nothing to do with timing so I am adressing your issue.
See my point?

 

[chris moore]

An excerpt from he original news article:

"The window for serving notice of termination on the oldest of the properties opened several years ago, and will remain open for some time under the law. But Disney’s announced purchase gives a new reason for anyone with claims on Marvel to stake out a position."

Kinda tells us outright that they coulda started to regain it all at least a few years ago - but instead, they only hired the Seigel claim meister when a huge potential profit making machine came along with the tools to make more than the big names movie successes. Course, the above statement could be taken a number of different ways

 

[Evil Twin]

Evil Twin: Its the timing. They didnt exactly inherit all this last week. I would totally exercise my right claim the copyrights if inherited them. But to wait till now - just bad manners. Any difficulties with their "share" of royalties through courts and whatnot could delay some of the movies, or even cause crew members to back out because they don't want to be involved in complex disputes.

You understand that the Kirbys have a window of time in which they can file notifications of terminations of copyright, right? You can't file notices of termination 20 years out. And they filed fairly early in the process. Probably when they could get maximum amount of properties in one filings instead of coming back a dozen or more times every time a filing window opened up.

As far as I can tell, the copyrights in question aren't a factor for about 7 years. Marvel can pretty much do whatever they want in that time. The Kirbys are just getting the legal process started, something required by the law if the parties haven't been able to settle at that point. One of the reasons that people are required to file early is that these disputes can take time to iron out and getting the process started early is likely to have the least effect. You see how long the Seigels action has dragged on. If the Kirbys had waited until the last minute, given the number of properties out there, there likely would have been some impact. Now, they have 7 years to work things out. The Kirbys actually have done Disney a favor by filing early and getting the process officially started. Yeah, they could have started earlier on some properties, but as a bunch this probably makes as much sense as any time.

And Disney has nothing to do with this. This has been in the works for years.

 

[Evil Twin]

yea but they couldnt get the full rights on characters like FF/xmen/thor/ironman with others holding the copyright like lee/simon/etc.... right? They have to factor into things too right? At most the kirby heirs could get rights to certain parts of said characters. Like how the siegels now own certain aspects of the origins of superman/krypton stuff.

I said it before i dont know all the law stuff reguarding copyrights and trademarks. But hopefully things dont go south. Yes we have no clue what the family does, and why they are sueing now. They have their reasons, though with the timing after the disney deal it does make them look they are just after money. Now in the end they could be just after more dough but we dont know.

Cant wait to see what happens with all this. Hopefully if its just money marvel/disney just cuts them a higher percentage made off of said characters and everything is all good. Though i doubt they can get to much. Since they dont have full rights on majority of the characters and marvel still holds the trademarks on the characters.

It will be just money. Maybe they'll get the rights to do their own graphic merchandise, but likely at most it's going to be a profit sharing arrangement. Which will not impact fans enjoyment one iota.

 

[TheVileOne]

OK, wasn't there a resolution some time ago with Captain America's creator (who was still living at the time and wasn't Jack Kirby)?

Not that I disagree with the Kirby family or estate getting residuals or their own share HOWEVER did Jack Kirby ever actually have creator ownership of his "creations"?

Isn't Kirby claiming an ownership of Spider-man rather suspect when Lee and Ditko are known as the definitive creators of the character and Kirby apparently did a drawing of the character that didn't really work?

 

[Kurosawa]

OK, wasn't there a resolution some time ago with Captain America's creator (who was still living at the time and wasn't Jack Kirby)?

Not that I disagree with the Kirby family or estate getting residuals or their own share HOWEVER did Jack Kirby ever actually have creator ownership of his "creations"?

Isn't Kirby claiming an ownership of Spider-man rather suspect when Lee and Ditko are known as the definitive creators of the character and Kirby apparently did a drawing of the character that didn't really work?

Cap is correctly credited by Marvel as a Joe Simon/Jack Kirby creation.

The Spiderman name came from Kirby, as did the concept of him having a teenaged alter-ego and a doting aunt and uncle. Kirby apparently did 5 pages which Lee didn't like, which was then revised by Lee and Ditko. Spider-Man, as he was renamed, should be properly seen as a Lee-Ditko creation, but Kirby did have a hand in it. The origin was also partially rewritten from Rawhide Kid's origin, which was a Lee-Kirby story.

All other major Marvel characters from the 60's excepting Daredevil and Dr. Strange are at least 50% Kirby creations. Considering that Marvel's actions against Kirby in the 80's (holding his art, etc) probably led to some of his medical problems from stress, I hope they get all they can.

Stan never went after anything much because the company was owned by his family. He never knew what it was like to be a freelancer like writers and artists who bounced from National to Timely or later from DC to Marvel did. Kirby MADE Marvel. Stan never wrote anything good before or after Jack's time at Marvel. They got the money, and they can give his family a decent cut and his part of the credit. It's the least they can do.

 

[Webhead2006]

You are right evil twin its probably just be a cut in profits made off of comics/merch/movies/tv shows for the kirby heirs. Since they cant take full control over any of the kirby co created characters. They could get lucky with a few like silver surfer possibly since its been stated by lee that kirby pretty much came up with him. I was talking with a local comic shop owner guy i go to his shop from time to time when my main place doesnt have what i am looking for. HE also stated what you were saying they will just get money and it likely wont effect the comics/movies and all that. Plus with marvel still holding the trademarks for all these guys they couldnt really do much with anything.

Though we have no clue how the whole legal process could go. Will the kirby estate and marvel/disney try and make a settlement between now and 2014 when they can do termination on the copyrights? Or could this end up going into the court system which could be better for the kirbys and bad for marvel/disney if the judge sides more with the kirbys and if the kirby's could product more claims to help them out.