Jack Kirby Sues Everyone and their mom

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
Sure wouldn't you want a cut off of your fathers creations especcially when their making millions?Even more the reason there more to spread around.Heck yeah who knows maybe they waited on purpose.If so that's smart.That doesn't make them greedy that makes them smart.No one calls Stan Lee greedy everytime he pulls up to the bank teller.You know why because in everybodies mind they see him as the owner.SInce no one see's the Kirbys as having any rights everyone says they are greedy and doing it for the money as they are stealing somthing from Marvel it's not stealing if it's yours.If it's about money well the people and the studios who make the movies are doing it for the money when Stan ripped of Kirby it was for the money right?Why not call them greedy as well?
 
There's some good, straightforward legal analysis at http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23063

Here's perhaps the most relevant quote for the chicken littles.

No matter what happens or when it happens, Marvel Comics and characters as they're currently published will almost certainly continue on undisturbed in a fictional sense. If the case does go to court, or even if Marvel/Disney agrees that certain rights will be shared with the Kirby estate, all that means is that both parties will be able to exploit the properties. "In the case of joint authors, which is the claim the Kirbys will have to go with, unless the authors have a written agreement to the contrary, they have an equally divided right in the entirety of the work they created," Lovitz said. "Each of them have an equal right to commercialize the work and practice those rights offered under copyright – each have the right to reproduce, to create derivative works, to license out, etc. The only duty between those authors is a duty of accounting," meaning that any profits made by either side would have to be split between the equal owners. "So Marvel can continue to create Spider-Man comics, X-Men comics, X-Men movies...any of that stuff. But they will owe 50% of any profits attributed to work Kirby created back to the co-author."

Heck, there's even speculation that a Kirby claim could void the deals with Fox and Sony, although I think that's wishful thinking. If those are still viable franchises, I don't know why the Kirbys wouldn't just cut a deal with Fox and Sony instead of helping out Marvel.
 
50% is a lot for his relatives. I would totally understand if he were still alive and getting the profits but it's his family. When it comes to inheritance what they get depends on what you owned when you were alive and put in your will.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get anything but if that means 50% of take from the movies, that's overkill. It says 50% of profits attributed to work Kirby created, so does that mean they could get that high of a percentage from the films?

If so the studios will be less likely to make these characters into movies if they're not even able to make much off of them, especially ones that don't perform well.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong of course.
 
thats a good find evil twin. It will probably end up with just money given to them by marvel/disney. Though since other parties were invovled in the creation of the characters they probably couldnt get a full 50% stake on things. I doubt they could really claim much of anything for spiderman since legally its lee/ditko right? they can have stake in other guys like thor/ironman/cap/ and certain xmen guys. But like i said before it would probably be best to get it settled out of court. Cause the court system could screw over marvel and give more share in rights that the kirby's shouldnt be able to be entitled to besides the stuff that was specificly created by kirby. Cause if they try and say oh he had a hand in X(when it really was simon/lee/lee's brother/etc.....) that could mean bad things for marvel down the road.
 
I think the Kirby estate would be foolish not to pursue this suit. The whole world has its hand out. If banksters living in the Hamptons can screw the pooch and still say "gimme" to the FDIC or Geithner, I think we can spare the Kirby estate its day in court.

Kirby didn't know how to fight these greedy Marvel bastards in court. Jack didn't know how to deal with people without a sense of common decency. He didn't know that the bloodsuckers at Marvel could and would outlast him with their greed. The mistaken notion that Kirby sued Marvel a few decades back arises from the fact that Marvel lawyers were always trying to get him to sign papers in order that Jack might reclaim his original artwork. Most artists were made to sign a one page waiver of some kind, but Kirby's document was to be a several page, complcated affair. Of course, as most of the artwork had already been looted, the lawyers were actually trying to get him to sign away his authorial claims for almost nothing in return.

Dave Sim, another comics pro, would probably say that Kirby had the classic problem of having made some kind of agreement - contractual or not - with an entity much larger than himself. The larger entity has the legal team, the time and the money to make one agree with whatever they want.

This is one small salvo to correct the savage injustice done to the artist we know as Jack Kirby. However you want to divvy up the percentage of authorship over various Marvel characters, Jacob Kurtzberg has the moral right to be identified with the work he created and his family now has the right to financially benefit from it.
 
well i said it before i hope it doesnt get messy and brought into court in a long drawn out battle like the siegels deal.
 
Stan Lee's comments on the kirby lawsuit and more details:
www.**************.com
Stan 'The Man' Lee Dishes on the Late Jack Kirby

10450.png

Plus, Kirby's family give more details regarding their impending legal suit.
Courtesy of Geoff Boucher at the Los Angeles Times:

You'd be hard-pressed to find a recent comic book that didn't have the stylish scrawl of the artists somewhere on the cover, but that was not the case when Jack Kirby was making pop-culture history back in the 1960s with his wildly kinetic drawings of the X-Men, Hulk and the Fantastic Four. "I think I have a highly unique and unusual style, and that's the reason I never sign my drawings," the proud Kirby told an interviewer in 1987, seven years before his death. "Everybody could tell any of my covers a mile away on the newsstand, and that satisfied me."

The satisfaction was fleeting. The artist may be reverently referred to as "King" Kirby by the pop scholars and younger artists who celebrate his genre-defining work but Kirby is, in some ways, an overlooked figure in the broader view of American culture. He didn't live to see his creations fly across the movie screen over the last decade and his four children made nothing from those lucrative films, although they are now pursuing legal action to claim some of the future Hollywood wealth. "There is," daughter Lisa Kirby says, "a bittersweet legacy to my father's work."

Jack_Kirby_1982_cropped.jpg
On a recent afternoon, in Beverly Hills, a different man was autographing a giant lithograph reproducing one of Kirby's classic Fantastic Four covers. It was Stan Lee, the writer who was Kirby's most famous collaborator until they became estranged over creative credit, artwork custody and money. An art dealer had brought stacks of limited-edition lithos, some to be priced at $850, to Lee's Santa Monica Boulevard office along with a check in his pocket to pay the 86-year-old Lee for his autographs. Lee had written the stories for the classic comics, of course, but considering all the history, it was still odd to see his name etched on the cosmic Kirby tableau from 1966.

"Yes, there was a time when there was some hard feeling on his part . . . but he got over that and we were friends," Lee said. "It really is sad that he didn't get to see all the big movies. None of us could predict that we would get to this point with the films. I don't dwell on it too much because I'm always so busy doing what I am doing today. Unfortunately the guys back in the day did not make as much as they do today. Years ago also you had artists doing these comics who, well, there was nothing else they could have done. Their style wasn't right for advertising or magazines like Saturday Evening Post or Collier's. And as for us writers, well, we weren't qualified to write for the New Yorker. Comic book writers were considered hacks, and artists weren't really thought of as much beyond that."

Lee looked down at the lithographs, which are being sold by the Santa Monica gallery called Every Picture Tells a Story. "As far as I'm concerned," Lee said with a salesman's zeal, "it is fine art."

The story of two "hacks," as Lee would frame it, will be scrutinized much more considering recent events. Last month, the Walt Disney Co. paid $4 billion to scoop up Marvel Entertainment and its vault of florid characters who over the last decade have become Hollywood box-office heroes. Many of the most valuable properties in that vault were created by the wildly prolific tandem of Lee and Kirby in the 1960s; there are two big-budget movies now in the pipeline for Marvel Studios that are based on Lee-Kirby creations ("The Mighty Thor" and "The Avengers") and a third ("First Avenger: Captain America") based on the work of Kirby and writer Joe Simon. The Kirby brood watched the Disney deal happen and within days were conferring with new attorneys.

A day after Lee sat signing that artwork, attorneys representing the four children of Kirby sent out 45 notices of termination to Hollywood studios and players with an interest in assorted Marvel films; it was the opening salvo in a legal battle to gain copyright control of certain characters and the name on the legal letterhead was Toberoff & Associates, the same firm that last year won a share of the copyright in Superman for heirs of character co-creator Jerry Siegel.

Under copyright law, creators or their heirs can seek to regain copyrights they previously assigned to a company 56 years after first publication, so the Kirby family is starting that process now with hopes of gaining an interest or, perhaps, a settlement. Lee, meanwhile, struck assorted deals through the years with Marvel and has been an executive producer on every Marvel film made to date, movies with worldwide box office now in the billions of dollars, and has had prominent cameos in many of them.

Lee is by far the most famous creator in comics history thanks to his longevity, success and a Barnum-like flair for self-promotion. He became a media figure in the 1960s when journalists jotted down his dizzying hyperbole about Marvel's brightly hued, counterculture ethos. Kirby, laboring with far less credit, looked on and chafed about his status as a freelancer, essentially working for Lee. By 1970, he'd had enough and defected to rival DC Comics. Lee would go on to accumulate considerable wealth and fame, sometimes selling comics, sometimes selling his own persona with a long list of splashy but short-lived ventures. Kirby's fortunes were not as grand; when he talked about his old creations he had the weary tone of a man who long ago watched the family coin collection scatter on a crowded street.

Lee knows that fans like to set up the partners as rivals -- Kirby the irascible purist with staggering imagination and Lee the tireless huckster, the pop-culture prophet versus the corporate profiteer -- but from his vantage point their tale is of two kids who grew up in a business of cruel deadlines and lowbrow aspirations and found in each other a go-to guy.

"My favorite thing about Kirby's artwork was his storytelling," Lee said. "He was really a film director doing comics."

Nevertheless, Kirby remains a distant second to Lee in name recognition, which Lisa Kirby said rankles. "A lot more people know the name Stan Lee than the name Jack Kirby," she said. "I'm not putting down Stan Lee's talents but it's difficult for us to see that he does dominate the credit. That doesn't reflect the work or the reality. To see Jack Kirby in small letters and Stan Lee in big letters, that's hard for us."

If there's a battle to come, it's one Kirby never took on in life.

"Jack didn't have the resources or the stomach lining to fight Marvel over copyrights, character ownership or past contractual sleights that he believed he suffered," says Mark Evanier, who was Kirby's assistant in the early 1970s and later his biographer. "He fought to get back his pages of original art. That was the fight he believed he could win."

Evanier, now a comics historian, testified in the Siegel suit. A longtime friend to Kirby and respectful acquaintance of Lee, he spoke glowingly of the partnership as lightning in a bottle, the zenith of each man's career.

Kirby contributed mightily to the plots and character creation; the workload at Marvel was so intense in the 1960s that there were no "scripts" handed to Kirby, he would just draw the story and Lee would go back and craft dialogue that fit the action. Still, Evanier said, while it's now fashionable to view Lee as the lesser figure, he also had the separate success of Spider-Man (with artist Steve Ditko) and set the singular tone and culture of Marvel.

The pair had met in the Roosevelt years. In late 1940, Jacob Kurtzberg, 23, drawing under the name Kirby, had his first taste of real success in the young comics industry, which soared after the debut of Superman in 1938. Kirby and writer Simon's Captain America was a hit for Timely Comics, which would later morph into Marvel. There was an eager assistant in the office named Stanley Lieber, just 18, who had gotten the job through a family connection (and would later shorten his name).

"In those days they dipped the pen in ink, I had to make sure the inkwells were filled," said Lee. "I went down and got them their lunch, I did proofreading, I erased the pencils from the finished pages for them. Whatever had to be done. I remember Jack would always be sitting at a table puffing on his cigar, kind of talking to himself as he was doing those pages."

Lee's first credited work was a 1941 Captain America story where the hero threw his shield for the first time. That would become a trademark for decades, suggesting an instant flair for the medium. Years later Lee and Kirby would reunite to create a new sort of comic book, with mutant outsiders and misunderstood monsters. It was Kirby's artwork with its tension and psychedelia that made it perfect for the times -- or was it Lee's bravado and melodrama?

"Jack was the best partner you could ask for, dependable and imaginative," Lee said, sitting in an office cluttered with all those old heroes and villains. "And it was never dull. Nothing with us was ever dull."
 
SHH's front page recently posted something about Kirby's family trying to sue Marvel for all it's properties.
 
What exactly does Iron Man have to do with Jack Kirby? All he drew was one cover and that's it, he was never a regular on the book.
 
I'd certainly want to know where Kirby's cover came in regards to the creation of Iron Man. It certainly wasn't unheard of for a cover to come before the rest of the book in those days, in which case Kirby could be credited with the original design.

But, certainly, the Kirby heirs are going to claim everything that they possibly can in the initial claim. I expect some of those claims to amount to nothing, but that's strategy not necessarily a reasonable expectation of winning.

Don't expect this to wrap up soon. It's taken years for the Superman case, which is much more straightforward as to the facts (i.e. everyone agrees that Superman was not "work for hire"). The facts are more in dispute here and the validity of any contracts and specific language will need to be reviewed. That could go as far as whether other media rights were included in any contract.

FWIW, I absolutely agree that Kirby should be the credited co-creator whenever possible, in comics and other mediums. Considering the Kirby family does own much of his original artwork, I think the idea that the advertisement of Kirby's role in creation of famous characters has some value in the value of his art.
 
I can't believe his kids could be so damn greedy.

Their father sold Marvel the rights. It's not their place to ask for them back, it's Marvel's and it should stay Marvel's.
 
What I would give to be at one of these court hearings!

I would scream from the stands at the Kirby's, "You greedy people should be ashamed of yourselves! The only reason you want the rights NOW is because of what the Siegel's & Schuster's did with Superman and the fact that the Marvel Movies are making a **** load of money! You make a mockery of Jack Kirby's hard work!"

Sure I would be kicked out and arrested perhaps but it would feel cathartic.
 
Kirby is a great writer, and he deserves credit. BUT, he sold the rights to Marvel. He WILLINGLY gave them to Marvel, and the greed of these kids will literally mean there will be no Avengers film, no Cap film, no Iron Man or Thor, and no more Hulk.

If they win, they will literally make it impossible to ever make these films again. If they win, then the fans and the community loses. It will put a huge dent in Marvel Comics, taking away all their greatest characters. Leaving Marvel and the fans with nothing.

Give these guys an Orange Lantern ring.
 
What I would give to be at one of these court hearings!

I would scream from the stands at the Kirby's, "You greedy people should be ashamed of yourselves! The only reason you want the rights NOW is because of what the Siegel's & Schuster's did with Superman and the fact that the Marvel Movies are making a **** load of money! You make a mockery of Jack Kirby's hard work!"

Sure I would be kicked out and arrested perhaps but it would feel cathartic.


Do it. It would be totally worth it, and the fans need a say.
 
The only way I would sympathize with these people would be if they simply wanted a cut of the profits rather than buying the rights which will go to waste.
 
I can't believe his kids could be so damn greedy.

Their father sold Marvel the rights. It's not their place to ask for them back, it's Marvel's and it should stay Marvel's.

So, you know precisely what was in Kirby's contract (if he even had one)? If you don't you shouldn't speak in absolutes.

It very well could be their place to ask for Kirby's rights back if they're legally entitled to them.

And, again, there's ZERO chance that Marvel won't continue to publish these books or make these movies. Marvel has 100% iron clad rights to Stan Lee's portion of the copyrights. At the worst, Marvel will have to share some of the profits with the Kirby heirs.
 
The only way I would sympathize with these people would be if they simply wanted a cut of the profits rather than buying the rights which will go to waste.

They do simply want a cut of the profits. There's no claim that they're entitled to all the rights. This is addressed uptopic.
 
What exactly does Iron Man have to do with Jack Kirby? All he drew was one cover and that's it, he was never a regular on the book.

That's pretty much what I said on the talkbacks. Iron Man was all Stan Lee, he even said he made up the character on a bet. That during that time with more women's rights/lib going on as well as the protests of war and violence he bet he could make a womanizing industrialist and have him last as a comic.

This just shows that Kirby's family are a bunch of greedy bastards trying to go after all or most of Marvel's properties. I hope they lose or Marvel/Disney at least settles and just gives them some money to ****.

And, again, there's ZERO chance that Marvel won't continue to publish these books or make these movies. Marvel has 100% iron clad rights to Stan Lee's portion of the copyrights. At the worst, Marvel will have to share some of the profits with the Kirby heirs.

Which would still be horse ****. If I created a bunch of comic characters but for a big company that would retain the rights since you're essentially a gun(or in this case a pen)for hire, my family shouldn't see any $$$$ from my personal work. How it works is when he died, or in my example when I die, my family would only get my current estate and money that is mine and solely mine. Marvel owns the rights to his characters, a lot of whom he co-created with Lee. The main comic off the top of my head that I know was all Kirby's was the Fantastic Four.

Awhile back before he died I remember reading something about him being pissed when he tried to take Marvel to court because when he left Marvel they wouldn't even let him take the original artwork from the covers. Which is because his contract(which he admits to)was that all characters he created are owned by Marvel.
 
Last edited:
Do it. It would be totally worth it, and the fans need a say.

Other than a general sense of entitlement, why do fans need a say?

Read through the various talkbacks about this case. The fans, including myself, know nothing about the facts including specific language in contracts and what Jack might have been promised. Fans also know nothing about contract and copyright law. Especially the details about copyright extension and filing windows.

Heck, fans seemed to be shocked at the idea of the concept of "inheritance". And the fact that it extends to more than material goods.

Fans probably ought to be mad that corporations have been granted these copyright extensions instead of allowing ideas to fall into the public domain where anyone, including the Kirby family, could use them. For all we know Jack left a bunch of story outlines for his family which they can't put to use.

And, what gets me, is basically that no matter what happens, it will have no effect on the fans. It's basically about how profits are split and whether Kirby's family is legally entitled to a share.
 
Which would still be horse ****. If I created a bunch of comic characters but for a big company that would retain the rights since you're essentially a gun(or in this case a pen)for hire, my family shouldn't see any $$$$ from my personal work.

This all depends on the facts of the contract Kirby may have signed. The idea that everyone gave up all their rights for ever and ever isn't really supported by other cases.

Siegel and Shuster, William Moulton Marston, Will Eisner, and Bob Kane all certainly did not give up all their rights. Various cartoonists working for newspaper syndicates retained their rights. From what I can gather, Martin Nodell has retained various rights to Green Lantern. Kirby's contemporary Carmine Infantino is rumored to have reached a settlement with DC over Barry Allen and other properties. The assumption that everything was "work for hire" and all the contracts were clear and complete in that respect has multiple instances of being not true. We should not assume, without facts, that Kirby's case is without merit one way or another. Especially for contracts before 1978 which had no idea about upcoming copyright extensions. A contract that states the artist "gives up all rights for the duration of copyright" when the copyright was 56 years in the early '60s, probably has a good case now.
 
Hey Kirby descendents!

Thanks for reminding me why people should support estate taxes.
 
I think Disney & Marvel will probably settle this out-of-court, which may be what the Kirby descendants are counting on anyway. I seriously doubt they will win their lawsuit. Btw, didn't Kirby also worked at DC in his career? How come they are not suing DC as well?
 
I think Disney & Marvel will probably settle this out-of-court, which may be what the Kirby descendants are counting on anyway. I seriously doubt they will win their lawsuit. Btw, didn't Kirby also worked at DC in his career? How come they are not suing DC as well?
I said they would most likely settle(everyone disagreeded with me that Disney wouldn't). The Kirby family isn't sueing DC because DC pays them royalities.

Also to the poster about if the Kirbys win and them being able to void the deals made between FOX and Sony. Geez image how much money Disney/Marvel would lose cus FOX and Sony would no doubt file suit for damages to Disney/Marvel for pretty much lieing about ownership of characters. Geez if this lawsuit goes that direction it'll be a real cluster^$@*.
 
I said they would most likely settle(everyone disagreeded with me that Disney wouldn't). The Kirby family isn't sueing DC because DC pays them royalities.

Also to the poster about if the Kirbys win and them being able to void the deals made between FOX and Sony. Geez image how much money Disney/Marvel would lose cus FOX and Sony would no doubt file suit for damages to Disney/Marvel for pretty much lieing about ownership of characters. Geez if this lawsuit goes that direction it'll be a real cluster^$@*.

Kirby's 70s work doesn't come up for copyright extension until late 2026/2027. The window for filing on that likely isn't even open yet.

I don't see Fox and Sony having any problem. They signed a deal with the uncontested rights holder at the time and that contract still will be valid. How Marvel/Disney/Kirby Estate divide up the profits isn't really their concern.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,611
Messages
21,995,731
Members
45,793
Latest member
khoirulbasri
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"