Marvel Sues to keep Spider-Man, X-Men & Fantastic Four!

[WolfCypher]

Still feels like a get rich quick scheme, especially since they didn't do anything until after the Superman fiasco.

Reminds me of the guy who sued Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony over their controllers for the GC, Xbox, 360, and PSs, stating he was the original guy to design a controller with a D-pad or some bs like that.

 

[yenaled]

Well maybe they never thought they could get money before, or a lawyer wouldn't take their case before a landmark was set - not every lawyer is sure they can set precedent in court. Especially with copyright against a huge company, copyright law is not simple and there are only a handful of very good lawyers ready to tackle it.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The Siegels were completely in the right. The Kirby claims seem a lot less plausible, but I suppose that'll get sorted out at the trial (unless they just settle beforehand to save time).

 

[hippie_hunter]

I always find it ludicrous that the fans side with these faceless multimillion dollar companies.

Your precious characters aren't going anywhere the families just want some money that is deserved to them - you'd do exactly the same if you're grandfather was Jack Kirby and you weren't getting the money owed to your estate.

It's not that we're siding with faceless multimillion dollar corporations, it's just that the Kirbys have a rather weak claim here.

Sure the Siegels are annoying because they are putting Superman in jeopardy, but they have legitimate claims because they created Superman and then went off to find a publisher for the character.

However, with the Kirbys, you have a cocky lawyer who was successful with Superman and he probably tricked them into thinking that they have a legit case when they clearly don't:

- Jack Kirby's contributions to Spider-Man were completely dropped from the character because Stan Lee hated them. Kirby deserves no credit at all for Spider-Man despite what the Kirbys and Marc Toberoff think.

- The Fantastic Four are very clearly a work for hire creation with Marvel going up to Stan Lee (as a Marvel employee) on the basis to create a superhero team book and he went to Jack Kirby for the art. Or by going by Jack Kirby's account saying that he came up with the concept in the Marvel offices and went to Stan Lee for dialog. The Kirbys have no legitimate case with the Fantastic Four.

- Jack Kirby signed away his future copyright rights with Captain America to Marvel and supported Marvel over Joe Simon when Joe Simon tried to obtain the Captain America copyright under his name. While Shuster and Siegel sold Superman to DC, they didn't give up their potential future copyright claims like Jack Kirby did. It's why they tried to sue DC Comics several times concerning the rights to the characters and why you see the Siegels and Shuster Estate coming out now and they're succeeding. Again, the Kirby's have no legitimate case.

- Jack Kirby's only influence on Iron Man is the design of the original Iron Man armor. Stan Lee came up with the idea, Don Heck designed most of the characters and did most of the art, and Larry Lieber wrote his first appearance. Why should the Kirbys and their lawyer grab Iron Man when the contributions of Iron Man's other credited creators did far more?

- Jack Kirby was assigned to Thor by Stan Lee. It's pretty clear that the Kirbys have no claim for Thor since he was approached by Marvel to work on a specific character.

- I can't find anything on the background of the creation of the Hulk and X-Men so I won't comment on them just yet. But in appearances, they too come off as work for hire creations since even if Jack Kirby wasn't an "official" Marvel employee, he was pretty much treated like one.

But yeah, overall it sounds like Kirbys claim on his Marvel creations is nowhere near as strong as the Siegels and Shuster Estates' claims on Superman. It sounds more like a greedy lawyer who caught wind of the Disney takeover of Marvel and convinced this family that they have a stronger case than they actually do have.

 

[Venom160]

oh Hippie Hunter comes in with logic and leaves them speechless. *highfive*

 

[hippie_hunter]

Disney will settle with them out of court. They have the cash, and they'll come to deal. Take the small cash deal, or lose big in the courts.

Time Warner has $9 billion in cash from spinning off Time Warner Cable and AOL, and they don't want to settle with the Siegels.

The Walt Disney Company also used a good chunk of their cash reserves to buy Marvel Entertainment and are looking to acquire a major video game publisher (Electronic Arts is constantly brought up due to it's EA Sports brand which would go perfectly with it's ESPN brand, and THQ is also brought up because it holds several Disney licenses like Marvel Super Hero Squad, most Pixar characters, and used to have the licenses to the Disney Princesses and Power Rangers). They want to use the cash for acquisitions not settling with families that have a rather flimsy case.

 

[Anubis]

So they'll probably just crush them horribly.

 

[yenaled]

It's not that we're siding with faceless multimillion dollar corporations, it's just that the Kirbys have a rather weak claim here.

Sure the Siegels are annoying because they are putting Superman in jeopardy, but they have legitimate claims because they created Superman and then went off to find a publisher for the character.

However, with the Kirbys, you have a cocky lawyer who was successful with Superman and he probably tricked them into thinking that they have a legit case when they clearly don't:

- Jack Kirby's contributions to Spider-Man were completely dropped from the character because Stan Lee hated them. Kirby deserves no credit at all for Spider-Man despite what the Kirbys and Marc Toberoff think.

- The Fantastic Four are very clearly a work for hire creation with Marvel going up to Stan Lee (as a Marvel employee) on the basis to create a superhero team book and he went to Jack Kirby for the art. Or by going by Jack Kirby's account saying that he came up with the concept in the Marvel offices and went to Stan Lee for dialog. The Kirbys have no legitimate case with the Fantastic Four.

- Jack Kirby signed away his future copyright rights with Captain America to Marvel and supported Marvel over Joe Simon when Joe Simon tried to obtain the Captain America copyright under his name. While Shuster and Siegel sold Superman to DC, they didn't give up their potential future copyright claims like Jack Kirby did. It's why they tried to sue DC Comics several times concerning the rights to the characters and why you see the Siegels and Shuster Estate coming out now and they're succeeding. Again, the Kirby's have no legitimate case.

- Jack Kirby's only influence on Iron Man is the design of the original Iron Man armor. Stan Lee came up with the idea, Don Heck designed most of the characters and did most of the art, and Larry Lieber wrote his first appearance. Why should the Kirbys and their lawyer grab Iron Man when the contributions of Iron Man's other credited creators did far more?

- Jack Kirby was assigned to Thor by Stan Lee. It's pretty clear that the Kirbys have no claim for Thor since he was approached by Marvel to work on a specific character.

- I can't find anything on the background of the creation of the Hulk and X-Men so I won't comment on them just yet. But in appearances, they too come off as work for hire creations since even if Jack Kirby wasn't an "official" Marvel employee, he was pretty much treated like one.

But yeah, overall it sounds like Kirbys claim on his Marvel creations is nowhere near as strong as the Siegels and Shuster Estates' claims on Superman. It sounds more like a greedy lawyer who caught wind of the Disney takeover of Marvel and convinced this family that they have a stronger case than they actually do have.

If the works are clearly work for hire, that should be proved in court and nothing is going to happen. If some of the works aren't then the Kirbys do have a legitimate claim to compensation and it's no-ones place to call them greedy *******s.

The big issue is when Martin Goodman was running Marvel he didn't keep very good records, Marvel need clear evidence of Jack Kirby being on a weekly payroll (like Stan Lee) or written contracts giving away all his rights (like Captain America). Without a contract, the Kirby heirs are within their rights to file for co-ownership. Artists in the eyes of the law, are considered independent contractors and the company paying them do not automatically own everything they do unless the artist explicitly signs away their rights.

Marvel were getting people to sign off in the 80s, the original art was actually considered a gift meaning it could be returned to the artist, Marvel needed to get people to sign off. Kirby did sign off a few (Eternals for example) but he did stop signing the release forms. There a story that his contracts were going to 5 pages long when they were normally one page. There is clearly more going on than we know.

It's a can of worms anyway, and I think an interesting can of worms. Who actually owns characters when created is far from being clear cut.

Take the case of Wolverine. Roy Thomas or Stan Lee came up with the name, Len Wein took that and made Wolverine (his claws were in his costume, he was not a mutant so no healing factor, just a short angry Government Agent who might have been a teenager), Herb Trimpe drew him originall issue but John Romita designed that original outfit, with Dave Cockrum coming up with the unmasked look and then Claremont's revision which became the character we know and when he became popular. Who do you attribute that creation to? At the moment Marvel give it to Len Wein.

Now we have Spider-Man. Which is actually far more complex (according to Joe Simon's book and Steve Ditko has confirmed this), Joe Simon produces a character called SilverSpider with CC Beck. He didn't like CCBeck's artwork so got Kirby in changed a lot of things himself including the name to SpiderMan (Teenager Timmy finds a magic ring and gets Spider powers). Eventually this gets changed to The Fly and gets published by Archie comics. Kirby takes the original SpiderMan pitch to Marvel, Stan buys it. When Ditko points out that it's a complete rip off of The Fly, Stan takes Kirby off the book and gives it to Ditko and again reworks it to make Spider-Man who we know now and when it becomes popular.

Then you have issues such as the Fantastic Four (2nd case here). It's not clear cut at all and I think it's kind of interesting that it's now all going to courts.

 

[Themanofbat]

What gets me is that they've added Spider-Man to the claim. Did the Kirbys get confused and think they were the Ditkos?

Joe Simon and Kirby came up with some "Spider-Man" ideas in the 50's that really never went anywhere... at least, nowhere near to what "Spider-Man" is today... but because Spider-Man is worth Billions, they want a piece of that lucrative pie...

I always find it ludicrous that the fans side with these faceless multimillion dollar companies.

Your precious characters aren't going anywhere the families just want some money that is deserved to them - you'd do exactly the same if you're grandfather was Jack Kirby and you weren't getting the money owed to your estate.

If my Grand-Father was Jack Kirby, I would hope to have a 59 issue run of Kamandi in my basement and take pleasure in knowing my pépére had created that awesome story... My family has done many great things in their lifetime, nowhere near as what Jack Kirby did, but I was taught to earn my place in this world, as opposed to sitting on my ass and letting a jot-shot lawyer getting some moolah from the works of my family.

So while you might do the same as the Kirby's, and thus, making you an ass, but I prefer to earn my way through life with the small hopes of maybe winning the lottery so I can travel extensively as well as finally getting my hands on an AF #15, the only Spider-Man comic I do not own (unlike that former Comic Mod whose rich car dealership daddy bought one for him )

 

[yenaled]

I don't know anything about the Kirbys, they could be the most perfect people in the world or complete wasters. I just thinks it's not our place to call them *******s for doing exactly what the law says they can and should be doing.

 

[Themanofbat]

I just want 59 issues of Kamandi in mint condition...

... plus whatever Annuals that might be involved.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

I just want 59 issues of Kamandi in mint condition...

... plus whatever Annuals that might be involved.

Hey, we agree on something, TMOB! I use to love Kamandi! (Being a huge Planet of the Apes fan probably helped)



Yes, I'm old.

 

[yenaled]

I just want 59 issues of Kamandi in mint condition...

... plus whatever Annuals that might be involved.

Don't we all

 

[iloveclones]

I'm kind of with yenaled. If we were talking about Kirby doing this instead of his grandkids, we'd all be cheering him on and talking about sticking it to the man. But the underlying facts would be the same, ownership rights to the property.

On the other hand, personally, I think the rights belong to Marvel. (This has nothing to so with the law, just my own opinion.) If Kirby came up with these characters on his own, in his basement, and self-published them, you never would have heard of them. He needed Marvel to publish them, distribute them, and pay him money while (or after if he was freelance) he came up with them. Marvel initially took all the risk. It's easy to rail at the evil corporations, but I doubt Kirby flushed their checks down the toilet.

All that said, I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep if Kirby's relatives manage to extract any cash out of the Mouse.

 

[roach]

Mickey:"We own Marvel now. You mess with them you get and you get me. I want you to drop the lawsuit and maybe something bad wont happen."
Kirby heirs:"You cant scare us. We have rights."
Mickey:"Rights? Rights? Of course you have rights. You have the right not to get your brain bashed in....but we wont threaten you. By the way hows little Timmy?"
Kirby heirs:"Timmy? How do you know about my son?"
Mickey:"Its a small world after all."

 

[Manic]

Zee mighty Valt Disney Reich vill crush you!
*clicks heels*
Hail Mickey!











and that's my one Nazi joke, I swear.

 

[iloveclones]

....just....couldn't....resist.....

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'm kind of with yenaled. If we were talking about Kirby doing this instead of his grandkids, we'd all be cheering him on and talking about sticking it to the man.

Eh, maybe. I know some of us would, but I doubt we all would to be honest

 

[Nathan]

I thought this was about getting the movie rights back.

I did at first too, then I read it and grew sad.

I would have much prefered THIS news.

Marvel suing to get their rights back was my first thought too. I was like "Wohoo! Finally!" And then I read what it was actually about.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This is a very tricky, complicated issue. I've generally tried to avoid commenting on this or similar legal issues, mainly because I'm just not knowledgable about the law and copyright, and don't want to say something stupid. So I'm not going to go into "who's right" or "who deserves what", just make some more general remarks.

I think, from a legal, historical perspective, cases such as this one or the Siegel/Superman one are fascinating, as in a way, they are the kind of copyright/ownership battles that are pretty much unique to the comic book medium. There really hasn't been anything else like this, and in future, I think the outcome of this court case - whatever that ends up being - will be viewed as a landmark moment in the evolution of the comic book artform.

If we look at comic books as an artform (I certainly do), it's a very new one, in the grand scheme of things. Though there were of course earlier examples, if we were to view "Action Comics #1" in 1938 as the beginning of the comic book as we know it today, it is only now that comic books are entering the territory of mediums such as art, theatre, poetry, novels or, more recently, cinema, as an artform that has endured beyond a human lifespan. Before too long, all the original creators will have passed on, yet their creations will remain. And although the historical precedent for characters that reach a grand old age is for them to become available to the public domain, is there really any precedent for such characters remaining in constant publication on a monthly basis, decade after decade, continuing on after the departure of their original writer under the umbrella of the company in which they were founded?

In a way, these enduring comic book icons were born out of chaos. "The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" is a book which wonderfully depicts this time in comic book history, where ideas were flourishing and people were just excitedly riding the zeitgeist and getting their ideas out there under whatever outlet they could, with the help of whoever would publish them, without any thought of how popular the superhero craze would become, nevermind where the characters would be after these creators were dead and gone. The Marvel and DC empires are castles built on shaky sand foundations, and over the decades they have become quite the sprawling, towering, labyrinthine structures, but now people are starting to poke around at those shaky foundations and start questioning whether these castles were really meant to last.

And that really is what makes this such a tricky situation. What other characters in other mediums have stories that are ongoing, where it's all connected and has a throughline from beginning to end, that have been going on 50, 60, 70 years? There just isn't a precedent that quite fits, and it's going to make how this all breaks down quite fascinating.

Historically, this is very important. As comics complete their ascension from disposable pulp printed on cheap paper into bonafide artform, there will be growing pains such as this, old frameworks broken down and new structures and standards formed. In future, I think the big winners might end up being creator-owned projects. "The Walking Dead", "Scalped", and co., the products of a single writer/artist team and therefore finite in length, might end up rising in prominence as we move forward into the next phase in comics history.

 

[roach]

I think I am gonna sue my dad's first job for all the work he did for them when he was a teenager

 

[deathshead2]

Time Warner has $9 billion in cash from spinning off Time Warner Cable and AOL, and they don't want to settle with the Siegels.

The Walt Disney Company also used a good chunk of their cash reserves to buy Marvel Entertainment and are looking to acquire a major video game publisher (Electronic Arts is constantly brought up due to it's EA Sports brand which would go perfectly with it's ESPN brand, and THQ is also brought up because it holds several Disney licenses like Marvel Super Hero Squad, most Pixar characters, and used to have the licenses to the Disney Princesses and Power Rangers). They want to use the cash for acquisitions not settling with families that have a rather flimsy case.

It'll most likely just cost them more in the long wrong. And Disney settles all the time.

 

[DACMAN]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_en_ot/us_marvel_kirby_lawsuit

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think I am gonna sue my dad's first job for all the work he did for them when he was a teenager

Yep, that's basically what this is. Bunch'a freeloaders is what they are.

 

[iloveclones]

"Sadly, Jack died without proper compensation, credit or recognition for his lasting creative contributions," the statement said.

In Fantastic Four, Kirby was actually portrayed as god. I don't know if you can get much more credit than that. That definately tops the list of "Ridiculous Lawyerspeak Hyperbole"