Marvel does it again

[DMenacer]

Has everyone knows, Marvel is sue happy about their copyrights but this time they are taking it to far. Marvel has decided to sue Jack Kilbys family for complete rights to the characters that he created. The copyright laws say that he was part owner of what he creates awhile working at Marvel but Marvel say that anything he created awhile working for them belongs to Marvel.This will be one for the record books as Marvel heads to court again but this time they might not get want the way they want it.

[GhostMachine]

I wasn't aware Jack Kilby died....

Seriously, though, its just Marvel firing back as a response to a bs suit Jack Kirby's estate was either planning or had already filed. The suit by Kirby's family had some questionable things in it, because its believed that they were trying to acquire rights to characters Kirby had either already signed away the rights to or had jack squat or not much to do with the creation of. Jack Kirby actually signed away any claim to Captain America to Marvel when they were dealing with a suit by Joe Simon over the character, and Kirby's estate was trying to lay some claim to Spider-Man, when there's proof that Kirby had very little, if anything, to do with the creation of. Kirby's contribution to Spider-Man's creation is that he suggested the idea of a teenager living with an elderly couple, and *maybe* suggesting the Spider-Man name....which was actually Joe Simon's idea, NOT Kirby's; Simon and Kirby created a hero back in the 1950's called the Silver Spider that was never published, but Simon changed the name from Spider-Man to the Silver Spider. And if the name Spider-Man was Simon's idea, not Kirby's, I fail to see how Kirby's estate could have ANY claim.

Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created Spider-Man, NOT Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby.

Frankly, I think Kirby's estate would have more of a chance of winning a lawsuit against DC over the Fourth World characters.

[lugaru]

Frankly, I think Kirby's estate would have more of a chance of winning a lawsuit against DC over the Fourth World characters.

I keep thinking that myself, but I doubt they will salivate over those characters unless they can be liscenced. It sucks that Kirby was not super wealthy during his lifetime, but I trust his relatives about as much as I trust those of Frazetta.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/11/frazetta-theft-son.html?ref=rss

In other words I wish Jack would have had wealth to leave his family, but they should not feel entitled to what he did not have.

[yell0w_lantern]

I wish I had a talented but dead relative to sponge off of, you know, rather work for a living. Or maybe if I could be famous for just having too many kids at once...

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Except the Fourth World Characters just aren't as important as Spiderman or Captain America.  DC actually tried to kill them all off just a while ago.  They could all just disappear and the DC universe would get along just fine without them.  No doubt the family knows that, which is why they aren't going after them.  In fact, that may have been the reason why they tried to kill them off in the first place.

[deano_ue]

DMenacer you are having a go at the wrong people. for once marvel is in the right. this came to light because of the whole Shuster & Seigel case. they created superman off there own bat and then published him through dc, so they owned the character

kirby worked for marvel when he and stan created the characters. so the characters were property of marvel from the start. kirby as much as a legend he was, was simply a hired artist any name could have been on the comics. marvel owns the characters.

i just find it funny how the relatives didn't give a crap when they comics were being made into toys, cartoons, video games, yet once iron man hit big at the box office they jump on the band wagon

if the family is sincere in wanting to get kirby his credit(which is strange cause both dc and marvel have went out of they're way to credit him) then fair play but this reeks of a get rich quick scheme

[JKCarrier]

kirby worked for marvel when he and stan created the characters. so the characters were property of marvel from the start.

Stan was an employee of Marvel; Kirby was not. He was freelancer, just as Siegel and Shuster were.

i just find it funny how the relatives didn't give a crap when they comics were being made into toys, cartoons, video games, yet once iron man hit big at the box office they jump on the band wagon

This is not a new thing. Kirby was in a constant battle with Marvel over rights and credit and original art for most of the latter part of his life.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Here's an article with more about it.  Apparently they are responding to the kirby family who just filed notice that they were rescinding copyright on various character 45 time, including the x-men, Spiderman, and the Incredible Hulk.  I'm pretty sure Stan Lee created all of those, but they want sole copyright.  Apparently the success of movies with those characters is indeed part of the reason.

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

[Ares_God_of_War]

Did Kirby have any part of the x-men?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Some quick research says that that Stan and Kirby co-created both the X-men and the Incredible Hulk.  That being the case, there's no way Kirby's family deserves full ownership of those characters.  If their contention is correct, than they would be co-owners of those characters along with Stan Lee, not full owners, but they apparently don't care about Stan.

[Ares_God_of_War]

So think they will use Stan in this or no since he would have to say "co-created" and have them get something out of it.

[JKCarrier]

Some quick research says that that Stan and Kirby co-created both the X-men and the Incredible Hulk.  That being the case, there's no way Kirby's family deserves full ownership of those characters.  If their contention is correct, than they would be co-owners of those characters along with Stan Lee, not full owners, but they apparently don't care about Stan.

Stan's situation is different from Jack's -- Stan was a salaried employee of the company, while Jack was a freelancer. Generally speaking, if you're creating material as an employee, the company is going to own it. But if you're an outside independent contractor, you own it yourself. I used to work in the art department of a home goods company, creating artwork for various products. In addition to the artwork we generated ourselves "in house", we also licensed art from outside freelancers. The freelancers owned the copyright on their work, and would get royalty payments, etc., which I did not. On the other hand, I got a steady paycheck, health benefits, 401K, paid vacations, etc. that the freelancers didn't get. For a long time, the comics publishers tried to have it both ways -- they treated the artists as freelancers (not paying any benefits), but they also acted as if the artists were employees (had no rights to the material they created). That's B.S.

As for who created what, it depends on who you ask. Stan says the initial ideas for the characters were his. Jack says they were all his ideas, and all Stan ever did was edit. Steve Ditko has made similar claims (although he doesn't seem to be interested in claiming copyrights, just establishing credit). Who ya gonna believe? We'll see what the courts think.

[deano_ue]

kirby worked for marvel when he and stan created the characters. so the characters were property of marvel from the start.

Stan was an employee of Marvel; Kirby was not. He was freelancer, just as Siegel and Shuster were.

freelance or not, it all depends on what way the deal was done at the time, if the agreement kirby signed says he released all copyright then his family has no case.

[GhostMachine]

kirby worked for marvel when he and stan created the characters. so the characters were property of marvel from the start.

Stan was an employee of Marvel; Kirby was not. He was freelancer, just as Siegel and Shuster were.

freelance or not, it all depends on what way the deal was done at the time, if the agreement kirby signed says he released all copyright then his family has no case.

The big difference is that Siegel and Shuster created Superman BEFORE they worked for DC, not after.

Like I said before, though, any claim they try to make as far as Captain America is concerned should be tossed out, and I'd say the same regarding Spider-Man, as any contributions - if any - Kirby made to the character's creation were minimal. They didn't even use the (lame) costume he designed for the character, and if he did give Stan the name he likely got it from Joe Simon rather than coming up with it himself. Kirby apparently did design the Amazing Spider-Man logo, however.

Apparently they may have valid claims toward the Incredible Hulk and the original X-Men, though.

From everything I've read about Jack Kirby over the years, my belief is that he was simply bitter because he believed he didn't get the credit he deserved....which he didn't actually deserve, in most cases. Marvel did screw him over as far as returning artwork was concerned, but if he was just an artist and didn't have an actual hand in creating the characters he worked on, I fail to see what right his estate would have to those characters.

Let me put it this way: If I create a character for a comic as a writer, and I create every detail of that character then go out and hire some artist to draw the comic, why should they get any credit for that character's creation UNLESS they actually design the character's appearance? And even then I don't think they'd even have any right to that character EXCEPT their appearance...and a costume change is a fairly easy way to deal with that.

Frankly, I believe this is all moot, anyway. I don't see the Kirby estate having any chance of winning, and Disney/Marvel would be stupid to settle, as they could keep this tied up in court for years.

[JKCarrier]

Let me put it this way: If I create a character for a comic as a writer, and I create every detail of that character then go out and hire some artist to draw the comic, why should they get any credit for that character's creation

That's not how Stan Lee worked, though. Stan did not "create every detail". He would give, at most, a very brief written or verbal synopsis, and then Jack (or whoever the artist was) would take that nugget and expand it into a full story. Then once the pencils were done, Stan would go back in and add the dialogue. If you've ever seen the original art from a Lee/Kirby comic, you'll see that Jack has written notes in the margins, basically explaining to Stan what was going on in the story.

In his book, Son Of Origins Of Marvel Comics, Stan talks about Jack bringing in the art for the first Galactus story. On the pages, there was this weird silvery-looking guy scooting around on a surfboard, and Stan asks, "Who the heck is that?". Jack had come up with the idea of Galactus having a herald, and put it in. And considering how central the Silver Surfer was to the story, it appears Jack came up with the majority of the plot as well. I suspect this was not an isolated incident.

[BlueBard]

Disney/Marvel indeed has deep enough pockets for the legal issues... and I don't see the Marvel Kingdom giving up any of the major properties they paid for without a fight.

What will probably happen is, The Mouse of Ideas will settle on any issue where there is a legitimate question once the Kirby estate is made to understand that they are not getting everything they want.  They are not going to risk losing rights over anything with any significant revenue attached to it.  

That assumes that the estate can prove what Kirby did and did not do... but based on what I'm hearing it doesn't sound like they have that kind of proof.

[BentonGrey]

Yeah GM, give the King his due.  This lawsuit may be fairly bogus, but Marvel did sorta' deal Kirby pretty dirty.  He had a right to be bitter.  This isn't about that, though, since the man himself has passed away.  He did have a pretty equal partnership with Stan Lee, as JKC pointed out.  He was certainly not "just" an artist.

[GhostMachine]

Yeah GM, give the King his due.  This lawsuit may be fairly bogus, but Marvel did sorta' deal Kirby pretty dirty.  He had a right to be bitter.  This isn't about that, though, since the man himself has passed away.  He did have a pretty equal partnership with Stan Lee, as JKC pointed out.  He was certainly not "just" an artist.

I wasn't trying to say that Kirby was just an artist. Guess I just used a bad example. What I was trying to say is that I believe Kirby himself even believed he deserved more credit for some things he actually didn't. And I do admit that I forgot all about him creating the Silver Surfer. There are some characters its known for a fact he created, like Devil Dinosaur, the Eternals and Machine Man, that his family would have a better chance of getting the rights to than Marvel's top tier heroes, sadly.

But I actually do believe that Kirby's heirs would have a better chance suing DC over the Fourth World characters, like I said before. Even though they're far less marketable...and profitable. But considering that includes Darkseid.....

[Tawodi Osdi]

My views on this and similar arguments would probably anger a lot of people, but here goes.  First, the legal ownership any fictional representation can only be determined by the original contracts.  That isn't necessarily fair, but it is the only thing the law can decide on, and sadly, any verbal agreements would be worth the paper they are written on.

Morally or ethically, people should live according to all of their agreements.  If the original intent of Lee, Ditko, and Kirby had actually worked with the agreement that they were co-creating, they should have worked out a mutually beneficial arrangement in case of the split.  If they were creating for the Marvel, they would lose rights as the left the company, but in all cases, rights should be determined by what was explicitly agreed upon and not what was implicitly assumed.  Since none of us was in the room when these three were creating comic books, none of us can really be sure what is truly right in this case.

Now, for the controversial part, I think that the copyright law as it stands is a the problem.  The current law states that a copyright holder holds a copyright for 28 years and can be extended by another 67 years once.  The previous law was 28 plus 28 while the original law was only 14 years.  I think the current laws allows corporations and estates hold intellectual property too long and violate the original intent of copyright law which is to encourage creativity.  I think the current law works in reverse.  I think it stifles creativity and, ultimately, hurts fans.  I think copyright protections should be one 28 year period which is long enough to cover a reasonable working life of the original creator if he retains ownership and a chance within his life to have additional access to the character if he sold or gave away the rights while younger.

How this would play out is that a copyright in comic books is that ownership of any particular rendition of a character or storyline is held for 28 years and then in goes into the public domain; so if a fanboy wanted to right Superman stories, he could right using elements of the character that is 28 years or older.  He'd be able to have Krypton, Lois Lane, and The Daily Planet, but he couldn't have the Reign of the Supermen stuff.  This would also mean that if DC wanted to maintain market share, they had better produce better stories than what fanboys could right.  This would also mean that each of us could right or read the stories we really want to see.  I could go further and site more examples of the benefits of weaker copyright laws, but I am tired and starting to fade.  Let the flaming begin.

[stumpy]

Tawodi, I wouldn't expect many flames. Many people (myself included) expressed similar opinions in a thread on the at-least-somewhat similar Superman copyright litigation over the Summer. Seems like plenty of people were on pretty much the same page and I don't think there was any clamor to run them out of town on a rail.  

Extending the comments I made in that earlier thread, I would note that the changes to copyright law, IMO, encourage this sort of litigation because it provides a chance for the estates to get something quite valuable at relatively little opportunity cost, besides the expense of hiring attorneys.

All that being said, I don't know what the agreement was between Kirby and Marvel. The point you made about the importance of having the agreements be both explicit and recorded is quite valid. But, in the absence of such agreements, the courts are stuck arbitrating disputes. Throw into the mix changes in the law and there is even more trouble, since then even an agreement that was clear at the time might now be effectively rewritten (or unwritten) by a new law.

[yell0w_lantern]

Teach them both a lesson and make the characters public domain. If anyone really has a right to them it is the people who have loved them and given them their fame, the fans.

[thalaw2]

Yes!  there should be a lot of Disney characters that are public domain by now.  Marvl should also make characters public domain and stop hogging money.  Disney still makes tons of money off characters that are not their own creation, taken from public domain, so they should also give back.