Author |
|
Ed Love Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 05 October 2004 Location: United States Posts: 2712
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 7:30am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Bill Finger swiped as much as Kane did, lifting scenes, names and even whole plots and characters from the pulps. I even came across an earlier equivalent of the Joker's gas in a story (and filmed as a serial with Houdini) by Arthur B. Reeves. Also has a "robot" referred to as a superman at one point. I find it interesting that nowadays it's popular to throw Kane down and lift Finger up without really acknowledging up front that he was cribbing just as much.
Many times when I look at what had come before Superman, I think the character was pretty much inevitable. The term was used quite frequently and there had been so many predecessors that are largely forgotten today, of people with super-strength and endurance as well as characters, heroes and villains, that wore stylized costumes. Spring-Heeled Jack, the Human Bat, Night Wind, Hugo Hercules, Hugo Danner, John Carter (and if you look at the drawings of Allan St. John and imagine Superman in bw, very similar...a line across the wrists and the bare chest and legs becomes tights, a roughly triangular shield across the chest), Doc Savage, the Phantom, the works of Johnston McCully and Frank Packard, Flash Gordon. There's the Amazing Stories pulp that introduced the world to the Skylark of Space as well as Anthony "Buck" Rogers and possessed a cover of a flying man in a tight red bodysuit. Siegel and Shuster both list it as inspiring them before they met. So does writer Ray Bradbury.
![](uploads/EdLove/2012-10-19_071910_amazing_Stories_buck_rogers.jpg)
The 1932 movie Chandu the Magician at one point features the hero with mystic powers looking very much like a superhero, decked out in exotic garb complete with cape! Starring also Bela Lugosi as the super-villain/mad scientist Roxor who wore all black. When I first saw this movie, I was struck by how much of a superhero movie it was: exotic locations, super powers, distinctive looking hero and villain, super science, secret lairs, magic, comedy relief loyal sidekick. It has it all.
![](uploads/EdLove/2012-10-19_070020_chandu.jpg)
Edited by Ed Love on 19 October 2012 at 11:04am
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
Bill Guerra Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BillGuerra/2012-06-25_191558_avatar.jpg)
Joined: 29 March 2012 Location: United States Posts: 1072
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 7:59am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
The only person who should make any money off of characters that they created are the creators themselves. Why would their kids and/or grandchildren be paid anything for that?? I've never understood that line of thought. When you get right down to it, all the creators were adults who signed contracts and understood what they were doing. In the case of Superman, the character was sold outright to the company. Case closed. It seems to me that its usually the estates of the creators who keep demanding money from the companies that they feel they are entitled to. It comes across as, "My grandfather created (insert character name) and I want to be paid money for it!" That's essentially a cash grab.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Clifford Boudreaux Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/avatars/jbf_default_avatar.png)
Joined: 19 July 2012 Posts: 443
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 8:13am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
When you get right down to it, all the creators were adults who signed contracts and understood what they were doing. In the case of Superman, the character was sold outright to the company. Case closed.
Were the people who ran these companies not also adults who knew the rules when they published these books all those years ago. None of them could have expected they'd still own the copyrights of these characters in 2012.
Now, their corporate descendants go to court and lobby Congress to ensure those rules never apply to them.
When they successful change the rules and the Siegels successfully use those new rules to gain ownership of half of Superman, they just went back to court. And after over a decade of losing every court case on the matter (because the Siegels have an iron-clad case), they resort to trying to get the decision tossed out on a technicality involving the lawyer, who wasn't even working on the case when the Siegels refused the offer they're now trying to force them to accept.
How many bites of the apple do they get?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Anthony Frail Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/AnthonyFrail/2009-04-17_094914_johnbyrne.jpg)
Joined: 09 October 2007 Posts: 960
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 8:36am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
Because that wasn't the deal. There's an old saying, "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding." The old deal was a crummy deal, but it was the only deal in town (unless, like Eisner, you were prepared to incur all the risks of striking out on your own, or, like that "money grubbing bastard" Bob Kane you had a smart lawyer). And more importantly IT WAS NOT A SECRET. Everybody knew what they were getting into. |
|
|
I'm surprised to see you take this stance, considering that you're a proponent of royalties from original artwork even when a royalty agreement wasn't arranged before the original piece was sold. "If the work continues to generate income, why shouldn't the original creator of the piece be entitled to a portion of that income? How is this any different from an actor receiving royalties from a movie? No further work is done, yet each time the movie makes money, the actor gets a piece of it. Peggy Lee famously sued Disney (and WON!!) for additional royalties based on "new media" that did not exist when she did the original work.* Once a piece of artwork is sold, it becomes a commodity, just like a movie. And just like a movie, it can continue to generate income. Dave Cockrum died in near poverty, while pages and covers from his X-MEN run continued to rise to astronomical prices. You really, really, really, really feel Dave was not deserving of even a tiny portion of that? Not even scraps from the table?" THREAD: Original art pricing, page 2 "You don't think artists should get a piece of subsequent sales. We're all clear on that. Let 'em starve in the gutter. Fuck 'em. They got their pittance up front and that's all they deserve. Now go away." THREAD: Original art pricing, page 3
Why do you feel this situation is different?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133139
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 8:45am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Because that wasn't the deal.There's an old saying, "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding." The old deal was a crummy deal, but it was the only deal in town (unless, like Eisner, you were prepared to incur all the risks of striking out on your own, or, like that "money grubbing bastard" Bob Kane you had a smart lawyer). And more importantly IT WAS NOT A SECRET. Everybody knew what they were getting into.++ I'm surprised to see you take this stance, considering that you're a proponent of royalties from original artwork even when a royalty agreement wasn't arranged before the original piece was sold. •• No, I am not. I have said on many occasions that I think resale of artwork should generate income for the creator of the artwork. I have not once, in any of the instances where this has come up, said this should be instituted RETROACTIVELY. If you're going to hang on my every word, you might want to pay attention to what the words SAY.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Jason Czeskleba Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JasonCzeskleba/2010-07-26_225245_new2.jpg)
Joined: 30 April 2004 Posts: 4613
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 11:50am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Bill Guerra wrote:
The only person who should make any money off of characters that they created are the creators themselves. Why would their kids and/or grandchildren be paid anything for that?? I've never understood that line of thought. |
|
|
If a creator owns a character, shouldn't he be able to pass on the ownership rights to his children? How is that any different than a corporation passing ownership of a character down to other corporate entities?
In the case of Superman we're not debating whether it was work-for-hire or suggesting DC should give the heirs money out of the goodness of their hearts (as is the case with all the Kirby discussions). Siegel and Shuster owned the character. They sold the rights to DC. The law says that in that scenario a creator or their estate can petition to reclaim copyright after the initial 56 years go by.
QUOTE:
When you get right down to it, all the creators were adults who signed contracts and understood what they were doing. In the case of Superman, the character was sold outright to the company. Case closed. |
|
|
In the case of Superman, the character was sold outright to the company for the existing term of copyright, which was then 56 years maximum. DC knew that was the copyright term, and they had no expectation they would own the character beyond that point. When Kinney bought the company in 1968, they also knew that the copyright would expire in 1994. They were adults and they knew what they were doing too, and they had no reason to expect they would own the character beyond 1994. If the law changes and copyright is extended, why should that benefit automatically go to the current rights holder? They got what they paid for.
Let's say I own a condo, and I decide to sell you a long-term lease to the property. But the condo association has a rule that no leases may last longer than five years. So we make a deal and you pay me for a five-year lease. Three years later, the association changes the rules and says that now leases can be up to ten years long. Does that mean that I should have to automatically extend your lease to ten years without you paying me anything additional? I know that's not an exact analogy... it's impossible to make an exact analogy between physical and intellectual property because ownership of the former is usually permanent while the latter always has an expiration date.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 19 October 2012 at 11:51am
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133139
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Slight tangent:One of the things I sometimes find troubling is that the Constitution of the United States protects individuals from retroactive laws, but corporations have no such protection. Thus, if tomorrow it becomes illegal to wear a red sweater, you cannot be arrested for wearing a red sweater last week. But if a corporation manufactures red sweaters, and tomorrow a law is passed requiring royalties be payed to the people who run the knitting machines, workers who ran the machines decades ago can make claims. I first became aware of this when a former neighbor, then a corporate VP, found himself battling the government over newly passed legislation that affected things his corporation had done decades before, which were completely legal when they were done!* Track that if you can! A company had done normal business procedures which were completely legal (and, contextually, not even "immoral"), but decades later the government had decided to make those things illegal, and the company was being called to task for what they had done! _____ * To complicate matters, it wasn't even his corporation that had done those things back when they were legal. It was a company his corporation had bought. The extra insanity was that these changed laws, thru retroactive enforcement, were forcing the company my friend worked for to spend millions of dollars and, as a result, having to shut down the factories they had bought, even tho they were no longer doing the things now deemed illegal, thus devastating the local economy!
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133139
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The matter of who takes the risks has been brought up, and this is a point I have been making for many years. Being called a corporate stooge, in fact, for making the point!Whenever we hear about "creator's rights" -- a concept I fully support -- we seem almost never to hear about what I have dubbed "creator's wrongs". I coined this term back when Steve Gerber was suing Marvel for the rights to Howard the Duck. If he won, I asked, would he turn back some of the money he was paid to cover any losses Marvel might have incurred from publishing OMEGA THE UNKNOWN?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Andrew W. Farago Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/AndrewWFarago/2007-02-09_191852_user_icon.jpg)
Joined: 19 July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 4079
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
The only person who should make any money off of characters that they created are the creators themselves. Why would their kids and/or grandchildren be paid anything for that?? I've never understood that line of thought.
Want to know why Jack Kirby worked so much harder than everyone else around him? Sure, he seemed to have more ideas in his head than anybody, but above all, he wanted to provide for his family. That meant providing for his parents while they were still around, then for his wife, then for his kids, and then for his grandkids. Yeah, all he ever signed on for was a page rate, but I'm sure he always wanted more for his heirs than bragging rights about their dad's accomplishments.
It's sad to me that if you were to make a list of people who've earned the most money from Jack Kirby's characters, Jack himself probably doesn't crack the top 100. Joss Whedon, Kenneth Brannagh, Stan Lee, probably any number of comic creators to come along once royalties were instituted, art dealers selling Kirby pages that were never returned to him, the guy who played Kirby in ARGO who was onscreen for about eight seconds... All these people cleaning up, and Jack's kids can't even expect comp copies of his books whenever Marvel reprints them.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Robert Bradley Byrne Robotics Member
![Avatar](http://images.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/RobertBradley/2011-07-07_151732_GiantMan.jpg)
Joined: 20 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 4860
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:29pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
But to what degree are they "Jack Kirby's characters"? Did he create them by himself? Did he develop them over the years to what they were in the movies or are in the current comics?
Even if you ignore the "work for hire" arrangement (which is difficult since Simon & Kirby also hired people to work for their studio under the same terms), how do you decide which percentage of Thor is Jack Kirby? How much is Stan Lee? Walt Simonson?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133139
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:34pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
…how do you decide which percentage of Thor is Jack Kirby?•• I was amused, reading the recent SHOWCASE edition of TALES OF THE UNEXPECTED, to find a Jack Kirby illustrated story in which some Native Americans find Thor's hammer lying in the desert. Altho Thor himself, when he turns up, has almost nothing on common with the Marvel version, the hammer is identical.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133139
|
Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:40pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Want to know why Jack Kirby worked so much harder than everyone else around him? Sure, he seemed to have more ideas in his head than anybody, but above all, he wanted to provide for his family. That meant providing for his parents while they were still around, then for his wife, then for his kids, and then for his grandkids. Yeah, all he ever signed on for was a page rate, but I'm sure he always wanted more for his heirs than bragging rights about their dad's accomplishments.•• Then, once again, WHY DIDN'T HE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Why was Mainline run the same as every other company? Sure, if Kirby had organized Mainline along more "modern" lines, he would have been a voice crying in the wilderness, but at least years later he would have been able to point to that and say "I tried!" instead of "Why should these rules apply to ME?" Dikto had far more to do with putting Marvel on the map, yet he has remained silent, EXCEPT WHEN KIRBY HAS TRIED TO STEAL HIS CREDIT. Ditko may be angry, he may be bitter, he may spend his every waking hour cursing a cruel Fate -- but he keeps it to himself. He made the same deal, and he honors it. That is a position I can respect.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
|
|