| Author |
|
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 11:45am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Well, I can certainly see how Marvel sucked for exploiting the people who worked for them (and in some cases broke agreements with them), but I don't think that Kirby's heirs have a solid legal case. In some ways, even though Kirby certainly got short-changed, this looks more like a nuisance suit, where Kirby's heirs hope that public opinion, or the possible negative press surrounding the suit will force a profitable settlement in a case they have no chance of winning on its merits. And on principle, I don't think that's right. Certainly, we should fight for creator's rights and we should support those who currently fight for equitable participation in the profits of their creative work, whether it's in the comics industry, the movie industry or elsewhere. But a suit that overreaches like this one (going so far as to lay unwarranted claim to Steve Ditko and Stan Lee's creation - Spider-man) does not help the fight for creator's rights. What about the rights they try to wrest away from Ditko? The fact that he doesn't seek any part of them doesn't give Kirby's heirs the right to stake a claim that reduces the claim Ditko would otherwise have had.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Papandrea
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 647
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Where does Stan Lee stand in all this? Does he own any portion of the rights to these characters? Or are all these characters copyrighted to Marvel? If Stan Lee doesn't hold any of the copyrights, (and Marvel does) - then the Kirby family are out of luck.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31160
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Stan signed away any claim he might've had on the characters sometime around when the 1st Spider-Man movie came out. IIRC, he gets a million bucks a year for the rest of his life from Marvel, and he never tries to claim any ownership of any of the characters. They also gave him the chairman emeritus title.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3091
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 1:51pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Knut, again we agree. As a matter of principal, I don't think shakedowns and nuisance suits are right either. In practice, I'll probably be fine with it in this particular case.
Without seeing the actual paperwork Kirby signed, it's impossible to judge the merits of the case, and therefore presumptuous to judge the Kirby family's motives. You're assuming a cut-and-dried legal title, in an industry, and with a company, never known for its paperwork. Sure, Kirby "knew the deal" but that doesn't secure Marvel anything.
For all we know, Kirby's family has legal justification for asserting copyright or voiding past agreements. Maybe the agreements Marvel and Kirby signed didn't cover this copyright renewal. Perhaps the rumors were true, and Kirby wasn't in possession of all his mental faculties when he signed whatever he signed in the 80's. Maybe they will argue he signed under duress. Maybe Spider-Man is included in this case because he was included in prior agreements.
Kirby helped create a company worth $4 billion dollars, and waspaid comparatively little, while his principal collaborator has been paid millions. Meanwhile, Marvel has played its share of copyright andtrademark hardball over the years (such as back-of-checkcontracts), and having lived by the sword, they may die by the sword.
Of course, "die" is a strong word. The worst thing that will happen in this case is that the Walt Disney Company hands some money to the heirs of a man whose work built a company they paid $4 billion for, so Disney can enjoy copyrights that would otherwise have lapsed in 2014 (and enjoy them forever). Disney will find the money somewhere, perhaps functioning as a doorstop.
The ethics and practices of the comic book industry were historically neanderthal and proto-gangster. I won't begrudge the family of a man who helped build the modern comic book industry their attempt to use the last legal redress available to them.
It's a shame this isn't likely to go to trial, because you know discovery would be very educational.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Paul Simpson Simpson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 939
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 2:35pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I find it kind of ironic that the Kirby heirs,who are trying so hard to get Mr.Kirby credit for his creations are themselves trying to take the credit for Spider-Man away from Mr.Lee and Mr.Ditko.Don't get me wrong. I hope that the Kirby family does get some cash out of this. I just don't think they deserve a penny for Spider-Man.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31160
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I hope that the Kirby family does get some cash out of this. ***************** Why would this be?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Simpson Simpson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 939
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 3:33pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Maybe if they get some money the family and their most vocal supporters will stop bad mouthing Stan Lee.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 3:41pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
It's likely that the case will be resolved by a settlement, or failing that, on a motion for summary judgment. It might be resolved purely on the language of whatever document Kirby signed. If not, for historical purposes, it's almost a shame it won't go to trial, because we're unlikely to ever have the chance to read any depositions of potential witnesses Stan Lee, Joe Simon, and Steve Ditko.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Laren Farmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 4:05pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
The people who are bad mouthing Stan will likely never stop bad mouthing Stan. It ticks me off. I hope the Kirby heirs get nothing and have to pay all court costs and huge legal bills. My sentiment is due to them including Spider-Man in their claims. They threw all their credibility out the window there.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Paul Simpson Simpson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 939
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The people who are bad mouthing Stan will likely never stop bad mouthing Stan. You are probably right. Sadly to many Kirby supporters Stan will always be Satan. The worse part of it all is I have never read a interview with Stan where he didn't give credit to Kirby, but I've read several interviews with Kirby where he denies Stan any credit for their creations. I had to quit reading The Jack Kirby Collector because of this kind of crap.That and the cheap shots they took at Mr.Byrne.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg McPhee
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5088
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 7:26pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The Spider-Man arguement blew them out the water for me. Where does this one leave Steve Ditko?? Can he claim The X-Men, Iron Man, etc..
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
|
| Posted: 10 January 2010 at 9:32pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Let's not turn this into another Stan vs. Jack thread, or even a Steve vs. Jack thread. Been there, done that, done that, done that, done that, and--sorry, got carried away. This is a suit about what legal right, if any, Kirby's estate has to the former Marvel, now Disney characters. This isn't about critical assignment of literary credit in the eyes of the fans.
And Greg, Steve Ditko, like anybody else, can go to court and claim whatever he wants. So far, he hasn't gone to court and claimed Spiderman, let alone the X-Men and Iron Man, but I would say if there were a factual basis for believing that he brought the names "X-Men" and "Iron Man" to Stan and drew four or five pages of each before Stan turned the titles over to Kirby, then his claim would stand on exactly the same basis as Kirby's.
What the court and the fans have in common is that none of them were there when these characters were created. Unlike the fans, the court will presumably hear evidence under oath from some of the people who were.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
