••

If this is such an important point, why did Kirby run his own company the same as early Marvel? No credits, no royalties, no return of artwork?

To my mind, the defense of Kirby stumbles very badly on that point.

••

Corporations are NOT treated like people. The whole uproar over the return of Kirby's art, for instance, happened because the LAW CHANGED. The Constitution of the United States forbids this kind of retroactive law making -- if tomorrow it becomes illegal to wear a blue sweater, you cannot be arrested for wearing a blue sweater yesterday -- but corporations enjoy no such protection.

The families of Seigel and Shuster contesting with DC over ownership of Superman springs also from changing laws.

Let's see...editor-in-chief who was a constant cheerleader for Marvel and stays with the company...is treated better than writer/artist who leaves to work elsewhere.. 

Yes...no company would ever be act in such a manner.

••

People I have talked to who worked for Kirby, have different memories than did Roz. Take that for what you will. Since return of artwork did not become common until the Seventies, I am inclined to doubt.

As to Kirby's art being "held hostage" -- not at all. What was happening "contrary to the standards of the time" was that Kirby (or his lawyers) were insisting return of artwork implied relinquishing of ownership. Which was VERY "contrary to the standards of the time". The artwork COULD NOT be released under those "conditions".

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Steve Ditko signed the appropriate paperwork, and all his artwork (that survived, or had not been stolen) was returned.

••

Years ago, Peter Sanderson wondered what would have happened if Stan had left and Jack had stayed. Who would then be "Good Marvel Daddy" and who would be "Bad Marvel Daddy"?

If Kirby had stayed, do you really imagine he would have been meek and unassuming in his role as EiC? That the books published under his watch would NOT bear something akin to "JACK KIRBY PRESENTS"? This is the guy who tried to claim creation of Spider-Man as all his own, remember.

(Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with STAN LEE PRESENTS on the books. As Editor in Chief and later Publisher, what was he doing, if not "presenting" these tales?)

Criticzing Stan for "STAN LEE PRESENTS..." is like criticizing....oh it's just too stupid. 

As already pointed out...Stan was the guy who gave Jack and others credit for all they did.  And his reward for that is for some people today to say Stan did nothing creatively and stole the credit from others. 

People I have talked to who worked for Kirby, have different memories than did Roz. Take that for what you will. Since return of artwork did not become common until the Seventies, I am inclined to doubt.

As to Kirby's art being "held hostage" -- not at all. What was happening "contrary to the standards of the time" was that Kirby (or his lawyers) were insisting return of artwork implied relinquishing of ownership. Which was VERY "contrary to the standards of the time". The artwork COULD NOT be released under those "conditions".

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Steve Ditko signed the appropriate paperwork, and all his artwork (that survived, or had not been stolen) was returned.

+++

Kirby insisted at the time that it was Marvel who kept bringing up the ownership issue in regards to the art return. Kirby was willing to sign the same release as everyone else, and in fact had signed the same release when he returned to Marvel in the Seventies. He objected to Marvel's insistence on an expanded release. He rightly believed the issues of credit and ownership were separate from the return of what was legally his property. It wasn't a case of wanting to be treated better and I don't think he can be blamed for not wanting to be treated worse. 

Do you know if Ditko signed a standard release, or an expanded version?