| Author |
|
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 11:55am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I'm not criticizing anyone for "STAN LEE PRESENTS!!!" But it's silly to say that Kirby deserved what he got and nothing more, because he owned a company that published four comics decades before creator's rights became an issue, while Stan deserved his name on every Marvel comic book and a life of luxury.
Last I checked, Stan's reward was millions of dollars and a pension for him and his wife. I think he can live with straw man contempt from Kirby fans. His creative contribution to Marvel, and thus his financial contribution, ended around the same time as Kirby's. I'm not sure his decades spent as toastmaster and losing money in Hollywood are enough to balance the scales.
A better book than Marvel: The Untold Story would have settled all this, am I right?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
In fairness to Marvel, I just remembered that Roz Kirby also received a pension near the end of her life.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4044
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 12:09pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
What about Stan Lee being treated so much better than Kirby and
everybody else? In my mind, any defense of Marvel stumbles on that
point.
.....
Stan was a nephew of the publisher and a writer in the company from
the beginning. He appeared to be a company man, doing what he had
to in order to hold onto the security of his job, from accounts. This does
not make him a villain. H was also the face of Marvel during the 1960's.
that in and of itself, provided him with a great deal influence and
whatever perks or preferential treatment that he may have received.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 12:15pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Is the problem financial compensation to the Kirby family for the King's creations at Marvel? If Marvel gave them a substantial amount of money wouldn't they also owe Dave Cockrum who co-created characters for Marvels biggest title? Ditko for Spider-Man and Doctor Strange? McFarlane for Venom? Liefeld for Cable? I understand that there are royalties for creators and I truly don't know much of the behind the scenes stuff but the average comic book fan knows that Kirby co-created alot of what IS Marvel. I don't think that there are too many people out there who think that Stan did it all by himself even with the "Stan Lee Presents" or movie cameos. I guess I'm just trying to understand what would be the endgame for the Kirby side.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 12:31pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
A kettle of worms, Shawn...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:00pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Regardless of who was right or wrong, it can't be questioned that when someone creates an intellectual property, they deserve to be reasonably compensated and it should not be possible for a corporation to "sever" the creator from the creation without consent.
The problem I see with the United States is that we don't recognize "moral rights" like Europe does, which to me is a glaring ethical weakness. I suppose this is simply a byproduct of this country generally being more concerned with franchises and money than artistic integrity.
Edited by Robert White on 11 January 2013 at 1:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31287
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:10pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
they deserve to be reasonably compensated ********** How do you figure that when the character is originally created? When a freelancer creates 3 characters at the same time and all of them are released at the same time, do you "reasonably compensate" the creator/s for what they did in creating them or what each character MIGHT do for the company's purse strings? For every Spider-Man, how many characters did Stan/ Ditko create that wasn't as popular and didn't bring in the same money Spider-Man brought in? How can you come up with a number that "reasonably compensates" a creator without knowing how popular a character is going to be?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:22pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
What about Stan Lee being treated so much better than Kirby and
everybody else? In my mind, any defense of Marvel stumbles on that
point.
iiii
As writer and artist.... Stan and Jack were compensated by a page rate relative to what they produced.
Stan was paid more or "treated better" than Jack because not only was he an actual, long-time employee but because he fulfilled more duties.
Kirby rejected an offer to become Marvel's art director preferring to stay a freelancer and later went under contract with Marvel's direct competitor. That would have a fairly huge impact on whatever Marvel as a company felt they owed him moving forward.
How Stan was compensated compared to Kirby after 1970 is even more of a case of apples to oranges than when Kirby was still working for Marvel.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark McMurray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:31pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"Do you know if Ditko signed a standard release, or an expanded version?"
++++
Ditko wrote an essay about this several years ago. I'll need to dig it out, but my recollection is that Ditko's release differed from Kirby's and that Kirby's was larger. I'll confirm this info later.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:37pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
It should be akin to pro-sports where you get performance based incentives if you, well, perform above and beyond the norm. If you create Spider-Man, you're obviously going to make vastly more money even if you only get a few percent of the merchandising. If you "perform" well enough the character gets a cartoon and you get money from that. Isn't that basically how it works now? You don't have to figure out what a character might do in the future if a fair system is in place from the start. Sure, Marvel might not like having to pay an artists 15% of all merchandising for the rest of his life, but that's still a huge pie that wouldn't exist without said artist.
If you're content to work for Marvel or DC, you shouldn't expect to make as much money, obviously, because they're fronting the bill for production, advertising/promotion, etc. But this idea that because these companies do so that they should have total control over everything is absurd and wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Hawes
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16505
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
David Miller wrote:
| ...I've only read one of the two or three comics Kirby published, and I don't remember any credits, not even for Jack. Certainly nothing like "JACK KIRBY PRESENTS!!!" ... |
|
|
Stan Lee standardized credits in comics, crediting even the colorist and the letterer. Before Stan did that at Marvel in the 1960's it was rare to see credits given. 
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 11 January 2013 at 1:53pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
There's been so much said and written over the years that I've gotten confused by the whole situation. Does the Kirby family want money? More credit for Jack? A deal like Stan has? I thought recently that they sued Marvel for ownership of the characters like what's happened with the Superman case. What would be an acceptable deal that would make the Kirby family happy? If Roz received a pension do the Kirby heirs deserve anything else? I feel for the family but it seems that people are asking Marvel to change the rules to make the Kirby's happy. But if Marvel does that then the line will start somewhere outside their offices for the next person or their family.
Edited by Shawn Kane on 11 January 2013 at 1:54pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
