| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133693
|
| Posted: 16 August 2006 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
What does "pulling a Siegel and Shuster" mean? Siegel and Shuster were not pursuing any legal action at that time, nor had they since the Superboy lawsuit was settled in the 40s. The law which allowed Siegel's heirs to file suit years later (the Sonny Bono copyright law) was not even on the books until several years after Kirby had passed away. *** Seigel and Shuster had pretty much exhausted their legal avenues, but there was still a strong movement -- at one time spearheaded by Neal Adams himself -- to get them their "due". I'll confess, it all seemed a bit hypocrital to me, as the same people who would weep for S&S would spit on Bob Kane as a money-grubbing bastard. A lose-lose situation, if ever there was one. A review of the facts, devoid of emotional agendas, revealed S&S were not treated unfairly at all, by the extant standards of the industry. +++ Kirby was being asked to sign a four-page document which not only acknowledged the art was done work for hire, but also renounced all ownership of the physical art (not just the copyrights, the art itself), gave up his right to sell it, and potentially limited his ability to assist anyone else in pursuing copyright action against Marvel. *** What's your source for this? I followed these events very closely at the time -- we all did -- and this is the first time I have heard of all these "layers" in the contract Kirby was asked to sign.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dwayne Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 788
|
| Posted: 16 August 2006 at 5:51pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Sigh, Jason when I said pulling a segal I didn't mean it literally. I just meant that Marvel was afraid that Kirby would try and claim ownership to certain Marvel chacters that he helped create. I used that term just because I don't know the legal one. So don't be so anal. Thats almost like saying just because people 5000 years ago didn't call a whale a whale but maybe just a fish that I couldn't say they saw a whale. My point was that Marvel used the returing of the artwork as a negotating point with Kirby. One might argue that both sides where wrong on the issue but I see why they did what they did. Look what happened years later with Simon sueing for Captain America. One can feel sorry for many great comic creators who creations went on to become quite famous and made a lot of money but for many I dont feel too sorry for them. If one doesn't want to create characters for a company they should not take work for hire and then do so. I have little sympathy for the ones who knew what they were doing. One cannot compare the comic book industry to say the bules music industry. But now I can see why this question wasnt answered by more knowledgable people to start with- it smells as some type of ambush. I think those asking the question probably already knew whatever the answer was anyway.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 16 August 2006 at 7:20pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| What's your source for this? |
|
|
The general part about Kirby being asked to sign a different, much longer document than what was given to every other artist is something I've seen referenced in many JK Collector articles as well as writings from people like Evanier. My source for the specific contents of the document was The Comics Journal article I linked to in the first post of this thread, which itself contains a link to the document Kirby was asked to sign.
The document states that Kirby is not allowed to "commercially exploit" the artwork and that Marvel remains the owner of it although it's in Kirby's possession. That would seemingly bar Kirby from selling it, or at least Kirby feared it could be used that way.
Heh, that's not being anal. If I was being anal I would point out you've misspelled "Siegel" twice, in two different ways, in your last two posts.
Dwayne Ferguson wrote:
| it smells as some type of ambush. I think those
asking the question probably already knew whatever the answer was
anyway. |
|
|
Not sure whether you're speculating about my intent or that of the person on the other board who originally posed the question. But if you mean me, your crystal ball is wrong. At any rate, regardless of the other broader questions, do you feel it was fair of Marvel to ask Kirby sign a document no one else had to sign in order to get his art back?
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 16 August 2006 at 8:03pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 16 August 2006 at 8:49pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Matthew McCallum wrote:
| It's my understanding that writers, inkers, letterers and colourists also get a portion of the original art returned to them. |
|
|
From what I've read, when Marvel originally started returning original art in the mid-70's it was split down the middle between writer and artist. Which is ridiculous. There were a few writers (such as Don MacGregor) who acknowledged this was unfair and gave "their" 50% of the artwork back to the artist.
This leads to the hilarious story of P. Craig Russell and his artwork for Doctor Strange Annual #1. For some reason Russell wound up inking the pages before they were lettered, and the word balloons were done on separate paper which was pasted down onto the original art. When Russell went to get "his" half of the original art, he asked if he could take the other half of the art home too, to make copies. So he took the art home, and with a razor blade he extracted the word balloons from each page. He then brought the balloons back to Marvel and left them on writer Marv Wolfman's desk with a note saying "Here's your share of the artwork." Marv apparently was not amused. The whole story can be read here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jon Godson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 January 2005
Posts: 2468
|
| Posted: 17 August 2006 at 7:30pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Of course, Wolfman was one of the interns who "rescued" original art from
being destroyed at DC by taking it home. Did Wolfman ever give that art to
the respective artists?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133693
|
| Posted: 18 August 2006 at 5:55am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
From what I've read, when Marvel originally started returning original art in the mid-70's it was split down the middle between writer and artist.**** Not correct. In a 17 page book, the return was 10 pages to the penciler, five to the inker, two to the writer. Shooter abolished the writer's share, and split the two between penciler and inker. (Roger Stern had been giving his "share" to the penciler and inker for years, voluntarily.) +++ This leads to the hilarious story of P. Craig Russell and his artwork for Doctor Strange Annual #1. *** Again, some details are off. The job was plotted, penciled and inked by Craig totally on spec. As a result, when Marvel bought it, it had to be lettered on paste-up. When the art returned from the printer, Carig took it, sat down at a desk in the bullpen, and peeled off all the lettering. This he put in a paper bag and left for Wolfman with a note sayint "Here's your share". Seems perfectly fair to me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: 18 August 2006 at 10:08am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
If he wanted to claim that as plotter he should have gotten the
writer's share, he should have made that argument, not stolen the art.
That later administrations would change the policy doesn't change the
deal he originally sold the art under.
Even if the first 20 pages were done on spec, the later 15 weren't. Russell was aware of the terms of the sale and he should have lived up
to them -- Heck when he submitted the first 20 pages, were there any
art returns going on?
Several years later, Kirby wasn't asking for the special treatment that Russell wanted, he was just asking to be treated the same as any other artist from that time period was being treated (i.e., the typical release form, not one with further restrictions) and Marvel refused, at least for some time.
I guess sometimes it doesn't pay to play by the rules.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
