Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby Estate Announce Amicable Resolution

[Earth 2 Chris]

I do think Stan gets beat up a lot, but I agree with Berto that he doesn't help himself much with his narrow view of what a co-creator is. To me, comics being a visual medium, if the writer doesn't sketch out the costume design, no matter how rough his art skills, and hand it to the artist...that first artist is a co-creator. Because that visual is what follows that character from issue to issue, title to title, into TV, movies, toys...etc.

Reading Howe's book, it seems like Kirby may have went overboard marginilizing Stan's contributions during the 80s when the lawsuits began. After years of playing the company man and not getting any reward, I kind of think he just figured he'd give it right back to them. That's not right either, but I think that is one reason why so many Kirby boosters despise Stan.

I am of the opinion that Stan AND Jack, and Stan AND Steve created the characters in question, and they, and their heirs, should share in at least a pittance of the billions their works generate for Marvel/Disney. It would seem that the Kirby estate is happy, or they wouldn't settle. So I feel pretty good about it, until I hear otherwise.

Chris

[samurainoir]

Keep in mind, Stan and Marvel are not necessarily synonymous... he also had to sue Marvel in the 90's to enforce his contracts with them and get whatever he thought was his fair-share.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes, Lee has been adamant that he doesn't own his creations either. BUT, he managed to eke out a lucrative relationship with Marvel when Kirby and others, including Martin Goodman's family, could not.

Chris

[samurainoir]

Just a note, that I usually don't choose a horse when it comes to Stan and Jack (both flawed men who made their share of bad decisions while co-creating all my beloved Marvel characters), it's mostly colour commentary...

Stan in turn, originally was kinda screwed by Goodman himself wasn't he? When Goodman sold Marvel. At that point, I believe Stan learned his lesson with contracts and played the long game... increasing his own "value" via the PR game he does so well (and I agree... arguably at the expense of his co-creators). I don't think he actually saw millions until he was well into his senior citizenship.

I'm suspecting, due to Stan's settlement with Marvel in the nineties, after they breached his contract, there was a company line that Stan had to tow. We're not privy to what Stan signed of course, but looking at Kevin Smith's DVD interview with him for example (which was post-settlement)... Smith gives him plenty of "outs", but Stan doesn't take it. One has to wonder at that point if it's choice, or is it a legally enforced gag-order imposed by Marvel on their side of the negotiating table?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clospG_R0Vg

There are plenty of Marvel insiders in recent years who have defended Stan, such as Joe Q and Brian Bendis, saying that most of the public are not privy to what Stan tries to do on behalf of Ditko and Kirby internally at Marvel (especially in recent years... Bendis cited the movie credit as example). We have no idea what Stan's role was in getting this settlement. and even if he was instrumental.... maybe it is too little too late? Again, very gray area when there are many, many actual facts missing and we're having emotional discussions around beloved creators of our childhood/lifelong icons like Spidey and co.

It's at times hard to separate out legal from moral in these discussions... and even harder to differentiate "moral"... Stan I think is a perfect Gray area in this regard and why it's so divisive within fandom discussions.

Everyone is a grown up and makes the deal that they feel like they needed to make at the time. This settlement is probably a best-case scenario given head-slapping legal instances where Kirby testified on behalf of Marvel AGAINST Joe Simon in Simon's case to reclaim the rights to Captain America. Had Kirby retained legal counsel of his own instead of trusting Goodman/Marvel, he'd have seen he would have been entitled to everything Simon would have been entitled to.

Legally though, ALL of this hinges on the fact that at the time of creation, work-for-hire laws were either non-existant or shaky and difficult to enforce at best when it comes to defining what a "contractor" is. Compound that with the fact that Copyright law continues to be extended, and creators and their heirs (like Seigel and Shuster) are perfectly in their rights, since it's already a matter of public record that they created Superman BEFORE they sold him off. Copyright law was originally created to benefit and protect creators, and then extended to benefit their heirs after all (originally fifty years IIRC). With the relatively modern precedence of granting corporations the same rights as human beings, this kind of shifts the purpose of copyrights into protecting corporate IP seemingly indefinitely. This is why they are updating all the outfits and having specific movie outfits... they can protect the New 52 and movie designs. Also trademarking Man of Steel and Dark Knight and all the other alternate identifying monikers. They are shoring up their eventual IP fight once copyright lapses. Disney in particular is going to be well practiced already with Mickey heading for that fight ahead first.

BID. Anyways, copyright extension was the basis of the case with Joe Simon and Captain America in the seventies (and revisited in recent years with a settlement... that Kirby should have been equally entitled to, but we don't have any of that in public record either).

So.... what we do have is a situation where Superman and Captain America SHOULD be entering the public domain (at least TWICE now), because that was the terms that the original contracts were drafted under. This gives the original copyright owner the opportunity to reclaim their character because of the terms of that original contract have changed by law. I don't really see it as greed... I see it as well within their rights, both moral and legal.

Given the Billions at this point Superman/X-Men/Spider-man et al generates, we live in a world where a settlement in the millions is a drop in the bucket that Warners or Disney could easily spend elsewhere without a second thought... like redecorating the corporate headquarters, or catering, or whatever. Most parents want their kids well cared for after they go, and would love to leave them with that kind of legacy, particularly if they struggled in life during their kid's upbringing while they spend so many hours of their childhood at the drawing board perhaps sacrificing time actually with them (note... moral argument, which is generally the basis of legally settling with the estates once Marvel and DC are tried in the Court of Public Opinion. Folks do tend to side with David over Goliath).

[madmarva]

For good or I'll, self promotion is a component of monetary success in our culture, and If anything, Lee understood promotion. Lee was/is a branding genius and his promotional instincts and efforts were every bit as important in Marvel overtaking DC and becoming the dominant player in the industry as the excellence of the creative work by Kirby, Ditko, himself and others. There was synergy between the stories (art and script) and the promotion that created incredible brand loyalty that still exists sixty years later.

To me, Lee's branding and marketing work along with his ambition and drive for more than just artistic success is what made him the icon he is today and the money he and his family enjoys. Lee had value to Marvel beyond writing scripts and co-creating characters alongside Kirby, Ditko, Romita, Heck and others.

I'm no Kirby expert, but from what I've read, he was perfectly happy in his creative role and did not want to venture into the business and management aspect of the industry, which is always where the real money is if one can rise to the upper levels as Lee did. Once he saw Lee getting wealthy and Marvel profiting from their creations, naturally Kirby wanted and no doubt deserved more. But it is a wrong to think that Lee's financial success came only from co-creating characters and writing scripts. No doubt it was a big part of the equation. Lee's creative work and the fact he was editor of the entire line opened doors for him to take on more lucrative roles and opportunities which eventually made him very wealthy.

There is no doubt Kirby should have proffered more from his work for Marvel than he did. Talent was underappreciated and underpaid by the industry, particularly one of Kirby's magnitude, during his prime. But the fact that Kirby was undervalued, maybe vastly undervalued, does not mean that Lee's financial success was unwarranted. All businesses pay their employees or contractors only what they must to keep them in their position.

It's not Lee's fault he was a better business person than Kirby. I've never understood the need to tear down Lee to lift up Kirby. And as others have stated, Lee has always given credit to his collaborators in everything I've read and in the panels I've attended when Lee spoke about creating the characters.

Again, I'm glad the Kirby estate will be getting paid for the continued influence of his creations, and I hope the settlement ends some of the animosity and allows fans to celebrate both creators.

[Brazoo]

I understand why you guys feel like people who are criticizing Lee are bashing your hero - but the facts are clear, Lee is deserving of criticism here.

He went out of his way to credit everyone who worked on those early Marvel books, right down to the letterer.

Sorry, but I disagree, because where are the co-writer credits for Kirby?

In Lee's own words describing what he calls "The Marvel Method" he is a co-writer of the comics. He finalized the published text, but that does not make him the soul writer of a story.

Lee and Kirby created the plot brief - which in Lee's words was sometimes just a few lines, or a phone call. I don't know if any of you have tried to write a 32 page comic, but a few lines of plot is NOT writing a comic. So even going by Lee's own words he was NOT the soul writer.

Have you ever seen Kirby's penciled pages? It's full of dialog and plot details - in many cases Lee was refining what Kirby had written - plus there's all the physical action going on in the story. I'm not saying Lee had no creative contribution to the writing of the comics - but he credited himself as THE writer, and did not share that credit for that roll.

Why is this so important? Because a HUGE part of this legal case hinged on this very fact.

--

Am I saying Lee is a villain? No. Am I saying he deserves no credit for the success and creative output of Marvel - never. But his personality and ego have played a part in poisoning the waters here - without doubt.

I'm sorry if some of you think Lee is perfect and this view offends you - but he most certainly was not perfect. Nobody is perfect.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^If you notice, as time went on, the clear definition of writer/artist went away on Lee/Kirby works. It became a Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby Production, or some variation thereof. Probably because Stan was starting to get some push back, esp. after Ditko walked.

When Lee gave Steranko carte blanche on writing AND drawing Nick Fury, with no outside input, that strained his relationship with Lee even further. You think if Stan had maybe just given Jack Thor on his own, he'd been happy enough to stick around.

The Marvel Method Lee developed out of necessity became a huge thorn in his and the company's side, where credit is concerned.

Chris

[palitoy]

I understand why you guys feel like people who are criticizing Lee are bashing your hero - but the facts are clear, Lee is deserving of criticism here.

Stan isn't my hero, well, not since I was 6. My personal opinion is largely free of any idolatry for either side, merely pointing out the conceit that comic fans always tend to aggrandize the underdog.

I've met people who vehemently deny Lee any credit at all, they all seem way too young to have worked in the bullpen in 1963 but they know better than me.

[enyawd72]

Sorry Brazoo, but I must disagree. As I said before, whether we're talking Lee and Kirby, or Lee and Ditko, or Lee and Romita...the common denominator is STAN LEE. Without him, Kirby and Ditko wouldn't have HAD those characters/ideas to expand upon. I'm strictly referring to the ideas themselves, not the execution of them.

I'm not trying to downplay their contributions at the time...but I really believe Kirby and Ditko needed Lee more than he needed them. The simple fact that Spider-Man went on to even greater heights with Lee and Romita after Ditko left is proof of that.

[Brazoo]

Stan isn't my hero, well, not since I was 6. My personal opinion is largely free of any idolatry for either side, merely pointing out the conceit that comic fans always tend to aggrandize the underdog.

I've met people who vehemently deny Lee any credit at all, they all seem way too young to have worked in the bullpen in 1963 but they know better than me.

Yeah, well I agree that that's not correct either. I think uniformed opinions are useless no matter which side they're on. I'd never say Lee deserved no credit. I think in the overall consciousness of the public Kirby's contribution is incredibly misunderstood though.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^On the flip side of that, Stan never created any truly memorable, original characters before Ditko and Kirby, or after they left. Before Silver Age Marvel, Kirby co-created Captain America for Timely, and Boy Commandos, the Guardian and Newsboy Legion and Challengers of the Unknown at DC. After Marvel; Ditko co-created the Ted Kord Blue Beetle and the Question at Charlton, and the Creeper and Hawk and Dove at DC .Kirby created the New Gods/Fourth World, Kamandi, and the Demon. Now, these post-Marvel characters took a long time to catch on, but they did, and many are now cornerstones of the DCU, esp. the New Gods.

Chris

[Brazoo]

^If you notice, as time went on, the clear definition of writer/artist went away on Lee/Kirby works. It became a Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby Production, or some variation thereof. Probably because Stan was starting to get some push back, esp. after Ditko walked.

When Lee gave Steranko carte blanche on writing AND drawing Nick Fury, with no outside input, that strained his relationship with Lee even further. You think if Stan had maybe just given Jack Thor on his own, he'd been happy enough to stick around.

The Marvel Method Lee developed out of necessity became a huge thorn in his and the company's side, where credit is concerned.

Chris

I agree.

[palitoy]

Yeah, well I agree that that's not correct either. I think uniformed opinions are useless no matter which side their on. I'd never say Lee deserved no credit. I think in the overall consciousness of the public Kirby's contribution is incredibly misunderstood though.

I would agree, although sadly, a lot of what I read seems to paint a big halo on Kirby and make him a victim. That relationship was complicated and those collaborations are the highlights of all of their respective careers. They changed the game and it's the reason any of us give a crap about this.

Although I'm sure the "Ham Fisher Vs Al Capp" debate wages on somewhere.

I also conjecture that Lee becoming the spokesperson for the medium (for better or for worse, personally, I kind of think it was a good idea) also paints him as a bit of a bigger target.

[Brazoo]

Sorry Brazoo, but I must disagree. As I said before, whether we're talking Lee and Kirby, or Lee and Ditko, or Lee and Romita...the common denominator is STAN LEE. Without him, Kirby and Ditko wouldn't have HAD those characters/ideas to expand upon. I'm strictly referring to the ideas themselves, not the execution of them.

I'm not trying to downplay their contributions at the time...but I really believe Kirby and Ditko needed Lee more than he needed them. The simple fact that Spider-Man went on to even greater heights with Lee and Romita after Ditko left is proof of that.

Look, it's cool - but we have different opinions about the quality of some of the work you're mentioning here. I happen to love a lot of Kirby's work at DC after Lee, and think a lot of it is on par with his best work at Marvel. But we can argue about that another time .

Again, I'm not saying Lee wasn't a key factor in Marvel's success. I happen to think Lee was a great influence on Kirby - but I think that Kirby influenced Lee a lot as well. I also think Kirby and Lee were the two biggest influences of Marvel's success - no offense intended to the other Marvel creators. If you don't mind, I want to leave Ditko and others out of this for now, because I really want to focus my points on the Kirby case and what was claimed by Marvel in their defense.

Legally this rights case hinged on this: Marvel claimed Kirby was receiving enough details about the pages he was suppose to draw that he wasn't adding anything creatively significant.

That's pretty much the bottom line - and I completely reject that notion. I don't think ANYBODY can commission a 32 page story from a few lines on a memo - which is what Lee himself claimed he did a lot of the time. The character acting and interaction, the details of the dialog, the pacing of the story, and the physical action scenes - that's all part of the creation and the writing of a comic. And it's a plain and simple fact that Lee was not there for most of that. He admits that he never provided those specific details. Also, there are almost zero records of the notes he did give Kirby for us to look at. Finally, Kirby is not here to give his version, and I think that really worked in Marvel's favor.

I encourage anyone to look at Kirby's original penciled pages - look at the scans with the margin notes. It doesn't tell the whole story, but I think it's impossible to look at those pages and conclude that Lee was the soul writer and Kirby was only the illustrator.

[johnmiic]

It doesn't tell the whole story, but I think it's impossible to look at those pages and conclude that Lee was the soul writer and Kirby was only the illustrator.

I think you mean "sole" writer.