Kirby Estate going after the rights to his Marvel creations

[samurainoir]

In Wake of Disney-Marvel Deal, Cartoonists Heirs Seek to Reclaim Rights - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

While I get the Siegel and Shuster claim to Superman, I have to admit I'm really curious on what basis the Kirby estate is trying to claim rights to the Marvel characters.

Didn't Kirby testify on Marvel's behalf when Joe Simon tried to put his claim in for Captain America in the early days?

Unless Marvel is somehow missing crucial documentation... or that they are arguing signing the back of a paycheck doesn't make a binding contract?

[The Toyroom]

Wouldn't Kirby's work for Marvel fall under the work-for-hire category? Plus, the majority of the characters fall under the "Created by Stan Lee AND Jack Kirby" banner....it's a blurry line as to exactly who was responsible for what.

[Earth 2 Chris]

This mess will never end now that the judge in the Siegel case has ruled partially in their favor. I don't think "work-for-hire" means anything legally anymore.

I think Jack Kirby's contributions to comics, and Marvel specifically are irreplaceable and the characters would never reached the level of success they have without him. BUT, I can't see how he has any rights to the characters. Stan Lee himself doesn't have any rights to them. Nor does Martin Goodman or his heirs. "Marvel", the corporate entity owns them lock stock and barrel.

Chris

[BlackKnight]

People sue McDonalds over Too Hot of Coffee ..., Anything is Possible I suppose, you have to try.

[Captain]

Yeah...Folks will try anything now. Especially after the Superman thing...Dollar signs make people do crazy things, and I figure this kind of thing will become a trend.

[samurainoir]

This mess will never end now that the judge in the Siegel case has ruled partially in their favor. I don't think "work-for-hire" means anything legally anymore.

The point being, that Siegel and Shuster created Superman BEFORE selling it to National/DC. This is well documented. They essentially transferred their existing copyright in exchange for payment, under the original copyright act. With a new copyright extension in place, rather than having Superman go into public domain, the heirs of the original copyright owners have a chance to claim it back. If it was created Work for Hire, then DC would have kept it. Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't think there was any doubt that the conditions that Kirby created the Marvel characters were under Work For Hire. Compounded by the fact that Kirby himself testified to this on Marvel's behald in a court of law against Joe Simon didn't he?

Although Steve Bissette might have some interesting insight into this...

Understand, one and all, that the legal concept of ‘work-for-hire’ was neither named nor defined until the Copyright Act revisions of 1976-77, at which point in time DC, Marvel and other media venues relying on total ownership in perpetuity were scrambling to redress their total ownership language on all contracts, pay vouchers, etc. (I know form personal experience, as my generation of cartoonists were right in the thick of that transition).

SRBissette.com -

[samurainoir]

Interestingly enough, I believe the precedent began with Joe Simon the second time he went after Captain America, this time successfully using the new terms of the copyright extension act. Marvel settled with him did they not? Due to the settlement, there are no details disclosed, but the long and the short of it is I think Simon got paid. So when the time comes for the release of the Captain America movie, he's not going public against Marvel.

Stan Lee himself sued Marvel and they settled with him.

I would guess the Kirby Estate is hoping for settlement as well? It makes sense, Disney-Marvel doesn't need that kind of negative publicity muddying up the merger. It does seem like the Kirby estate is taking advantage of the timing.

Although Marv Wolfman went after a piece of the Blade action and ended up with nothing. He's at least getting Teen Titans cartoon royalties over at the DC end of things.

[johnnystorm]

My understanding is there are future dates at which time Kirby's claims to co-creatorship become eligible. Starting in 2014, then onward depending on release of the original. I seem to recall that Jack had no contract when working for Marvel originally, just a paycheck....just like Stan Lee did. Back in the early '60s this was a job no diifferent than working in any other office, except you did comics not insurance .
And Marvel currently pays Stan Lee $1,000,000 a year to NOT file a claim of ownership, indicating they realize there are somewhat genuine claims out there. Marvel as we know it would not exist without Jack's input.

[samurainoir]

I seem to recall that Jack had no contract when working for Marvel originally, just a paycheck....just like Stan Lee did. Back in the early '60s this was a job no diifferent than working in any other office, except you did comics not insurance .

Didn't the paychecks generally have a thing in the back where they sign away the rights? Or did that come later?

Things will certainly get interesting if Marvel does not in fact have very solid documentation from the early sixties.

From the sounds of things, they had their act together by the seventies since they succesfully fended off claims by Steve Gerber over Howard the Duck and Marv Wolfman more recently over Blade.

[samurainoir]

This is going to get messy unless they settle, and then it's going to get messier if they settle given the fact that many more creators of pre 1976 properties will begin their lawsuits for their own payday.

Looks like Marvel and DC will have to get a bit more aggressive with their royalty programs for all these old guys given that most of their pantheon predates 1976.

Lying In The Gutters Rumors

There’s been a lot of speculation to to what Kirby’s heirs could and couldn’t claim, and what the hell Sony has to do with this, considering that they only deal with the Spider-Man movie franchise.

Now Jack Kirby did create a Spider-Man design that predated Steve Ditko’s work on the character but it was never used and Kirby also drew the cover to Amazing Fantasy #15. But Kirby creating Spider-man has always been the more contentious claim over the years from the Kirby and it rarely comes up these days. However Sony have created a number of animation series, some of which have used Kirby created characters, which may be affected by this claim.

As to the argument that Jack Kirby created these characters as “work for hire”, this could only be watertight after 1976 in US law. And either way, under current law US creators and their estates can reclaim copyrights to their work fifty-six years after initial publication. Which we’ll be coming round in five years for Fantastic Four…

Expect a large battle over exactly who created who and what in the years to come.

[Adam West]

It definitely is going into grey territory.

The Kirby book is a good read and I think it was mentioned in there that although he felt he should be compensated for some of his creations....he was strictly paid as an employee.

I used to work for a biotech company and they definitely made everyone sign statements acknowledging that anything that was discovered via research whether on or off the clock belonged to the company.

[Earth 2 Chris]

This could be the thing that kills the recent string of super hero films. Studios and production teams may be leery of creating a movie they may wind up in court over later. If the rights aren't cut and dry, it could make they properties "radioactive" in Hollywood.

Chris

[The Toyroom]

Freakin' greedy heirs.....

[kingdom warrior]

^^^^^ Not sure so much about Greed,but I'm not counting it out. Many of those creators were shafted by the companies they worked for. Getting paid by the page many of these talented artist were motivated to really put out work to pay for their homes and families. I don't think many of them knew the kind of money they could make in merchandising those characters. Bob Kane knew that's why he controlled Batman the way he did and made his money. Others were not that shrewd and Business savvy.... Most Artist aren't.

If those were our dad's who created or helped create those Iconic characters I'm sure we would want a piece of the pie......The Warners make hand over fist in merchandising their heroes So does Marvel.

For anyone who wants to read Kirby's take on the Marvel thing you need to find the Comics Journal Issue number 134 February 1990....He gives a great interview about his days with Timely and Marvel and his Relationship with Stan Lee,plus his wife Ross is also interviewed.

[clemso]

This is going to get messy unless they settle, and then it's going to get messier if they settle given the fact that many more creators of pre 1976 properties will begin their lawsuits for their own payday.

Looks like Marvel and DC will have to get a bit more aggressive with their royalty programs for all these old guys given that most of their pantheon predates 1976.

Lying In The Gutters Rumors

This is a endless can of worms, Kirby created the Fantastic Four, but did he create the Human Torch or was that Carl Burgos? Mr Fantastic, hardly an original concept. Thor based on Mythology.

Re Kirby Spider-Man. I believe Kirby's take on Spider-man was closer to the Fly in look and design and he had some kind of magic ring which transformed him from a Billy Batson like character into Spider-man. The real Spider-man is Ditko all the way.

Clem