Kirby vs Marvel

[thunderbolt]

Didn't Marvel settle simon & Kirby about Cap? It would be tragic if they received no credit on the film.

Regarding Doom Patrol: The X-Men's success as a result of industrial espionage is one of the saddest in comicdom. For me, DP was just as revolutionary in characterization & art as the so-called "Marvel Method."

The Patrol was more evolutionary than the original X-Men, it was a book well ahead of its time.

[Brazoo]

Maybe this belongs in a new thread, but given the fact that we return to these topics over and over again, I find a bibliography might be essential for these kinds of discussions.

Particularly in figuring out and attributing the urban legends and what can be considered "facts" between first, second and third hand accounts.

The updated version of Joe Simon's The Comic Book Makers has good coverage of his account of the first Captain America reclamation lawsuit. Since the settlement with the second one, the cone of silence came down, so there are no real details that I've stumbled across over that one.

http://decomicshop.nl/images/c/comic-book-makers-joe-simon-sc-vol-1-oct101162.jpg

Of course I'm very fond of Men of Tomorrow, detailing how the comics publishing and distribution industry was built by con-men, organized crime, and pornographers. You needed to be, based on how the newsstand distributions worked back then.

http://charlesshaarmurray.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/4134053431_fffe34353c.jpg

I'm wandering way off topic here, but I would heartily suggest following that up with Michael Chabon's Kavalier and Clay... the fictionalized account. With cameos by some of the real players back in the day, as well as owing a huge amount to Seigel and Shuster, as well as Steranko (who was a real life escape artist).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nturesbook.jpg

I haven't read those.

I believe a good chunk of the "Untold Tale of Spider-Man" was printed in a Kirby Collector at some point - maybe it was just referenced.

I DID read the Chabon book - which I thought had it's good and bad points. I'm always glad when something like this gets acclaim and brings attention to comic history - but I also remember it playing up to some of the more stereotypical ideas of comic artists. Because of this novel I was finally able to convince my mom to borrow a few Will Eisner books from me - which are still gathering dust on her nightstand - but at least she borrowed them! Now we're WAY off topic!

[PNGwynne]

Don't mean to de-rail a thread, but this is interesting to me as I like the classic Doom Patrol.

Where can I find out more about this?

I've read DC-biased anecdotes (re: Archive editions, comparing publishing dates with early X-Men). Not sure if this is substantiated elsewhere, but I choose to believe it because I'm a DP fan and it's a damn good comic.

Let's not forget that neither DP or the original X-Men were great successes. In the '70s, the reintroduced New X-Men were a smash; the new Dp...er, less so lol.

[hedrap]

I'm going to try and condense a number of issues into one point. Excuse the mess...

CTC is right to bring up the established mentality from the Golden Age.

When Simon and Kirby bounced around, it was based on money and editorial control, not ownership. Everyone involved from the 30 - 60's, knew the rules. When Liebowitz split NPP into two arms - licensing and publishing - that changed the perceived value of a comics company.

The moment Goodman sold Marvel and had Stan do that official sign over is still the crux of the debate. If Goodman owned the properties free-and-clear to sell them, why did he need the new paperwork? If Stan or any others thought they might have some ownership, why didn't they capitalize at that moment? IMO, they were all playing by the same old rules, but the game changed and the only guys aware of that was Liebowitz and Stan Weston.

As for the Cap film, you'll see Simon and Kirby's names just as it will be Stan and Jack on Thor.

[ctc]

>Where can I find out more about this?

Doom Patrol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6 Famous Characters You Didn't Know Were Shameless Rip-Offs | Cracked.com

Don C.

[Brazoo]

CTC is right to bring up the established mentality from the Golden Age.

When Simon and Kirby bounced around, it was based on money and editorial control, not ownership. Everyone involved from the 30 - 60's, knew the rules. When Liebowitz split NPP into two arms - licensing and publishing - that changed the perceived value of a comics company.

Again, specifically looking at the kind of deals Kirby was use to from the golden age I think you guys are wrong in that respect.

I've read several interviews with Kirby talking about royalties he earned during that era in The Kirby Collector.

Off-hand here's a quick quote from Wikipedia's Jack Kirby entry to give this some context:

"After leaving Fox and landing at pulp magazine publisher Martin Goodman's Timely Comics (the future Marvel Comics), Simon and Kirby created the patriotic superhero Captain America in late 1940. Simon cut a deal with Goodman that gave him and Kirby 15 percent of the profits from the feature as well as salaried positions as the company's editor and art director, respectively. The first issue of Captain America Comics, released in early 1941, sold out in days, and the second issue's print run was set at over a million copies. The title's success established the team as a notable creative force in the industry. After the first issue was published, Simon asked Kirby to join the Timely staff as the company's art director"

So we're comparing salaried staff positions plus page rates, plus royalties in the 40s to his freelance work in the 60s. It seems obvious to me that Simon was the one with the sound business mind - but aside from that all I'm saying is that presuming that Kirby didn't expect royalties from reprints or reusing his art based on his previous experience during the golden-age isn't totally valid argument looking at the history.

Also, the hopping around you mentioned was about ownership to some degree - Simon was always working out deals where they would earn bigger shares of their work. They owned 50% of profits from the romance titles they started, and they eventually started their own publishing company in the 50s. The timing was bad, and they dissolved their partnership soon after - but they did know the value of ownership. Or, at least Simon did.

[hedrap]

"After leaving Fox and landing at pulp magazine publisher Martin Goodman's Timely Comics (the future Marvel Comics), Simon and Kirby created the patriotic superhero Captain America in late 1940. Simon cut a deal with Goodman that gave him and Kirby 15 percent of the profits from the feature as well as salaried positions as the company's editor and art director, respectively. The first issue of Captain America Comics, released in early 1941, sold out in days, and the second issue's print run was set at over a million copies. The title's success established the team as a notable creative force in the industry. After the first issue was published, Simon asked Kirby to join the Timely staff as the company's art director"

"15% of the profits", for salaried employees, is usually profit participation and comes from the gross, where royalties, for contracted talent, usually comes from the net. If Simon & Kirby knocked out 20 books a month that each sold 500K copies at .10/each, Goodman would gross 1 Million, and Simon & Kirby would get there 15% (150K) right off the top leaving Goodman with 850K. If the 15% came from the net, Joe & Jack stand in line after the overhead, printers, inkers, distributors, etc...are paid off and then the 15% comes from the remaining netted profit, which could be anything.

We're also talking about a period when the income tax didn't exist, so 150K in gross participation is the equivalent of 2 Million today, but untaxed. Even if Simon/Kirby split 30K from 15% net profit, that's still equal to over another 200K on top of salaried positions.

[Brazoo]

"15% of the profits", for salaried employees, is usually profit participation and comes from the gross, where royalties, for contracted talent, usually comes from the net. If Simon & Kirby knocked out 20 books a month that each sold 500K copies at .10/each, Goodman would gross 1 Million, and Simon & Kirby would get there 15% (150K) right off the top leaving Goodman with 850K. If the 15% came from the net, Joe & Jack stand in line after the overhead, printers, inkers, distributors, etc...are paid off and then the 15% comes from the remaining netted profit, which could be anything.

We're also talking about a period when the income tax didn't exist, so 150K in gross participation is the equivalent of 2 Million today, but untaxed. Even if Simon/Kirby split 30K from 15% net profit, that's still equal to over another 200K on top of salaried positions.

Not to be rude - but I'm not sure I get your point. You now agree with me about the deal Kirby established in the golden-age?

As for the Cap film, you'll see Simon and Kirby's names just as it will be Stan and Jack on Thor.

Just nit-picking, but it would make sense if "Thor" included a creator credit for Larry Lieber as well - since they did that in "Iron Man".

[hedrap]

Not to be rude - but I'm not sure I get your point. You now agree with me about the deal Kirby established in the golden-age?




Just nit-picking, but it would make sense if "Thor" included a creator credit for Larry Lieber as well - since they did that in "Iron Man".

I'm trying to point out that it can't be both. If they were salaried employees involved in profit participation they cannot claim decades later to have been contracted talent collecting royalties. The wiki entry actually makes me less sympathetic to the estates. Profit sharing was unheard of back then and is rare even today. That was the whole point behind Image.

There's a picture forming in my head of Kirby getting ticked in the seventies because in the golden age he and Simon shorted the market, focusing more on creative control and money-in-hand.

From the Simon wiki...

Despite the success of the Captain America character, Simon felt Goodman was not paying the pair the promised percentage of profits, and so sought work for the two of them at National Comics (later named DC Comics).[13] Simon & Kirby negotiated a deal that would pay them a combined $500 a week, as opposed to the $75 and $85 they respectively earned at Timely.[14] Fearing that Goodman would not pay them if he found out they were moving to National, the pair kept the deal a secret while they continued producing work for the company.[15]

...Kirby then tried to correct this during the Marvelmania boom but was unable to because NPP and licensing changed the companies value from publishing house to copyright/trademark library. This doesn't take away from his contributions and what he should have been due while alive, but it does, IMO, begin to explain a number of things. The corroboration Jack needed wasn't what went down in the 30's but from Ditko. He apparently holds a lot of the same feelings over character creations. That one-two punch would have forced Stan to have been as clear as possible or else Marvel could have sued him (Stan) if they lost the case.

As for the actual dollars, they were collecting (in 2011 numbers), roughly 120K (55k and 65K each), plus 15%. Simon negotiated a jump to NPP for 370K/year, (185K each). That, to me, says the 15% was from gross because there's no way in hell Liebowitz would give 3x payraise.

[Brazoo]

I'm trying to point out that it can't be both. If they were salaried employees involved in profit participation they cannot claim decades later to have been contracted talent collecting royalties.

Sorry man - I'm getting confused. By "they" you mean Kirby and Simon or Kirby's estate? Is that what the estate is claiming?

"CTC is right to bring up the established mentality from the Golden Age."

I thought the point you and ctc were making was something like "Kirby should have never expected royalties from his 60s work, he never got any before" and all I was saying he did get royalties before. I wasn't saying he SHOULD have based his deal on the deal he had in the 30s, I was just saying IF. Maybe I misunderstood your point - or it's very possible I wasn't making my point clear, and if so I apologize.

...Kirby then tried to correct this during the Marvelmania boom but was unable to because NPP and licensing changed the companies value from publishing house to copyright/trademark library. This doesn't take away from his contributions and what he should have been due while alive, but it does, IMO, begin to explain a number of things. The corroboration Jack needed wasn't what went down in the 30's but from Ditko. He apparently holds a lot of the same feelings over character creations. That one-two punch would have forced Stan to have been as clear as possible or else Marvel could have sued him (Stan) if they lost the case.

Yeah - again - I'm saying the 30s deal doesn't establish the 60s deal and I don't think that's the argument Kirby's estate is making either.

The basic short-version picture in my head is this, and maybe I'm way off:

Kirby and Marvel are struggling - Kirby is getting on fairly well with Lee and things are turning around for Marvel. Kirby's head is buried in drawing - and in the back of his mind he's thinking something like "I'm helping build this thing from the ground floor - I'll be a team player - I'll prove myself invaluable, and they'll have to give me my dues." Which is naive beyond doubt - but that seems to be what he was thinking.

Marvel is not really considering Kirby at all. To Marvel he's the same as any other artist - which is also impossibly naive to me. They basically overlook their legal position with Kirby until they are challenged.

It was in Marvel's best interest to have a solid contract with the artists - and they didn't. The renegotiated terms and tried to cover themselves in the 70 using "work-for-hire" rules - which are being challenged now because Kirby was not a salaried employee and often created work they didn't purchase. Marvel was the one who called it work-for-hire, not the Kirby estate. So as far as I understand they're contesting the rights based on whether or not the work Kirby did can be legally defined as "work-for-hire".

[ctc]

>all I was saying he did get royalties before.

I don't doubt that, but I think at the time those sort of deals were more the exception than the rule. Golden Age comics were a lot like the pulps and penny dreadfuls that preceeded them: crank 'em out as fast as possible, and move on to the next thrill. And like the pulps, there were shining stars who could bargain for more; but the vast majority of creators were jobbers.

>It was in Marvel's best interest to have a solid contract with the artists - and they didn't.

Yeah. I think another holdover was the importance of the Old Boys Network. A lot of stuff was nominally "understood," but not: hence the problems when things actually took off.

Don C.