Latest news of Kirby vs. Marvel Comics..

[david_b]

NY judge: Marvel wins Spider-Man, X-Men lawsuit - Yahoo! News

When I was reading the article about the Kirby Estate placing ownership claims against Marvel, I was initially siding on Marvel mainly due to the work environment back in the day (when comics were just for kids..., not collectors). And it stated that more than a few times, Kirby signed his creative rights over to the 'House of Ideas' in ink.

But this line by Marvel's attorney got me..:

"Like Eisenhower, Kirby took on none of the risks of the success of the many comic books he helped produce. His contribution to the enterprise was plainly critical, but Marvel, not he, bore the risk of its failure."

No risk...?? 'Course he had risk.

If his ideas didn't sell, he would have been canned.

That.. sounds like 'risk' to me...

Thoughts, anyone..?

[hedrap]

The judge risk of capital. Kirby was always working for somone, as was Simon, so if his Marvel ideas bottomed out, King would have found worked. A lot of talent floated between the advertising world and comics, depending on who was paying.

While I think Kirby's estate needs to make sure Jack's name is at the forefront, I've come to believe Stan did a lot more over the years to secure that then people have given him credit for. When he went to bat over the Hulk film credits, I realized the guy understands his place in the Marvel scope. Maybe it took getting hosed on his own contract to see the light.

...and no personal offense meant, but the Kirby estate was cooked when they're forced to rely on Evanier. Enough with this guy and his Zelig routine.

[clemso]

Love and respect Kirby and there is no denying that his contribution of character development to the Marvel (and now Disney) stable is still the core essence of the company. That is a interesting twist though on Marvel's side of the debate. I had honestly never considered that Marvel could have been a company that failed and therefore lose everything financially. It is a good point. Its very easy to look at the success now, the same with the Kirby original art market. His works sell for crazy money, but back then, it was worth nothing and if Marvel wasn't a success, then his work would have been worth nothing now.

[johnnystorm]

Can't say I didn't see this coming. While Jack Kirby deserves every bit of credit & recognition there is for his contributions to the world of comics, it really comes down to the contracted work done. I think if Jack had been more active in pursuing this angle back in the 70s (perhaps with cooperation from Ditko?) he might have been in the same or close to position the Stan Lee has. Stan promoted himself while Jack remained relatively silent. Of course, Lee was in a better position both business wise and financially to do so.

[Brazoo]

I haven't read about it, or the ruling yet. I'll check it out.

The judge risk of capital. Kirby was always working for somone, as was Simon, so if his Marvel ideas bottomed out, King would have found worked. A lot of talent floated between the advertising world and comics, depending on who was paying.

First of all Kirby stuck with comics - a lot of guys went into advertising. He stuck with what he loved in a failing marketplace. He was hashing it out with Marvel when Marvel was supposedly close to folding. So that's just not so.

When Marvel was being built Kirby was ONLY working for Marvel - It wasn't just freelance work.

He believed in building Marvel and all his actions point to someone who was expecting to be promoted within a company who's success he was a key player in. The fact that he was never even given a permanent position, benefits or a pension is insane. Any other company would have hired him and promoted him from within.

While I think Kirby's estate needs to make sure Jack's name is at the forefront, I've come to believe Stan did a lot more over the years to secure that then people have given him credit for. When he went to bat over the Hulk film credits, I realized the guy understands his place in the Marvel scope. Maybe it took getting hosed on his own contract to see the light.

...and no personal offense meant, but the Kirby estate was cooked when they're forced to rely on Evanier. Enough with this guy and his Zelig routine.

Lee's fight to have Kirby's name on the Hulk credits was not out of respect for Kirby. He had been criticized for years for overstepping Kirby's contribution to creating the staple Marvel characters - and he 100% knew what the reaction would be if he got soul creator credit. Look at his public record and interviews from before that movie.

What do you not like about Evanier? That he lost weight? I'm not offended - I just think it's just a weird thing to say.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Oddly enough, Marvel later promoted John Romita and made him art director and he kept a position there for decades. And he deserved it, but it's odd that they never thought to do the same for Kirby...

Chris

[david_b]

All good points.. I was at work late last night (on-call..), so while I was waiting for tech support to call, I was in a not-too-typical ranting mood, so I found it of interest.

What's key is what Clemso said..: Let's look at it from the early 60s and what Comics were back then. They weren't a 'collected' commodity, just a stepping stone for most artists in the industry.

Most companies failed.. We're only familiar with Key, Marvel, DC, and few others because they survived over time.

[Brazoo]

Oddly enough, Marvel later promoted John Romita and made him art director and he kept a position there for decades. And he deserved it, but it's odd that they never thought to do the same for Kirby...

Chris

Kirby did do tons of art directing. He mocked up covers and stories for other artists - all freelance. Kirby was never just one of many artists at Marvel - Lee entrusted him with a lot - he just never entrusted him with the job Kirby wanted and felt he earned.

I could be very wrong, but this is my impression:

Kirby was older than Lee - not by a lot - but he had fought in the war and had a lot more success and experience in the industry. Romita was younger than Lee - more groom-able maybe - respected Lee a little differently, perhaps?

Romita was great at pulling out different aspects of Kirby and Ditko's styles and he was really creative, but not in the way that Kirby was. Kirby was always trying to come up with things to challenge himself a bit. I love Romita's work - but he generally sticks to what works. As an editor, I can picture that being a practical advantage if you just want to go home at 5 every night.

The danger there is that the people who challenge themselves are always going to be more innovative. Marvel was built on innovation - but my observations tell me that innovation was not Marvel's driving force once Marvel had become successful. I don't think it was a conscious decision at any point, mind you, but I really do think Marvel's gamble was based on innovation vs. productivity. Kirby could do both, but no one could keep up with Kirby.

[Brazoo]

All good points.. I was at work late last night (on-call..), so while I was waiting for tech support to call, I was in a not-too-typical ranting mood, so I found it of interest.

What's key is what Clemso said..: Let's look at it from the early 60s and what Comics were back then. They weren't a 'collected' commodity, just a stepping stone for most artists in the industry.

Most companies failed.. We're only familiar with Key, Marvel, DC, and few others because they survived over time.

To me that's moot - all business take financial risks. The fact that Marvel was successful and and all those other companies weren't shows how valuable Kirby was.

[clemso]

Apart from true die hard Kirby fans, does anyone remember Silver Star and Captain Victory. My point being that the majority of the public couldn't care less about its commercial rights. You might say this could have been the alternative future of Kirby's legacy. He signed a contract to work, got paid, was able to put food on the table. I don't begrudge Kirby or his estate for wanting more. We all want more.
But the fact is that he signed a contract for said work. Another way to look at is that Marvel could have hired someone else and turned him down for work and then maybe, no one would have ever heard of Kirby at all.

[kingdom warrior]

Another way to look at is that Marvel could have hired someone else and turned him down for work and then maybe, no one would have ever heard of Kirby at all.

But are you forgetting Kirby was already an established artist and could have easily worked for any other company and would have still come up with concepts an Ideas for any other company.....after all Captain America was his and Joe Simon's character. Kirby had already tons of created characters before his 60's run at Marvel....and when he left Marvel he kept on creating characters that are still used to this day.

Silver Star and Captain Victory didn't get a wider audience because of Pacific comics who had a short lived publishing life. Had that been at Marvel a wider audience would have seen it and it could have been easily turned into a animated series and toyline during the 80's

[david_b]

To me that's moot - all business take financial risks. The fact that Marvel was successful and and all those other companies weren't shows how valuable Kirby was.

Agreed. Marvel will argue that it's based on a lot of measures, not just artists, and I'd agree. Distribution, merchandising, copies printed, all the typical publishing company/management decisions. An artist contibutes greatly to the product seen by the public, creating/establishing the overall identity.

But I'd agree that the Marvel lawyers have this locked up tight, that the 'business identity' legally beared the overall burden of success/failure, and Kirby did sign over any ownership years ago with standard agreements. It was the nature of the business in that era.

[Brazoo]

Agreed. Marvel will argue that it's based on a lot of measures, not just artists, and I'd agree. Distribution, merchandising, copies printed, all the typical publishing company/management decisions. An artist contibutes greatly to the product seen by the public, creating/establishing the overall identity.

But I'd agree that the Marvel lawyers have this locked up tight, that the 'business identity' legally beared the overall burden of success/failure, and Kirby did sign over any ownership years ago with standard agreements. It was the nature of the business in that era.

Well - I get your point, and I understand what they're saying about taking on the risk, but it's not like a guy who comes to a VC and says "I've got this great idea, you put up the money", then the VC takes the lion's share because he's taking on the financial risk.

There was a different kind of relationship there. For one thing comic artists aren't just coming up with ideas for product - in some sense they ARE the product.

[clemso]

But are you forgetting Kirby was already an established artist and could have easily worked for any other company and would have still come up with concepts an Ideas for any other company.....after all Captain America was his and Joe Simon's character. Kirby had already tons of created characters before his 60's run at Marvel....and when he left Marvel he kept on creating characters that are still used to this day.

Silver Star and Captain Victory didn't get a wider audience because of Pacific comics who had a short lived publishing life. Had that been at Marvel a wider audience would have seen it and it could have been easily turned into a animated series and toyline during the 80's

Point taken, Kirby was already a established comic book artist in the 40s, but apart from Cap A who Joe Simon also had a big hand in creating, what other Kirby characters stood the test of time from that period, Stuntman? Boy Commandos? Just saying that we can't ignore the Marvel factor in the success of those characters such as Hulk, Thor, FF and X-Men. On another day all this could have fallen flat on its face. I seem to remember that Marvel/Atlas were on the verge of financial collapse in those days and yes it was the combination of comics such as FF and Spidey that turned it around. But perhaps Marvel's branding style cannot be ignored as a big contributing factor to its success.

[hedrap]

First of all Kirby stuck with comics - a lot of guys went into advertising. He stuck with what he loved in a failing marketplace. He was hashing it out with Marvel when Marvel was supposedly close to folding. So that's just not so.

You missed the entire point of the ruling and my initial comment. Risk as established by the judge. Actual risk was Fighting American, which didn't pan out. Kirby's post-Mainline record shows he wanted his Crestwood deal but without the risk.

When Marvel was being built Kirby was ONLY working for Marvel - It wasn't just freelance work.

What he was doing at Atlas is what he always did - moving from one company to the next after a blow out with management. He thought every company owed him his Crestwood deal and that just wasn't the case.

He believed in building Marvel and all his actions point to someone who was expecting to be promoted within a company who's success he was a key player in. The fact that he was never even given a permanent position, benefits or a pension is insane. Any other company would have hired him and promoted him from within.

Kibry knew first-hand what it meant to have real risk on the table. He tried it and it fell flat. What he wanted from Atlas/Marvel is what he wanted from DC - a consistent paycheck plus profit-sharing and ownership. No one had that contract, except maybe Bob Kane from the 30's heyday. Kirby wasn't looking to be a salaried employee. He could have had that before going back to Atlas.

Lee's fight to have Kirby's name on the Hulk credits was not out of respect for Kirby. He had been criticized for years for overstepping Kirby's contribution to creating the staple Marvel characters - and he 100% knew what the reaction would be if he got soul creator credit. Look at his public record and interviews from before that movie.

You're conflating things. What Stan did when Jack was alive is not the same as what he did starting around the first X-Men film. He reached out to Ditko when Spidey was taking off and wanted him involved with the promotional, but Ditko is Ditko. As I pointed out, when Stan's contract with Marvel was upended, his outlook as the company man changed.

What do you not like about Evanier? That he lost weight? I'm not offended - I just think it's just a weird thing to say.

What, you don't get the Zelig reference? This case proves he's overstated his position as eye-witness grand historian. His testimony was a joke. All inference, conjecture and third-hand hearsay, which is not how he's promoted himself over the years.