Latest news of Kirby vs. Marvel Comics..

[david_b]

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.

Well..., yes and no. If you're referring to 'established artists', ones that are immediately identifiable as a 'commodity' by the market (like Kirby, Adams, Ditko, etc AFTER they've climbed the ranks..) and are used to draw in sales, yes, they are 'product'.

If they're basically nobody's, just starting out (and become successful), then they become 'product' by virture of their notoriety or distinctive style.

[Brazoo]

Well..., yes and no. If you're referring to 'established artists', ones that are immediately identifiable as a 'commodity' by the market (like Kirby, Adams, Ditko, etc AFTER they've climbed the ranks..) and are used to draw in sales, yes, they are 'product'.

If they're basically nobody's, just starting out (and become successful), then they become 'product' by virture of their notoriety or distinctive style.

Yeah - I'm referring to Kirby.

[Brazoo]

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.


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.


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.

We have different perspectives on Kirby's motives. Of course we need to interpret to some degree, so it's not surprising that different people will have different viewpoints. There are plenty of quotes from Kirby people who knew him at the time that back up the idea that Kirby's intention was to stick with Marvel for the long haul - building his career as he helped build Marvel. I stand by my assessment that Marvel didn't value Kirby as much as they should have, and that Kirby was actually VERY loyal.

Crestwood ended when the bottom fell out of the industry and Simon made the decision to jump ship. From all accounts I've read it was actually very lucrative. Point being that Kirby was never a business decision-maker - it wasn't his thing.

Simon's business savvy was what got Kirby royalties and profit sharing on his previous contracts, even before Crestwood. Again, to me everything points to Kirby thinking he was going to build his career with Marvel. Bad business decision perhaps, but "normal" for Kirby wasn't the industry "norm", so the excuse that Marvel treated him the same as everyone else in the industry had to that point is untrue. Also, the argument that Marvel treated Kirby the same as all their employees was untrue. He had duties none of the other freelancers had - and Marvel didn't sign contracts with him regarding his ownership until much later in the game. They didn't cover themselves either - so I side with him.

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.

Well, I don't believe I am conflating things. I'm attributing Lee's change of heart to cause and effect. There was a growing public backlash against Lee - I believe he realized that getting soul creator credit on the films was going to make things worse, so he said "add the co-creators or take my name off". You think that was generous, I think he was trying to protect himself.

Again, it's fair that you disagree - it's not like his thought process has been made public, but my perspective makes more sense to me than yours.

Lee wasn't generous with sharing credit before, and even now he only plays lip-service to the other creators, to me, anyway.

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.

Ahh - No - I didn't get. I thought calling him "Zelig" was an ad-hominem shot about him loosing weight after gastric bypass surgery.

Personally, I think his perspective is pretty fair and accurate. Effective testimony? Maybe not.

Again it's all open to interpretation. My perspective fits for me - but I am interested in seeing articles/interviews that illustrate your arguments. I'm not afraid of being wrong on this.

[Brazoo]

Okay - I just read a chunk of the ruling and I disagree with what I've understood so far.

The assessment of risk all hinges on the "work for hire" rules that were established after Kirby had contributed his major work to Marvel - and I still don't think it fits.

Marvel was not paying Kirby for work regardless of what he created - purchasing his pages and paying for his work was up to their discretion. That was confirmed by several witnesses. He often worked for free when pages or ideas were rejected, so that constitutes "risk" as far as I'm concerned.

[hedrap]

There are plenty of quotes from Kirby people who knew him at the time that back up the idea that Kirby's intention was to stick with Marvel for the long haul - building his career as he helped build Marvel. I stand by my assessment that Marvel didn't value Kirby as much as they should have, and that Kirby was actually VERY loyal.

I would never argue that Goodman treated Kirby fairly. Goodman was a con by most accounts. But, your position really seems to stem from Kirby's legacy than the Jack Kirby of that moment.

The facts are that right before returning to Timely/Atlas, he had burned every other bridge. The guy didn't want to go back to Goodman, but what choice did he have to stay in the field and not follow Simon into the ad world? He had just torched his DC connections and the smaller labels were either wary or couldn't meet his demands.

Crestwood ended when the bottom fell out of the industry and Simon made the decision to jump ship. From all accounts I've read it was actually very lucrative. Point being that Kirby was never a business decision-maker - it wasn't his thing.

That's exactly right. Jack and Joe made out on the Mainline deal, but it wasn't good for Crestwood. When the opportunity to get out from under it came along, Crestwood took it. Kirby, not being the business savvy of the two, felt he shouldn't have any deals lesser than Mainline. But the fact was only DC could afford that deal and Jack was never going to get it from them. So things eventually erupted at DC and he had no other comic industry option but to go back to Goodman.

Simon's business savvy was what got Kirby royalties and profit sharing on his previous contracts, even before Crestwood. Again, to me everything points to Kirby thinking he was going to build his career with Marvel. Bad business decision perhaps, but "normal" for Kirby wasn't the industry "norm", so the excuse that Marvel treated him the same as everyone else in the industry had to that point is untrue. Also, the argument that Marvel treated Kirby the same as all their employees was untrue. He had duties none of the other freelancers had - and Marvel didn't sign contracts with him regarding his ownership until much later in the game. They didn't cover themselves either - so I side with him.

Again, I agree. Kirby did go the extra mile for Goodman, but that was based on the presupposition that he was going to get his Timely deal from Atlas. From Goodman's perspective, Kirby left him high-n-dry at their peak, and Goodman couldn't afford that contract anymore.

There was a growing public backlash against Lee - I believe he realized that getting soul creator credit on the films was going to make things worse, so he said "add the co-creators or take my name off". You think that was generous, I think he was trying to protect himself.

Did you know Lee originally wasn't going to get any film credits? Marvel felt they didn't owe him one since he had signed all ownership away and a film credit equals a paycheck from either Marvel Films or the studio. So it wasn't a case where Stan was afraid of some 90's era backlash. What was he protecting himself from? Fanboys? He hadn't cared what they said about "just dues" for thirty years. He realized after getting canned by Marvel, which they said they wouldn't do during bankruptcy, that everybody was going to get hosed and the only one who could do something about it, was him. He did talk about this in the early part of the decade, especially during the Hulk production because Universal was adamant they didn't owe him since they had the rights from the 70's and only Peter David deserved any kind of credit.

[hedrap]

The assessment of risk all hinges on the "work for hire" rules that were established after Kirby had contributed his major work to Marvel - and I still don't think it fits..

"Work for hire" as established by Marvel when Goodman was selling the company, right? Because the article states the judge went by the 1909 copyright law.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I still think the problem was that Kirby THOUGHT he was part of the company; that his efforts would be rewarded down the line, whereas the editors saw him as just another worker, doing pages for pay. Ultilately what they did WAS a dick move, but Kirby didn't have much legal recourse 'cos the company stuck to the letter of the agreement. (Except whan it came to returning his originals, which was kind of vague....) It'd be like fixing your neighbor's roof, unbidden; and then being surprised when he didn't pay you for it.

Now, on the PERSONAL side I could see there being congenial connections that made Kirby feel like an actual part of the team.... but that doesn't make for any real legal traction. (I can also see some of the higher-ups deliberately squeezing Kirby out for fear that he'd overshadow them. Morally wrong, but not neccesarily legally so.)

Don C.

[Adam West]

I work in an industry of artists/musicians and generally find that great artists do not have good business sense. I think it is a right brain/left brain thing. I work for in the music and have watched countless fantastic creative people go bankrupt. Stan Lee, love him or hate him has a rare gift...he is very creative but is also a savvy businessman. I read the entire article and as much as I would like to take Kirby's side; I think the ruling was correct. I have worked for biotech companies with super smart geniuses. The company spends billions of dollars on an idea but wants something in return for the risk. My own experience is that the 80/20 rule applies. 80% of ideas will fail. 20% are home runs and more than make up for the 80% failure rate. Things have changed a lot since the 1940's but I do know that contracts are still in place to protect intellectual or artistic property. The Kirby estate would best be served by selling his original drawings as long as it is not copyright protected.

[clemso]

The Kirby estate would best be served by selling his original drawings as long as it is not copyright protected.

The return of Jack's original art is unfortunately another can of worms.

[samurainoir]

Stan Lee, love him or hate him has a rare gift...he is very creative but is also a savvy businessman.

By all accounts, Stan Lee isn't a very savvy businessman, but is a great pitchman and he did learn from his mistakes enough to keep renegotiating his contracts and getting better deals.

Lee himsel was burned by Goodman when Marvel was sold to Cadence in the seventies. he was burned again by Marvel's bankruptcy in the nineties, but at least this time had the contracts to back his lawyers up when he took legal action against Marvel.

Don't even get me started kn the debacle and folly that was Stan Lee Media... A shining example of what a dupe Lee is.

[samurainoir]

SRBissette.com - Marvel Kirby Family Loses—Next Step?

Regarding the legal vs moral issues around work for hire, I think Steve Bisette's outrage is a good barometer for how the creative community feels.

Although legally you have to think that Kirby's best shot would have been joining Joe Simon in the seventies against Marvel rather than playing the company man... And getting screwed by Goodman.

[ctc]

>legally you have to think that Kirby's best shot would have been joining Joe Simon in the seventies against Marvel rather than playing the company man

True; but I gotta wonder if Kirby thought he was being a dupe, or if he genuinely felt like he was part of the team. In retrospect, sure; it's easy to see how they reamed him hard.... but at the time, in the thick of it did it look that way?

I get the impression that Kirby was WAY to genuine a guy to deal with the corporate world.

>I think Steve Bisette's outrage is a good barometer for how the creative community feels.

Maybe; although I think he might be attributing things a bit wrong. The artist, the company, the fan.... they all have their own interests and they all work to protect them. Understanding the OTHER sides is the key to success. (Wether you work with, or against them.) For example: I don't remember the 90's turn from multiple holo-digital-limited-signed-glow in the dark covers as being any sort of cohesive movement. I remember the speculators getting fed up with having to hunt down ten versions of the same book; ONE of which MIGHT be worth some extra cash.

Don C.

[johnmiic]

Bissette makes some good points in his blog.

Contracts Jack signed were done so under "duress". Marvel always had the noose hanging over Jack. They always leaned on him as to keeping him employed, paying him his salary or returning his artwork. Bissette states this and the DC contracts, which were drawn up before Marvel thought of them, were not brought up in court and we have to wonder if those points would've cracked the case wide open.

Were the Kirby estate's lawyers aware of: Catherine L. Fisk’s “Authors at Work: The Origin of the Work-for-Hire Doctrine,” from the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities? It seems to me the way to win this case is to knock down the "Work For Hire" concept forever. It is an abused concept as much as "Intellectual Property" rulings have disenfranchised David Letterman & his writers from owning the material created for Late Night w/David Letterman on NBC.

Lee was employed because he was family at Marvel. Lee got the best treatment of anyone. Nepotism was largely at play here as far as his credit and financial rewards. Did the Kirby estate's lawyers ever bring that up? It seems to me that would have taken Marvel's credibility in court down a notch or two.

Also the fact that no other creations by Stan Lee, pre-Kirby or post Kirby have ever generated the profit that Kirby era creations have, (with the exception of Lee/Ditko creations). This certainly points to the possibility that Lee is less important in the creation of these characters than the artists.

The visual design of nearly all of Marvel's characters has generated them immense profit, more than stories have, because of merchandising. Merchandising only requires the art-not the backstory-Marvel eliminated the "middle man" in adverteising by simply re-using Jack's art on all sorts of items. If the art had not been Jack's in the first place, likely merchandise would not have sold as well.

[kingdom warrior]

Bissette makes some good points in his blog.

Contracts Jack signed were done so under "duress". Marvel always had the noose hanging over Jack. They always leaned on him as to keeping him employed, paying him his salary or returning his artwork. Bissette states this and the DC contracts, which were drawn up before Marvel thought of them, were not brought up in court and we have to wonder if those points would've cracked the case wide open.

Were the Kirby estate's lawyers aware of: Catherine L. Fisk’s “Authors at Work: The Origin of the Work-for-Hire Doctrine,” from the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities? It seems to me the way to win this case is to knock down the "Work For Hire" concept forever. It is an abused concept as much as "Intellectual Property" rulings have disenfranchised David Letterman & his writers from owning the material created for Late Night w/David Letterman on NBC.

Lee was employed because he was family at Marvel. Lee got the best treatment of anyone. Nepotism was largely at play here as far as his credit and financial rewards. Did the Kirby estate's lawyers ever bring that up? It seems to me that would have taken Marvel's credibility in court down a notch or two.

Also the fact that no other creations by Stan Lee, pre-Kirby or post Kirby have ever generated the profit that Kirby era creations have, (with the exception of Lee/Ditko creations). This certainly points to the possibility that Lee is less important in the creation of these characters than the artists.

The visual design of nearly all of Marvel's characters has generated them immense profit, more than stories have, because of merchandising. Merchandising only requires the art-not the backstory-Marvel eliminated the "middle man" in adverteising by simply re-using Jack's art on all sorts of items. If the art had not been Jack's in the first place, likely merchandise would not have sold as well.

Yep! That is Spot on!

[WannabeMego]

Bissette makes some good points in his blog.

Contracts Jack signed were done so under "duress". Marvel always had the noose hanging over Jack. They always leaned on him as to keeping him employed, paying him his salary or returning his artwork. Bissette states this and the DC contracts, which were drawn up before Marvel thought of them, were not brought up in court and we have to wonder if those points would've cracked the case wide open.

Were the Kirby estate's lawyers aware of: Catherine L. Fisk’s “Authors at Work: The Origin of the Work-for-Hire Doctrine,” from the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities? It seems to me the way to win this case is to knock down the "Work For Hire" concept forever. It is an abused concept as much as "Intellectual Property" rulings have disenfranchised David Letterman & his writers from owning the material created for Late Night w/David Letterman on NBC.

Lee was employed because he was family at Marvel. Lee got the best treatment of anyone. Nepotism was largely at play here as far as his credit and financial rewards. Did the Kirby estate's lawyers ever bring that up? It seems to me that would have taken Marvel's credibility in court down a notch or two.

Also the fact that no other creations by Stan Lee, pre-Kirby or post Kirby have ever generated the profit that Kirby era creations have, (with the exception of Lee/Ditko creations). This certainly points to the possibility that Lee is less important in the creation of these characters than the artists.

The visual design of nearly all of Marvel's characters has generated them immense profit, more than stories have, because of merchandising. Merchandising only requires the art-not the backstory-Marvel eliminated the "middle man" in adverteising by simply re-using Jack's art on all sorts of items. If the art had not been Jack's in the first place, likely merchandise would not have sold as well.

You missed your calling John!!!

You should compose this and send it to the Kirby Family.