Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby Estate Announce Amicable Resolution

[samurainoir]

http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?19301-Marvel-amp-Jack-Kirby-Family-Settle-Long-Running-Legal-Dispute&p=552706#post552706

Kurt Busiek...

This wretched, insulting narrative that Kirby's heirs up and sued Marvel because they smelled money so they ignored the deals their father had made to stick up the poor victimized company is wholly inaccurate. To start with, the Kirby Estate didn't sue Marvel. Marvel sued the Kirby Estate.

As Brian noted, Congress changed copyright law in the mid-70s, and in doing so, they gave a huge gift to corporations: They made copyright last years longer.

So when the Fantastic Four were created, under the law, Marvel only expected to own them for a maximum of 56 years, since that was the maximum length of copyright at the time. At the end of that period, the FF would go into the public domain.

So when Congress changed the law, they knew they were giving copyright buyers something extremely valuable -- many more years of copyright ownership -- and they balanced it out by giving copyright sellers some new rights, too. They gave them the right to terminate any copyright assignment (i.e., sale of rights) during a particular set period of time. They couldn't do it before that time, and if they waited to long, they couldn't do it after that time. But they had a window during which they could reclaim rights.

The reasoning on that is pretty simple -- they figured that if someone like, say, Jack Kirby sold Marvel all rights to a new creation, then both sides knew that the term of sale was 56 years. After that, Marvel wouldn't own the thing any more; it'd be in the public domain like the Wizard of Oz and Frankenstein.

So if Congress was saying that sale was actually going to be for much longer (95 years, I believe), then the buyer was getting a much better deal, and the seller should get a chance to get a better deal too. So Congress allows the creator to revert the sale, thus being able to make more money off of the extended copyright period.

Companies get something, creators get something. The law benefits both of them.

So what happened wasn't that the Kirby family sued Marvel just because they one day decided to up and want more money. They didn't even sue. What they did was file for termination of copyright assignment -- the very thing that the law allows creators to do. They didn't do this against the wishes of Kirby himself -- Kirby had been all for doing it, ever since the law had been changed. But they had to wait a certain amount of time, and Kirby didn't live long enough to see it happen. But he was always on board with it.

So: Kirbys didn't sue. Kirbys didn't decide that Marvel had suddenly become rich so let's bleed 'em. Kirbys followed the law -- a law that Marvel benefits hugely from, but which gives benefits to creators, too.

People complain that it's unfair for creators to use the part of the law that benefits them, but rarely complain that publishers get to use the part that benefits them. But fair's fair -- observe either the whole law, or none of it.

So the Kirbys filed (note: They did not sue), as they were legally entitled to, and in accord with Jack's wishes.

And then Marvel sued them, to stop them from reverting those copyrights.

[samurainoir]

I was listening to this in the car last night night... kind of a fascinating first-person account by Neal Adams, of what it was like to create comics with Stan Lee, by someone who was there at the height of the Silver Age.

http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/nerdist-comics-panel-59-neal-adams/

[Mr.Marion]

Good for his family and marvel/Disney for paying it forward. Many of us had megos of Cap,Hulk, and the FF as kids Jack got a goose egg for his efforts.

[Brazoo]

I think you mean "sole" writer.

Haha, yeah! Thanks John! I meant "sole" instead of "soul" - I'm always struggling with grammar, as I'm sure most of you notice.

[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.

[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.

[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]

^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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.