Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby Estate Announce Amicable Resolution

[samurainoir]

Just a note, that I usually don't choose a horse when it comes to Stan and Jack (both flawed men who made their share of bad decisions while co-creating all my beloved Marvel characters), it's mostly colour commentary...

Stan in turn, originally was kinda screwed by Goodman himself wasn't he? When Goodman sold Marvel. At that point, I believe Stan learned his lesson with contracts and played the long game... increasing his own "value" via the PR game he does so well (and I agree... arguably at the expense of his co-creators). I don't think he actually saw millions until he was well into his senior citizenship.

I'm suspecting, due to Stan's settlement with Marvel in the nineties, after they breached his contract, there was a company line that Stan had to tow. We're not privy to what Stan signed of course, but looking at Kevin Smith's DVD interview with him for example (which was post-settlement)... Smith gives him plenty of "outs", but Stan doesn't take it. One has to wonder at that point if it's choice, or is it a legally enforced gag-order imposed by Marvel on their side of the negotiating table?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clospG_R0Vg

There are plenty of Marvel insiders in recent years who have defended Stan, such as Joe Q and Brian Bendis, saying that most of the public are not privy to what Stan tries to do on behalf of Ditko and Kirby internally at Marvel (especially in recent years... Bendis cited the movie credit as example). We have no idea what Stan's role was in getting this settlement. and even if he was instrumental.... maybe it is too little too late? Again, very gray area when there are many, many actual facts missing and we're having emotional discussions around beloved creators of our childhood/lifelong icons like Spidey and co.

It's at times hard to separate out legal from moral in these discussions... and even harder to differentiate "moral"... Stan I think is a perfect Gray area in this regard and why it's so divisive within fandom discussions.

Everyone is a grown up and makes the deal that they feel like they needed to make at the time. This settlement is probably a best-case scenario given head-slapping legal instances where Kirby testified on behalf of Marvel AGAINST Joe Simon in Simon's case to reclaim the rights to Captain America. Had Kirby retained legal counsel of his own instead of trusting Goodman/Marvel, he'd have seen he would have been entitled to everything Simon would have been entitled to.

Legally though, ALL of this hinges on the fact that at the time of creation, work-for-hire laws were either non-existant or shaky and difficult to enforce at best when it comes to defining what a "contractor" is. Compound that with the fact that Copyright law continues to be extended, and creators and their heirs (like Seigel and Shuster) are perfectly in their rights, since it's already a matter of public record that they created Superman BEFORE they sold him off. Copyright law was originally created to benefit and protect creators, and then extended to benefit their heirs after all (originally fifty years IIRC). With the relatively modern precedence of granting corporations the same rights as human beings, this kind of shifts the purpose of copyrights into protecting corporate IP seemingly indefinitely. This is why they are updating all the outfits and having specific movie outfits... they can protect the New 52 and movie designs. Also trademarking Man of Steel and Dark Knight and all the other alternate identifying monikers. They are shoring up their eventual IP fight once copyright lapses. Disney in particular is going to be well practiced already with Mickey heading for that fight ahead first.

BID. Anyways, copyright extension was the basis of the case with Joe Simon and Captain America in the seventies (and revisited in recent years with a settlement... that Kirby should have been equally entitled to, but we don't have any of that in public record either).

So.... what we do have is a situation where Superman and Captain America SHOULD be entering the public domain (at least TWICE now), because that was the terms that the original contracts were drafted under. This gives the original copyright owner the opportunity to reclaim their character because of the terms of that original contract have changed by law. I don't really see it as greed... I see it as well within their rights, both moral and legal.

Given the Billions at this point Superman/X-Men/Spider-man et al generates, we live in a world where a settlement in the millions is a drop in the bucket that Warners or Disney could easily spend elsewhere without a second thought... like redecorating the corporate headquarters, or catering, or whatever. Most parents want their kids well cared for after they go, and would love to leave them with that kind of legacy, particularly if they struggled in life during their kid's upbringing while they spend so many hours of their childhood at the drawing board perhaps sacrificing time actually with them (note... moral argument, which is generally the basis of legally settling with the estates once Marvel and DC are tried in the Court of Public Opinion. Folks do tend to side with David over Goliath).

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes, Lee has been adamant that he doesn't own his creations either. BUT, he managed to eke out a lucrative relationship with Marvel when Kirby and others, including Martin Goodman's family, could not.

Chris

[samurainoir]

Keep in mind, Stan and Marvel are not necessarily synonymous... he also had to sue Marvel in the 90's to enforce his contracts with them and get whatever he thought was his fair-share.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I do think Stan gets beat up a lot, but I agree with Berto that he doesn't help himself much with his narrow view of what a co-creator is. To me, comics being a visual medium, if the writer doesn't sketch out the costume design, no matter how rough his art skills, and hand it to the artist...that first artist is a co-creator. Because that visual is what follows that character from issue to issue, title to title, into TV, movies, toys...etc.

Reading Howe's book, it seems like Kirby may have went overboard marginilizing Stan's contributions during the 80s when the lawsuits began. After years of playing the company man and not getting any reward, I kind of think he just figured he'd give it right back to them. That's not right either, but I think that is one reason why so many Kirby boosters despise Stan.

I am of the opinion that Stan AND Jack, and Stan AND Steve created the characters in question, and they, and their heirs, should share in at least a pittance of the billions their works generate for Marvel/Disney. It would seem that the Kirby estate is happy, or they wouldn't settle. So I feel pretty good about it, until I hear otherwise.

Chris

[Blue Meanie]

My point about Stan wasn't a monetary point...it was a point about how Stan thinks that because he had the idea for a character, and NOT THE DESIGN/ART for a character or characters, he thinks that he is the sole creator of the Marvel characters like Spider-Man. He couldn't even say it on the Ditko Documentary. I understand the whole work for hire situation, that's all fine and legal, but to not even acknowledge the fact that someone had a hand in the characters is just plain old WRONG. If there weren't these lawsuits I can guarantee you that all of the films would say Stan Lee as creator of all the Marvel Comics movies. Ditkos's belief in Objectivism should have no bearing on Stan's inability to acknowledge that Ditko was a co-creator of Spider-Man as well as co-creator of Dr. Strange for that fact...and he's done neither.

As far as the settlement from Marvel/Disney is concerned...I will wait to see what happens in the future as far as maybe some sort of acknowledgement of Kirby in print on their comic books. Haven't seen it yet with the exception of Galactic Bounty Hunters which was a Marvel Imprint book/series.

[madmarva]

I'm glad the Kirby's and Marvel settled. Now, the focus can turn from the fight over rights back to to his work both with and without Lee. I belive 2017 is the 100th anniversary of Kirby's birth. It would be cool if that could be celebrated without animosity.

[palitoy]

I have to agree with you guys on Stan Lee, there is always a strong tendency in the comics industry to completely side with the guy who didn't get rich. Not to say I don't love Kirby and think that he was owed a little something. Acknowledging Lee's contributions doesn't belittle the others, pairing him with Ditko or Kirby was dynamite.

For the past five years I've been involved with a massive lawsuit in publishing. I can't divulge much but the one side claimed they created absolutely everything. While researching, I found hand drawn cover sketches, title proposals and piles of layouts from my client dating back to day one that prove he was instrumental in their success. The other side's legal team made it as if he never had a good idea. It was really upsetting and a lot people chose to believe it.

[hedrap]

We'll never get the details. Marvel made the announcement because Disney has shareholders and it's a way to put the case to bed.

I love Ditko, but he went overboard. You see signs acknowledging that it gets to him when he releases Op-Ed's. The Objectivist belief is to spend no time reflecting backwards as it stops creative momentum going forward, but the Spidey movies irritated the hell out of him.

and I've always been where Dwayne's at; Stan stirred the drink. Kirby proved post-Marvel that without an editor his great ideas were lost amid insanity. There's a lot of revisionism when it comes to Kirby, some from him but most from Evanier. For example, the late 70's claim that Asgard was always supposed to be an alien race, is nonsense influenced by Chariot of The Gods with a little Star Wars jealousy.

[enyawd72]

I think Stan Lee always gets a very bad rap in all this stuff. He went out of his way to credit everyone who worked on those early Marvel books, right down to the letterer. If you look at any of the collected editions as far back as the 1970's, Stan ALWAYS gave credit where credit was due. It was not up to him what Kirby, or Ditko, or anyone else got paid or what their contracts were.
Where was Steve Ditko when the first Spider-Man film came out 12 years ago? He could have made a small fortune hitting the talk show circuit, attending premieres, etc. He chooses NOT to stand in the spotlight. Lee does, and I can't fault the man for that.
His contributions to comics still exceed any other creator in history. What did Siegel and Shuster do after Superman? Nothing. What did Bob Kane do after Batman? Nothing. Whether you want to say Lee created or co-created, name one other person in comics with as many successful characters. There aren't any even close. Spider-Man, Hulk, FF, Daredevil, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men, Dr. Strange...that's a helluva lot of creative output.
Had Stan quit Marvel as he originally intended to in 1962 would Kirby or Ditko have come up with all those characters? I highly doubt it. You see, whether it's Lee and Kirby, or Lee and Ditko, the common denominator in the equation is Stan Lee.

[TomStrong]

"Berto, If MARVEL - The Untold Story by Sean Howe is accurate, and I think it is well researched, Steve Ditko is akin to a cult follower of a philosophy, (Randian Objectivism), which is very inflexible and does not allow for co-creators. Ditko was a great artist and plotter but the more I learn about him he seems like a squirrely loon. Lee is no angel but it seems to me Ditko stepped off the seep end years ago.

I'm spitting up on myself after reading "squirrely loon". That's too funny.

[cjefferys]

From what I know, a condition of the settlement was that the settlement details would not be disclosed - so we may never know. If that's the case it seems fairly standard from other cases I've followed.

Yes, that very often is what happens in cases like these, so we may never know the details. But if the Kirby family was willing to settle, hopefully it was due to something substantial.

[johnmiic]

"Berto, If MARVEL - The Untold Story by Sean Howe is accurate, and I think it is well researched, Steve Ditko is akin to a cult follower of a philosophy, (Randian Objectivism), which is very inflexible and does not allow for co-creators. Ditko was a great artist and plotter but the more I learn about him he seems like a squirrely loon. Lee is no angel but it seems to me Ditko stepped off the seep end years ago.

[Brazoo]

From what I know, a condition of the settlement was that the settlement details would not be disclosed - so we may never know. If that's the case it seems fairly standard from other cases I've followed.

[Blue Meanie]

Am I missing something here?? It doesn't state what the settlement is. I'm curious to see what that is. The statement from Marvel means absolutely nothing in my opinion because there is nothing attached to what was the agreement with the Kirby Estate. Personally I am getting really tired of seeing Stan's face. After seeing things like the British Ditko documentary it makes me dislike Stan more and more. Couldn't even acknowledge that Ditko was co-creator of Spider-Man. Love to see tangible evidence of the settlement between Marvel and the Kirby Estate...Then I will believe it.

[hedrap]

Even if The Supreme Court passed, marvel would have had to settle. But by settling beforehand, it shows they were after money. There's no more film credit Marvel can give Kirby, he gets a co-creator in every film on every character he came up with. They could have ended up with partial ownership of Marvel.