Marvel sues to keep Spider-Man, X-Men copyrights

[David Lee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/..._kirby_lawsuit

[Toy Talk]

Maybe it is just me but I am failing to see how Kirby's estate will win a lawsuit over Marvel characters. Any work done by a Marvel or DC artist immediately becomes the property of the company; that is why McFarlane left to start Image Comics. This is a dead lawsuit, the filers just do not know it yet.

[ODBJBG]

I was just writing about this: Infinite Hollywood: Jack Kirby versus Marvel

It's going to be hard for Kirby's family to get in on much for a lot of those characters, but especially Spider-man, given that Kirby never did anything on that strip beside some original pitching.

[Riffster]

is this the Superman thing all over again?

[johnmiic]

The design of Spider-Man & the cover from Amazing Fantasy #15 is purported to be Kirby's art. Stan does mention in Origins of Marvel Comics, that he first gave the Spider-Man idea to Jack Kirby to illustrate. Kirby probably invented the familiar Red and Blue costume.

When Jack seemed to be gaining ground over Marvel in the mid-1980's with his lawsuit they changed the Spider-Man costume to black & white one used in Secret Wars to reduce the amount of damages they would have to pay him in case he won the suit.

That Red, web face of Spider-Man as been used to market everything imagineable. If they win the suit there will be an unbelievable amount of money going back to the Kirby estate.

[ODBJBG]

The design of Spider-Man & the cover from Amazing Fantasy #15 is purported to be Kirby's art. Stan does mention in Origins of Marvel Comics, that he first gave the Spider-Man idea to Jack Kirby to illustrate. Kirby probably invented the familiar Red and Blue costume.

When Jack seemed to be gaining ground over Marvel in the mid-1980's with his lawsuit they changed the Spider-Man costume to black & white one used in Secret Wars to reduce the amount of damages they would have to pay him in case he won the suit.

That Red, web face of Spider-Man as been used to market everything imagineable. If they win the suit there will be an unbelievable amount of money going back to the Kirby estate.

Interesting, I've always heard that all of Jack's original stuff was tossed out and that Ditko redesigned the suit, got rid of the web gun, etc. Kirby's Spider-man idea was closer to the Fly.

This just presents more of a problem to the Kirby estate, as so much of what happened back then is heresay and the only guy who really can say for sure is Lee, who doesn't even credit Ditko with creating Spider-man.

[Meule]

Kirby's heirs will never win this

[clemso]

Spider-man is a weak argument, everyone knows Ditko designed the classic outfit. original X-men and Hulk would have more leverage.

[jwyblejr]

With Disney's lawyers,I don't think they'll have a leg to stand on.

[kingdom warrior]

I feel bad for Kirby but his estate is not winning...that's what happens when you sell your soul to the Devil(Marvel)

Tough choices for Kirby who had to feed and cloth his family and get a steady check.....

[TEXASFETT]

This is crap always about money!!!!

[dr_cyclops]

As for Spiderman, I believe I read in one of TwoMorrows Fanzines, that Simon and Kirby pitched to Marvel a character called "The Silver Spider". He was a kid who had a special ring that changed him into an adult superhero.(Capt. Marvel aka Shazam)
Of the art I seen, besides the obvious change of Kirby body frame, Ditko gave the scalloped web look. All Kirby design art of Spidey I've seen, have straight lines on the webbing.
I can only imagine how bad Kirby felt, if he knew he was working on a rip-off of his good friend Joe's character.

[hedrap]

Kirby was in on the early Spidey stuff, so I wouldn't say he was ripped off. A lot of the characters were batted around the bullpen with Stan at the center.

Kirby's situation is different than Stan's because Lee's contracts were re-written when the company was sold to Photochemical (or whatever the name). Stan held multiple titles, had a few different contracts or verbal agreements and changed his name. Kirby is a more direct WFH, but the WFH contracts we know today didn't come into play at Marvel until after the sale. The Silver Age is a contractual quagmire which is why Kirby's estate is taking a shot. IMO, they have more trouble from the outcome of Simon's estate losing the Cap fight than they gain from the Siegel case.

If I had to guess, something happened in the sale to Disney and the Kirby estate probably lost some kind of royalties Marvel was paying over the years. That was the real cause of Stan's blowout.

[goldenryan]

Spider-man is a weak argument, everyone knows Ditko designed the classic outfit. original X-men and Hulk would have more leverage.

kirby's family should get double royalities for this then

[samurainoir]

just so I don't keep typing the same thing over and over again each time this discussion comes up, I'm just going to cut and paste my response for the comic book thread of the same topic

Simon's ended in a settlement? Really? I thought he lost. I guess that was the Marvel spin because the Disney deal was in the works at the time.

It would make more sense now for Kirby's estate to come at Disney is Simon pinched Marvel. Simon's estate would almost have to share the info with Kirby's because of all the work done together.

He lost originally in the 70's when the copyright laws changed and Kirby testified AGAINST him on behalf of Marvel. In retrospect, not a very smart move on Kirby's part because he would have benefited from Simon's action. Plus after the fact, Marvel screwed Kirby by not giving him the financial compensation they told him he would receive for backing Marvel in court. The copyright act was extended once again in recent years which again allowed for Simon to move the reclaim the copyright, which resulted in what Simon has hinted at being a financial settlement of some sort (which he obviously can't talk about).

So look at it this way... in theory we've come up on the period in time where MIckey Mouse, Captain America, Superman, et al should actually belong to ALL OF US to preserve as historical artifact.

So we should all be able to have the right to make our own Mickey Mouse, Captain America and Superman comic books, T-shirt, Action Figures, repro boxes, etc without any fear of being squashed like a bug by corporate legal. Which is why all manner of Oz and Sherlock Holmes stuff has flooded the market in recent years. Peter Pan is poised as well (on this side of the pond).

But Disney and the other corporate gianst have flexed their financial muscle to keep control of their characters for much longer than the span of a human life, since the corporations have all the rights of humans, plus the added benefit of potential immortality.

BEFORE they can do that, the ORIGINAL Copyright owner... in the clearest case, Siegel and Shuster (and their estates) has a right to reclaim each time they extend that copyright act because their original deal was under the terms of the old act and thus the contract should be concluded from the original date of expiry when it would otherwise go into public domain.

So I really don't think anyone has cause to complain about "Greedy Heirs" when it is actually "Greedy Corporations" that are changing the game to keep control of these characters that now should rightly belong to us all.