Marvel wins Copyrights over Jack Kirby Estate

[ThatNickGuy]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=33616

I'm really torn about this one.

On the one hand, I'm saddened that the name "Jack Kirby" is not a mainstream, household name like Stan Lee. You look at the sheer creativeness coming out of Marvel in its infancy and it was pretty much all Jack (except for Spider-Man, which was more Steve Ditko; another creator who was screwed over). The "Marvel" way of creating a comic was Lee and the artist would discuss the basics over the phone. The rest was up to the artist, who would make the panels, design the characters, etc. Lee would come in after and write some stuff in the word balloons. Plus, you look at the sheer amount of creativity and new characters that Kirby would create and design: the Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Galactus, Thor and his Marvel mythology, The Inhumans, etc. The list goes on. Yet, when he left Marvel, the House of Ideas didn't exactly have as many ideas.

And honestly, I've read a lot about Kirby. It absolutely destroyed him that he didn't get as much money, let alone recognition, for his work that Lee took. He couldn't even go into a toy store because he would fume over seeing the Marvel figures on the shelf that he wasn't getting any money from. He had to keep working pretty much to the end because he wasn't getting any kind of royalties.

It really irks me. Creators like Kirby, Ditko, Shuster & Siegel, Bill Finger (co-creator of Batman)...they all got screwed over by Marvel and DC. Everyone knows who Bob Kane is but no one remembers Bill Finger.

...on the other hand, I just don't know if I agree with an estate or heirs receiving much, if anything, in the way of rights. The original creators? Absolultely. But not their family, who didn't do any of the genius creative work in creating those characters. I could understand if the estate got a least some kind of royalties or something. At this point, though, I don't think it should matter as much. If it was the still the original creators fighting over the works, then I'd be 500% behind them. The estates? Not so much.

Thoughts?

 

[Zappit]

I know Bill Finger - created a hell of a lot of the iconic Batman images and stories.

 

[PatrThom]

I've never been a fan of heirs being able to continue to milk a legacy long after the ancestor has died, but it's no secret that people will fight really hard to keep from doing honest work.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

If he had not accepted the job offer, he would not have created those characters on his own.

Here's the big tradeoff:

Kirby wanted a sure bet. He didn't want to gamble on making it big.

So rather than strike out on his own and hope something works out and he makes it big without selling his copyright, he does the safe, sane thing - he works for a company that will pay him per assignment, per page.

Now he's not taking ANY risk. He's paid regardless of the success of his work.

The company that hires him, however, shoulders all the expense and risk - and if things don't work out they're out tens of thousands of dollars on an employee who didn't pan out.

But there's a problem - if you don't take the big risk, you don't get the big reward.

Kirby knowingly traded his right to a piece of the blockbuster pie by settling for a no risk scenario right up front.

If he would have instead started out on his own, published his own work, and accepted ALL the risk, he would own ALL the reward.

In some cases you can do both - accept a contract for less than what you're worth up front for equity or part ownership in the profits or copyrights.

But to say that you want no risk in the beginning, and then claim that you deserve the rewards of someone else's risk?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But even worse is that he wouldn't have created these particular characters ( and odds are he didn't fully create them himself - they are his drawings with a ton of input from the people paying his wages) if he hadn't joined the company. So the characters and worlds aren't his in any intrinsic manner. It can't be claimed that he would have created them in his basement without the support of the company, that they sprung fully formed from his mind.

I know we often make a joke of "selling out" but it's a real issue for artists - are they going to jump off the cliff, take all the risk, and hope that they can build a glider before they hit the ground, catch a few thermals, and hopefully build a jet before the thermals die? Or are they going to let someone else handle the risk in return for a steady paycheck, health insurance, etc, knowing that there's a chance they may have a hand in the work that makes it big?

Make no mistake - the studio paid hundreds, perhaps thousands, of artists over the last few decades. The studio paid them. Most of them didn't pan out. For every Jack Kirby there were hundreds of average artists who churned out material, and then left or were let go once their work lost interest.

They all made the same choice - make a living, accept little to no risk. They all got paid for their work. All of them got what they signed up for - even Kirby.

So after taking risks on so many artists, and having a few big hits, and a few blockbusters, suddenly they find themselves with Kirby, Lee, and the rest of the creative team at the right time, the right place, and all those risky bets over the last few decades pay off in a long sequence of blockbusters.

Yes, Kirby had a hand in it. But he accepted payment for the work under the understanding that he wouldn't own any residuals - he accepted no risk, and took home a steady paycheck.

But even if he had accepted the risk himself, he wouldn't have been able to turn out that work in his basement, nevermind get it published and into the hands of those who would pay him for it.

So no, even if he was alive I wouldn't agree that he deserves part of the blockbuster profit. He made his choice early on in the game while the choice was safe. Trying to go back in time and make a different choice once you know the outcome is ridiculous.

But if artists get to go back in time and change contracts they signed once they understood the outcome, then I believe everyone should have that same opportunity. For that reason, I want to buy Apple's stock in 1978. I intended to buy it then, but spent that money on food instead. Just because I ate the food doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to buy a dozen shares at that price and that percentage of the company, and get the result today.

We should all totally be able to do that.

 

[Chibibar]

This can even go with Today's market vs the early days. Printed Comic vs Internet comic.

I'm sure if Kirby started now and didn't started with Marvel, his work would probably be popular and he would own all of it.

In the early days any publishing work like books, music, TV shows, movies, and printed materials you need a big company to help distribute/produce/invest in it.

Now-a-days you just need an internet, a website (most are free to a certain extent) and a computer.

 

[Covar]

Bill Finger wasn't really screwed by DC, it was really that he was screwed by Bob Kane.

 

[@Li3n]

Kirby wanted a sure bet. He didn't want to gamble on making it big.

You do realise that he didn't create Cap and Spidey in the 90's, right? There was no option of creating them on his own and self publishing them unless he was already rich.

 

[blotsfan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Splendor

 

[Covar]

You do realize that Jack Kirby didn't create Spidey right?
Added at: 13:56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Splendor

Blot, don't be silly. Everyone knows that until Image there was no such thing as creator owned comics. You had the choice of getting screwed over by Marvel or by DC and that was it.

 

[Norris]

Kirby's career predates the "underground comix" movement by nearly thirty years, his major Marvel works predate it by about seven years. Even then, super hero works (like the kind Jack Kirby created even when he had a bit more creative freedom) were not really part of that movement. So far as I know, it was the late 70's or early 80's before independent super hero comics took off, and Kirby did take part in it (though his works with Pacific Comics and Topps Comics aren't such classics).

I also notice that, in discussions of how "terrible" work for hire is in comics, Dr. Occult and Groot come up a lot less than Superman and the Fantastic Four. Which I find kind of weird, if it is about creator's right and not just money. Dr. Occult has the same creators as Superman, Groot the same the F4, the creators probably got paid about equally for their creations, and got no royalties or control over either.

 

[@Li3n]

You do realize that Jack Kirby didn't create Spidey right?

I blame Reed Richards for being useless... if he wasn't maybe i would have remembered better it was the FF.... but hey, Spidey's a member now, so whatever...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Splendor

Ahem: "The first issue was published in 1976"

Cap - 1941; FF - 1961...

And of course others tried, but it was hardly one of the main options...
Added at: 16:47

I also notice that, in discussions of how "terrible" work for hire is in comics, Dr. Occult and Groot come up a lot less than Superman and the Fantastic Four. Which I find kind of weird, if it is about creator's right and not just money. Dr. Occult has the same creators as Superman, Groot the same the F4, the creators probably got paid about equally for their creations, and got no royalties or control over either.

Yes, it's totalyl weird, i mean why use well known figures when making examples, its not like you want people to know what you're talking about.

 

[blotsfan]

But

Ahem: "The first issue was published in 1976"

Cap - 1941; FF - 1961...

And of course others tried, but it was hardly one of the main options...

Well you said the 90s. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from earlier. Regardless, no one forced Jack Kirby to make any comics. If the terms set up at the time were so bad he could've just gone into a different field. He signed a contract that explicitly said the company gets the rights to his creations. I'm sure there are plenty of people who created shitty comics that the companies regret hiring. Does that mean a company can sue an artist for his wages back?

 

[@Li3n]

Well you said the 90s. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from earlier.

And a lot of people tried to fly before the Wright brothers... what's your point?

Regardless, no one forced Jack Kirby to make any comics. If the terms set up at the time were so bad he could've just gone into a different field.

No one forced miner X to work in unsafe conditions, if he wanted someone to care about his life he should have chosen a different profession... see why that doesn't work?

He signed a contract that explicitly said the company gets the rights to his creations. I'm sure there are plenty of people who created shitty comics that the companies regret hiring. Does that mean a company can sue an artist for his wages back?

Actually i'm pretty sure companies could just refuse to publish comics they didn't like (most of the time they just had them change stuff)...

 

[blotsfan]

And a lot of people tried to fly before the Wright brothers... what's your point?

Unlike that example, some people succeeded at self-publishing comics before the 90s, while no one made a succesful plane before the Wright brothers.

No one forced miner X to work in unsafe conditions, if he wanted someone to care about his life he should have chosen a different profession... see why that doesn't work?

Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.

Actually i'm pretty sure companies could just refuse to publish comics they didn't like (most of the time they just had them change stuff)...

Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.

 

[SpecialKO]

Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.

This. Right to safe work conditions isn't really the same thing as right to royalties on a work-for-hire product.

 

[Covar]

You know what problem I always have with most the Jack Kirby arguments? His work away from Stan Lee isn't as good as his work with Stan Lee. The two are very much the Lennon and McCartney of comics.

hint: Kirby is Lennon, Lee is McCartney.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

The same can be said for Lee, as well. Marvel's creativeness turn a signficant downturn after Kirby left.

I really can't agree that without Lee, Kirby wasn't good. While his writing/dialogue wasn't exactly fantastic, he still created a gaggle of amazing ideas for DC when he jumped ship. The Fourth World, The Demon, Kamandi, OMAC. Say what you will about his writing, but the sheer amount of ideas and creations he put out on a regular basis makes everyone else pale in comparison.

 

[Covar]

The same can be said for Lee, as well. Marvel's creativeness turn a signficant downturn after Kirby left.

I really can't agree that without Lee, Kirby wasn't good. While his writing/dialogue wasn't exactly fantastic, he still created a gaggle of amazing ideas for DC when he jumped ship. The Fourth World, The Demon, Kamandi, OMAC. Say what you will about his writing, but the sheer amount of ideas and creations he put out on a regular basis makes everyone else pale in comparison.

heh, I had mentioned that, must have edited it out before posting. Like I said, Lennon and McCartney. Kirby was a great idea guy, and an amazing artist, but He was no writer. Not by a long shot. Lee on the other hand could plot and write, but doesn't have a visual bone in his body. Less experimental, but more accessible and mainstream.

Of course Fantastic Four is the best thing either of them ever did (I love Spider-man, and Lee, Ditko, and JRSR were amazing, but that's one mans opinion).

 

[Chibibar]

Comparing working conditions and royalties/copyrights doesn't even make sense.

The only thing I can think of is "force" into a situation they can't get out of. (even that is a little thin)

 

[@Li3n]

Unlike that example, some people succeeded at self-publishing comics before the 90s, while no one made a succesful plane before the Wright brothers.

Actually they did, it just didn't qualify as controlled, piloted self sustained flight... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_flight

Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.

And that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument...

Like for example if society put less of a premium on the lives of blacks, or jews, like it actually did at times, it wouldn't really make the logic of the argument any less compelling... it would just show how we arbitrarily separate things based on prejudice.

Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.

But that's at least half the fault of the company, if not more (hello Gwen sleeping with Osbourne)... they're pretty much in control.

This. Right to safe work conditions isn't really the same thing as right to royalties on a work-for-hire product.

Oh for crying out loud... THE ANALOGY DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE I TAKE ONE OF THE SITUATION MORE SERIOUSLY is not a counter argument to what i said...

Which was that it's stupid to say they could have chosen something else as if that excuses someone taking advantage of your situation...

 

[ThatNickGuy]

heh, I had mentioned that, must have edited it out before posting. Like I said, Lennon and McCartney. Kirby was a great idea guy, and an amazing artist, but He was no writer. Not by a long shot. Lee on the other hand could plot and write, but doesn't have a visual bone in his body. Less experimental, but more accessible and mainstream.

Of course Fantastic Four is the best thing either of them ever did (I love Spider-man, and Lee, Ditko, and JRSR were amazing, but that's one mans opinion).

Heh, see, the problem is...I don't know anything about The Beatles. I barely know their music. So the comparison is completely lost on me.

 

[Covar]

They were the Kirby & Lee of music.

 

[AshburnerX]

Because I'm surprised no one has posted it yet...

 

[SpecialKO]

Which was that it's stupid to say they could have chosen something else as if that excuses someone taking advantage of your situation...

...why? Someone taking advantage of you is an excellent reason to go looking for another job in New York City, home of millions of people and tens of thousands of companies. Not saying it would be easy ('cause it definitely would not have been), but it clearly was easier to choose to not go looking.

Ignoring your equivalency of life-threatening conditions with a post-fact royalty contract, a 3rd-generation miner in a company mining town doesn't really have that level of freedom.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

They were the Kirby & Lee of music.

Heh, oh I know THAT much.

In fact, that's about ALL I know.

 

[@Li3n]

...why? Someone taking advantage of you is an excellent reason to go looking for another job in New York City, home of millions of people and tens of thousands of companies. Not saying it would be easy ('cause it definitely would not have been), but it clearly was easier to choose to not go looking.

Well let's see, the alternatives could easily be worse, times might have been tough (remember how WW2 had to step in to save the economy?) and jobs hard to come by etc... and then he'd been doing it for decades already (for FF) and switching over to something else would probably be worse...

But the alternative being worse doesn't make the situation fine...

Ignoring your equivalence of life-threatening conditions with a post-fact royalty contract, a 3rd-generation miner in a company mining town doesn't really have that level of freedom.

Analogy and equivalence might be synonyms sometimes, but not all the time... which is why they're different words...

Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.

But that's at least half the fault of the company, if not more (hello Gwen sleeping with Osbourne)... they're pretty much in control.

To expand on this, when the New Gods didn't meet their sales expectations they cancelled it even if there were at most 2-3 more issues to go...

 

[blotsfan]

Except the comic book artist got paid for the work he did, just as the contract he agreed to said he would. Why don't you think its unfair that the company had to devote its resources and pay someone who, looking back on it, was a failure? Also, if an artist can say however many years later "Oh, I didn't mean to give up my copyright in the contract. You owe me the royalties from the character" why can't the company say that the artist owes them all the money they've lost on flops the artist has come up with? Comic book companies need to make money too. If an artist decides that its worth it for him to give up his royalties for a guaranteed payday, thats his decision. If someone sells a house for 100k, but there turns out to be an oil well under the property, he can't try to get the house back. A copyright is just a property. If you decide that you'd rather have the $50k than the rights to your character, no one should tell you that you can't take it.

 

[@Li3n]

Because the company almost never has a case that it was taken advantage of... if it does then it doesn't have to pay...

 

[ThatNickGuy]

See, the thing is, the way the royalties were handled for Kirby and Siegel & Shuster were different.

In Siegel & Shuster's case, they sold the rights early in because, at the time, they didn't realize Superman was going to be a huge property. And if it was, they figured they could just create another, better character, anyway.

In Kirby's case? He was screwed. Royally screwed. When he tried to negotiate for a better deal with Marvel executives, he was basically told, "No. Stan Lee comes up with all the ideas. You artists just draw the pretty pictures." What's worse is Lee never did anything to defend guys like Kirby or Ditko.

 

[@Li3n]

Well there was also the fact that no one wanted to buy Superman in his original form, and the form they sold was a copy of one Hugo Danner anyway... (hell, the first chapter of Gladiator makes the same animal comparisons as AC#1)...

 

[SpecialKO]

But the alternative being worse doesn't make the situation fine...

Nor does it make it comparable to life-threatening work conditions, an analogy you brought up.

Analogy and equivalence might be synonyms sometimes, but not all the time... which is why they're different words...

Funny thing about that...analogies tend to fall apart when the equivalence is false.

 

[strawman]

Because the company almost never has a case that it was taken advantage of

Are you saying that employees rarely shaft the company they work for?

What a strange world you inhabit.

 

[Chibibar]

This is an advice my father gave me and I still follow it.

"You ALWAYS have a choice in life. Now the choice may not be to your liking, but you still have a choice"

A 3rd generation miner may not seem to have a choice in his job, but he does. He can try to do something else (it is not an ideal choice or a good one but a choice that he/she can make)
A comic artist had a choice of either getting a job with a company that will front all the cost and he gets a paycheck OR he fronts all the cost and start his own (i.e. printing on his own, getting loans, or negotiate contract with distributing company) it is not ideal choice, but a choice or find another job.

My father always tell me that it is silly that when people say "I don't have a choice" but in reality you do. The lifestyle you live, the food you eat, the place you live, it is all about your personal choice. There are alternative, it is not to your liking BUT it is a choice.

 

[@Li3n]

Are you saying that employees rarely shaft the company they work for?

What a strange world you inhabit.

Of course not, but if you really think the power balance isn't in favour of the company most of the time i'm not the one inhabiting a strange world.

And you still haven't answered the prostitution thing...

Nor does it make it comparable to life-threatening work conditions, an analogy you brought up.

Funny thing about that...analogies tend to fall apart when the equivalence is false.

I guess all analogies are false then unless the seriousness of the situation is the exact same, and then analogies are useless as you can't make much of a point by appealing to the same emotional level...

Refusing to give water to a man dying of thirst is universally seen as worse then refusing someone who's just thirsty... but that's because you're expecting him to be able to get water from somewhere eventually... but you're still doing the same action, even if in one case the consequences are more severe. And i don't see anything wrong with making the argument that, unless you really need that water, you should give it just like you would to a dying person...

This is an advice my father gave me and I still follow it.

"You ALWAYS have a choice in life. Now the choice may not be to your liking, but you still have a choice"

My father always tell me that it is silly that when people say "I don't have a choice" but in reality you do. The lifestyle you live, the food you eat, the place you live, it is all about your personal choice. There are alternative, it is not to your liking BUT it is a choice.

Or you could work the fields as a slave or be killed... see, it's a choice, sure, dying is not an option that you want, but it is one...

And hara-kiri/sepuku, taking poisoned hemlock etc. where things people did.

Doesn't mean it justifies anything...

 

[Norris]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, even though Kirby does get shorted on the credit far too often, Stan Lee did help create the characters. As I understand the Marvel method, he would come up with a basic idea and have the artists flesh it out. He did this collaboration in his position as EIC/Head Writer (not work-for-hire), so I don't think there can be any question as to whether or not his stake in the work would belong to the company. So the Kirby heirs don't deserve full rights to the work regardless of anything else - Jack wasn't working alone. He may have done more of the work, but he did not do all the work nor did he birth the ideas fully formed.

They want to sue DC for the rights to OMAC, The Demon, The Fourth World Saga, Atlas, The Dingbats of Danger Street, and Kamandi? They might have more of a case. But those aren't getting big time movies right now, so they won't get quite as much money, so I doubt they care a whole lot.