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.Kirby wanted a sure bet. He didn't want to gamble on making it big.
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.
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...You do realize that Jack Kirby didn't create Spidey right?
Ahem: "The first issue was published in 1976"
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.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.
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?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...
And a lot of people tried to fly before the Wright brothers... what's your point?Well you said the 90s. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from earlier.
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?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.
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)...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?
Unlike that example, some people succeeded at self-publishing comics before the 90s, while no one made a succesful plane before the Wright brothers.And a lot of people tried to fly before the Wright brothers... what's your point?
Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.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?
Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.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)...
This. Right to safe work conditions isn't really the same thing as right to royalties on a work-for-hire product.Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.
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.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.
Actually they did, it just didn't qualify as controlled, piloted self sustained flight... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_flightUnlike that example, some people succeeded at self-publishing comics before the 90s, while no one made a succesful plane before the Wright brothers.
And that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument...Because we as a society put a higher premium on human lives than copyrights.
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.Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.
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...This. Right to safe work conditions isn't really the same thing as right to royalties on a work-for-hire product.
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.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).
...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.Which was that it's stupid to say they could have chosen something else as if that excuses someone taking advantage of your situation...
Heh, oh I know THAT much.They were the Kirby & Lee of music.
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......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.
Analogy and equivalence might be synonyms sometimes, but not all the time... which is why they're different words...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.
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...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.Yes but the people who came up with those bad comics still get paid according to their contract.
Nor does it make it comparable to life-threatening work conditions, an analogy you brought up.But the alternative being worse doesn't make the situation fine...
Funny thing about that...analogies tend to fall apart when the equivalence is false.Analogy and equivalence might be synonyms sometimes, but not all the time... which is why they're different words...
Are you saying that employees rarely shaft the company they work for?Because the company almost never has a case that it was taken advantage of
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.Are you saying that employees rarely shaft the company they work for?
What a strange world you inhabit.
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...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.
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...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.
Now you are going into extreme, but ok. Yes, those are choices and people HAVE chosen that path (again 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...
Well if you're gonna proclaim something like it always works then the extremes need to be taken into account...Now you are going into extreme, but ok. Yes, those are choices and people HAVE chosen that path (again a choice)
Most of those choices where very likely not actually possible in the 1940's... even less so in the 60's, when Barry Allen Flash and Fantastic Four basically resurrected comics.What Kirby could have done back then?
Negotiate a better contract? you always have that option, but some fear if they exercise that option they might not get the job.
Was it contract work? should have re-negotiate when contract was up.
He could have gone independent (risky and likely to fail)
He could have gone to a competitor?
Print in the newspaper?
print his own comic?
These are the choices I was refering to Kirby, but if you want to get extreme
He could sell everything he had and print his own comic
No, in the 40's they weren't a respectable industry, but they sold in (or at least near) the millions, and non-superhero comics even more... it's not called the Golden Age for nothing you know.I think we're also forgetting that, in the 1940's and into the 1960's, comics weren't a big industry. At all. Stan Lee does by that name because he planned to have a "legitimate" career as a novelist and didn't want "Stanley Leiber" to be dragged through the funny book mud. When the Marvel Renaissance happened, the only super heroes to have ever had staying power were Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Owning the rights to, say, Captain America would have done Kirby no good until the mid-60's, at least.
No i'm not because i never said he didn't contribute... you're thinking of someone else there. But of course nothing stops multiple creators having rights to a work...Besides, you continue to sidestep the fact that Stan Lee co-created the disputed characters. He was the editor-in-chief/head writer at the time.
Pretty sure most characters besides in cases like Superman, who was shopped around, most comic book characters where created because the company asked the artist/s to do it... but when i ask a photographer to take my picture he still owns copyright...One could easily argue that these characters were editorially, and therefore corporately, mandated.
Wouldn't it just be easier to create new characters from the start then? Unless you meant similar characters, and then he should be able to sue them anyway...Not only that, but had they some rights to the material, it's quite reasonable to assume that the company would have created different characters in order to avoid paying royalties on characters they didn't fully own. In other words the only way he could have gotten what he wanted was by pretending to give up his rights, then suing them only after the company showed commitment to them. It's a chicken and egg problem.