And here we come to a different problem in word usage. I often hear it said that Kirby "deserved" more, and there is little that can be argued to the contrary. Unfortunately, Kirby and his supporters often shifted that over a notch or three, to say that he was entitled to more. Which is a whole different thing.

How is it egotistical for the greatest comic book creator the world has ever known to say, "This applies to ME?" I don't get that. The guy is/was royalty. He wants his artwork, give him his artwork.

I wasn't aware that Stan Lee was an employee of Marvel Comics. I thought he ran the whole show and owned the rights to the creations. I guess I kept my door shut at the Marvel Offices during those discussions. But what are we talking about, once the bitterness started between Marvel and Kirby? Did Stan Lee call Kirby to placate him and Kirby irrationally exploded? If Kirby didn't feel like he had just as much imput and importance as Stan, that's saying Kirby is a disgruntled employee who expected Marvel to do the right thing by him. He's just another guy trying to take advantage of a situation.

Did Kirby want his artwork so he could sell it? What was the purpose of the artwork issue?

Kirby may have used "creator rights" in order to build his own Yancy Street Gang to attack Marvel, consisting of Gerber and Miller and whoever else believed in what Kirby apparently DIDN'T believe in. I don't blame Kirby necessarily. He's going up against a corporation, a Frankenstein Monster he helped bring to life with more money than Carter has liver pills. He's at an age where maybe he'd like a nice nest egg for his family. I don't know. But he deserved better. EDIT, and for exactly that reason, I've no problem with a guy of Kirby's magnitude demanding anything. He could have insisted a little Jack Kirby action pose be placed on the corner of every Marvel Comic he had a direct hand in creating, and I'd think that was just fine. Cigar in mouth too.

(And please, let's not drag up the artwork-return nonsense again. Marvel was all set to return Kirby's artwork, as they had begun doing with everybody else. Then his lawyers stepped in and insisted that return of artwork went along with acknowledged ownership.)

So, "acknowledged ownership" of the art, not the characters. Kirby wasn't going to start Kirby Comics reprinting FF, Hulk, Thor, ect.

So Kirby was after royalties on every appearance of the FF, Hulk (big huge TV hit at the time), Thor, ect?

Did Kirby ever approach DC Comics in the same manner?

DC destroyed artwork, rather than warehousing it as Marvel did. That's why they didn't have any "problems" later. (And that's why the Powers That Were were such FUCKING HYPOCRITES for putting out an "open letter" demanding Marvel return Kirby's artwork.)