| Author |
|
Paul Greer
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 18 August 2004
Posts: 14189
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 12:38pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the "holding" term was supposed to mean that he couldn't use it for reprinting purposes. Only Marvel had the right to do that.
Edited by Paul Greer on 16 September 2007 at 12:38pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
From what I remember reading, he couldn't even sell the art.
But I'll have to find this article now.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132400
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 12:59pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Of course he could sell the art. I bought some!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Thomas Moudry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5060
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I'm still, um, very much in possession of that sense of awe and wonder I got when reading comics as a child. A good comic book story can still make me exclaim, "Wow!", and a well-executed, but unexpected, turn of events can still blow me away. I really don't want my comics written for the 42-year-old me who has a mortgage and monthly utility bills: I want them written for the 12-year-old inside me who still gets excited when new comics arrive. And, hey, some of them are!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2065
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"Is the comic book industry the only industry where people think that they
should share in all successes, but should not be charged for any failures?"
****
From my very general and decidedly unscientific observation of the public at large: no. There is no shortage of people out there who believe that when their employer does well, they should share in the rewards (even if they, themselves, contributed little or nothing to that success). These same people, however, would find absolutley outrageous the suggestion that they should in any way be impacted when their employer suffers any hardships or setbacks (even if they, themselves, had a hand in creating those problems).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
There is no shortage of people out there who believe that when their
employer does well, they should share in the rewards (even if they,
themselves, contributed little or nothing to that success).
***
Just to clarify :
I understand that this comment, obviously, is nowhere related to Kirby.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2065
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 2:52pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I was responding to a question about a general concept, not specific people nor specific industries.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 2:59pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I found the article I was refering to. Nothing to do with the Jack Kirby
Collector but rather with The Comics Journal.
The Fight for Jack Kirby's Marvel Artwork
An overview by Michael Dean
"As worded, the form would not even allow Kirby to sell his own original
art, since that would constitute commercial exploitation. And in any case,
he would have nothing to sell but the "physical custody" of the art. He
was allowed to "transfer to another person the physical custody of the
portion of the Artwork being transferred to the Artist by Marvel," but only
if the new custodian signed the same four-page document that had been
presented to Kirby."
You can read the full article here :
http://www.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Of course he could sell the art. I bought some!
***
Lucky man !
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132400
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 3:07pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"As worded, the form would not even allow Kirby to sell his own original art, since that would constitute commercial exploitation. And in any case, he would have nothing to sell but the "physical custody" of the art. He was allowed to "transfer to another person the physical custody of the portion of the Artwork being transferred to the Artist by Marvel," but only if the new custodian signed the same four-page document that had been presented to Kirby." ••• I have a mountain of original art, by many different artists. I have never been asked to sign any documents, of any sort, connected with their purchase. Barry Windsor Smith, I am told, had some piece of paper that required buyers to guarantee that he would get a percentage of all future sales, but I have no proof this is really true. If it is, or if it isn't, it is the only instance of such paperwork connected with original art I have ever heard of, other than the standard work-made-for-hire agreement, which includes no requirements for future sales, other than the Company retaining all publishing rights. In other words…
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132400
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
If Kirby thought the rules should be different, why didn't he do anything about it when he could? +++ Granted, he didn't while he was running his company. But this is no justification for a situation to last decades later nor that it should deprive him of a chance to fight for himself. ••• No -- again and again and again -- the "justification" lay in the fact that the deal was the deal, everybody knew what the deal was, and for decades very few people even had a problem with the deal. There's an old saying, in England. "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding." In professional relationships, this is called "honoring the agreement".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 16 September 2007 at 3:48pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
There's an old saying, in England. "You take the King's shilling, you do the
King's bidding." In professional relationships, this is called "honoring the
agreement".
***
Sure, when a deal is made, you are bond to go by the rules of the deal.
But when the tradition is bad, change the tradition.
As I understand, Kirby was freelancing under a contract limited in time so
nothing prevented him to negociate the next contract to his advantage.
I would guess the bitterness started once he understood he could never
achieve this despite his achievements for Marvel and because of the state
of the comic industry at that time.
It seems to me that Kirby lacked some negociation skills if anything.
Still, nothing to be ashamed of, all in all, the guy deserved more than the
industry could ever offer anyway.
He was and he's still bigger than all of them money makers because in
the end we remember the creator through his creations and never the
commissioner.
Edited by Pascal LISE on 16 September 2007 at 3:49pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
