Difference being Siegel and Shuster were able to show EXACTLY that, that Superman had been created independently and SOLD to National Periodicals, and was not a "work made for hire".

Everything Kirby did for Marvel falls squarely within the latter category.

Work-for-hire was a sucky system, but it was the only game in town, for most people. It was also not a secret, and, perhaps most significantly, it was how Kirby ran his own company, in the 1950s.

••

If you want to express it in those terms, the people who were really "rewarded" by the work-for-hire rule were the READERS.

Look how much creativity was poured into American comics, back in the days when the Publishers owned everything. Compare that to what we have seen in the past few decades, since things got "better" for the creators. In the past thirty years or so, have we seen anything come along that would even begin to approach the characters created in the Golden and SIlver Ages?

Roger Stern summed it up best (as usual). Years ago, when royalties and creator's rights were introduced, he observed that those of us who came into the business before these things were, in an odd way, lucky. Because our only motivation in getting into comics was the sheer love of the characters and the whole concept of comics. We didn't get into comics to make ourselves rich. There was virtually no way to do that. We operated on pride of accomplishment. Frank Miller said something similar -- that so much cool stuff happened because artists were in friendly competition with each other, not because they were trying to create the big money-makers, or cook deal for themselves in Hollywood.

From a financial viewpoint, the Business of American comicbooks has improved enormously for the talent, since I joined the industry. A pity the same cannot be said for the creative aspects.

"The judge rejected this argument, but this issue will most likely form the basis of an appeal. "

I agree that the argument is interesting, but not only did the judge reject the argument, he specifically noted that the only way to introduce the Kirby side of that argument was through inadmissible hearsay (which is why Evanier's testimony was stricken) while Stan Lee was available to testify to Marvel's side on the record.

I cannot see how, as a matter of law, an appeal can be based on a judge's finding that refers to what his ruling on it would have been if it had been admitted, which it wasn't. Because it was hearsay and the witnesses admitted as much.

Basically the Judge said that the case boiled down to verbal agreements and personal interactions between two people of whom only one was alive and able to testify.

If Kirby had been alive and able to testify as to a version of events that made his work not work-for-hire, then there might have been a slim chance that there would be a genuine issue before the jury.

As it is, I don't see how there are grounds for appeal.

I also think this strengthens DC case in that it solidifies their hold on the work-for-hire aspects of Superman. And the fact that the Kirbys rejected a settlement and lost out completely might have a chilling effect as well.

Though in most respects the cases are unrelated.