Author |
|
Bert Kruger Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 June 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 266
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=55819
Updated (not much more but breaking down the process)
Edited by Bert Kruger on 26 September 2014 at 2:59pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 132135
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 3:06pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Are you telling me that those thugs who basically stole Superman from Seigel and Shuster should get some kind of ethical pass because they lived a scant 75 years ago? •• No --- but I would give them a "pass" because they didn't steal anything. ++++ Obviously, Kirby should have done the same thing, but I fail to see how this exempts Marvel and DC simply by pointing to someone else and say "Well, they did it too!" •• Nobody is talking about "exempting" -- except, possibly, the Kirby estate, who seem to want to be "exempted" from the rules of the day. But rules of the day they were. Marvel operated according to them, DC operated according to them, and Kirby, when he had the chance to make a difference, to DO something about it..... operated according to them.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Anthony J Lombardi Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005 Location: United States Posts: 9410
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 3:13pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I get the feeling the Marvel was the big winner in this case not the Kirby estate. The big losers IMO are the other creators working in the industry.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Roberts Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 14812
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 3:45pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I struggle with what "creator" means in the context of corporate characters. The character of Groot in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY has very little to do with Kirby's "Groot, the Monster of Planet X" other than being an alien tree monster named Groot. Would people think the Kirby estate more entitled to the rights of the character in the movie than Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning, who created the more heroic Groot for their comic run?
Is Len Wein more entitled to creator credit for Wolverine when arguably what made the character popular today were the developments under creators like Chris Claremont, JB, Dave Cockrum, Frank Miller, Barry Windsor-Smith, Larry Hama, heck even Jim Lee?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Andrew W. Farago Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 4067
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 4:00pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
My non-corporate solution to that? Cut 'em all in on the action. Give Wolverine's creators a nice no-strings-attached bonus check when a movie comes out, give another check to anyone who wrote or drew (or colored or lettered or edited) stories that may have inspired the big screen version, and fly the whole crew out to Hollywood and give them VIP treatment at the next X-Men movie. If you didn't make the cut for that list, hope that Marvel reprints some of your work and you get a decent royalty check for it.
Net cost to Marvel and Disney is roughly the amount of money they'll make on Groot t-shirt sales this summer, but it would be a life-changing amount for the creators and would generate enormous goodwill for all involved.
Which is why I'll never get to run a major corporation.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Doug Centers Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 February 2014 Location: United States Posts: 5438
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 5:33pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I'm happy that the Kirby family and Marvel worked this out "amicably", but I so wanted to hear what the Supreme Court Justices would have come up with on this. May have opened up Pandora's box.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Jason Czeskleba Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004 Posts: 4545
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 6:11pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Based on the political makeup of the Supreme Court, it seems almost certain the majority would have ruled in Disney's favor if they had decided to hear the case.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 26 September 2014 at 6:12pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steve De Young Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008 Location: United States Posts: 3487
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 6:33pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
My non-corporate solution to that? Cut 'em all in on the action. ------------- They all have been cut in on the action. Comic book writers and artists (lets stop using the term 'creator', okay. They don't speak and the comics leap into being. They write, or they draw, or they edit...except I guess editing counts for nothing...but I digress) are paid for the work they do. Nowadays, they're even paid royalties when the work they did is reprinted.
People are not entitled to be paid for work they didn't do. Jack Kirby had nothing to do with the Fantastic Four movies, so he's not entitled to a share of the money. The actors, director, etc. etc. were all paid for the work they did, and get royalties for the rebroadcast of their work. Jack Kirby did no work on the Fantastic Four during JB's run. He is entitled to no money generated by JB's run. JB is entitled to pay for that run, as he has negotiated with Marvel.
Jack Kirby's heirs, as near as I can tell, have never done any work, or invested any money, in any of these characters, therefore they are entitled to no money whatsoever generated by them.
Marvel has spent millions of dollars in advertising, merchandising, guiding, etc. these properties over the years, long after Kirby had put down his pencil. And if those characters in the lawsuit had flopped, like, say, the Eternals or Devil Dinosaur, it would have been Marvel that would have lost the money and Marvel that went bankrupt, not Jack Kirby or his estate. That's what entitles Marvel to their share of the profits.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Joe Zhang Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 12857
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 6:48pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
The entire matter boils down to two motivations: Kirby's family wanting to get whatever they can from Marvel, and Marvel needing to defend against any claims on their properties. If this tussle was about legality or morality, a settlement would not have occurred.
Edited by Joe Zhang on 26 September 2014 at 6:50pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Andrew W. Farago Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 4067
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 6:52pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Jack Kirby's heirs, as near as I can tell, have never done any work, or invested any money, in any of these characters, therefore they are entitled to no money whatsoever generated by them.
And Disney's shareholders have created what, exactly?
The Kirby family is continuing the fight that their father started, because he wanted to provide for his heirs. Recognition and respect for the work he did is a big part of that, too, but every job he ever took was so that he could support his family.
Work for hire prior to 1976 isn't so cut-and-dried, either, which is why this case had the potential to go before the Supreme Court. Marvel and Disney wouldn't have settled if they knew for sure that the case was a slam dunk.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Paul Simpson Simpson Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 April 2009 Location: United States Posts: 939
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 6:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Okay, I'll let Mr. Simpson answer the question, then: Who today is actively claiming that Jack Kirby created Spider-Man?************ The Hollywood reporter. Spider-Man was one of the characters that was part of the lawsuit. So since it was part of the lawsuit the Kirby estate and their lawyers are making that claim. No matter what people told Kirby he is on record claiming to create Spider-Man and hand it off to Ditko because he was too busy. If this claim has not been made why did Ditko go on record and dispute the claim.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steve De Young Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008 Location: United States Posts: 3487
|
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 7:01pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
And Disney's shareholders have created what, exactly? -------------------------------- Disney's shareholders have pumped money into Disney, money which Disney has used to publicize the characters in question, money which Disney uses to make movies about the Marvel characters, etc. etc.
And if they make a movie based on 'Kirby's' characters and it flops, the shareholders will be the ones left holding the bag, not Kirby's heirs.
How about this: Kirby's heirs get a check for a cut of all the profits made off of characters Jack Kirby helped create, and then they get bills for a cut of every loss taken on characters Kirby helped create?
Marvel negotiated the merchandising deals, the cartoon deals, the movie deals, the toy deals, etc. without which no one would have heard of any of these characters. They put their money on the line to publish the comics and put these characters forward. They took all of the risks, they're entitled to at least a large portion of the reward.
Whether the comics he drew were runaway hits or complete flops, and Kirby had his share of both, Jack got paid what he was entitled to by his contract. He isn't entitled to extra from the successes, just like Marvel can't come after his family to recoup the losses from the flops.
Edited by Steve De Young on 26 September 2014 at 7:03pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|