| Author |
|
Robert Bradley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4831
|
| Posted: 26 September 2014 at 11:14pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Stephen - I doubt it's illegal for Disney to come to an agreement with the Disney heirs in order to avoid even a slim chance of a catastrophic decision against the company. Even a settlement of a few hundred thousand dollars would be peanuts compared to the money the Marvel characters are bringing in to the company. And royalties on reprints have been paid to more recent artists and writers for years I don't think that would be a hardship on the company either.
At any rate, I don't think the Kirby family had a particularly strong chance of winning in the Supreme Court, but there's always a slugger's chance once you get there.
As for Seigel and Shuster, I'm a bit less sympathetic as they took settlements from DC on multiple occasions and came back later wanting more. Sure, they probably never got everything they wanted, but I think DC made attempts to accommodate them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3488
|
| Posted: 26 September 2014 at 11:47pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I take it then, you will refuse any money or property that comes to you from your parents' estate?
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own law.
------------------------------------
Jack Kirby was allowed to leave any or all of the money he earned for the work he did to his heirs. Depending on the nature of the contract involved, he might have been able to leave royalties from his published work to his heirs. His heirs, however, have no right to proceeds from work which they did not do and in which they did not invest.
If you know anything about the law, you know there's no such thing as being 'allowed to sue'. I can file a lawsuit against you tomorrow for any reason I care to dream up. It will likely get thrown out of court, or, if I make enough noise and hassle, no matter how frivolous my claim is, you might settle it with me just to avoid having to spend money on a lawyer and court costs. Either way, it doesn't mean I was ever 'entitled' to anything.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 1:11am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
QUOTE:
Is there any evidence that the people who bought Superman from
Siegel and Shuster honestly believed they were robbing kids of a
fortune generated from movies and TV (the latter didn't even exist at
the time)? Did anyone at Marvel possibly imagine the billions of dollars
from the Marvel Cinematic Universe when they assigned Kirby to THE
AVENGERS? |
|
|
It wasn't long after Superman's creation that merchandise was being created, serials were being produced, etc, etc. With Marvel, do you not remember those ads for t-shirts, cups and so on? Now, I ask you good people, why did Marvel and DC set the game up to exclude the creators out of a small percentage of these profits? Was this ethical? If so, why was the game changed in the 80's? Come on. These questions have to be addressed and, yes, retroactive justice is something that's needed. This is how we evolve morally and ethically, just in case some of you don't get it. Check out the plight of the NFL recently for a good example of anachronistic mindsets being forced to evolve.
I also call BS on the idea that Marvel took all the risks and Kirby didn't. I hear this nonsense and can't believe it. What risk did Marvel take being that they had a vast magazine empire to fall back on? Yeah, they foot the bill for paying staff, physically producing the magazines...BUT THAT'S ALL THEY DO! They're non-creative business men. Their job is the physical execution as product of an artists concepts. They have the deep pockets and the "risk" they took on Kirby is comparable to the risk Kirby would take when buying a new stove.
So, if Kirby bombed they would have had to close up shop on the whole enterprise? Hardly. If anyone was at risk, it was Kirby, who had a tough time in the 50's with the decline of superhero comics and if he didn't deliver, he could have been fired. DC probably wouldn't have hired him back, giving his relationship with them at the time. Kirby was the guy not only taking the real risk, but putting all the hard work in that gave the company its real worth. (Does anyone care about the other product Goodman was creating at the time not associated with Lee and Kirby? Has it had any lasting impact? Didn't think so.)
Edited by Robert White on 27 September 2014 at 1:11am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2294
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 1:56am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
There's a difference between creating something and creating something for someone else.
We see it at the end of movies all the time: "For copyright purposes, Paramount Studios (or whoever) is the author of this movie" (or however they say it).
Life is a series of trade-offs. This lawsuit and argument are a result of a society that wants its cake and eats it too. Sorry, but if Kirby wanted health insurance, he should have taken that art director job Stan tried to give him. But Kirby wanted to work from the comfort of home and spend time with his family. I just spent 14 years working at a job I often hated, and the reason was for the health insurance!
There are a LOT of writers and artists self-publishing and taking all the financial risks and doing all the promotion and production work themselves--and they do that so they can keep ownership.
Along the same lines, I love Steve Gerber, but I never understood his lawsuit over HOWARD THE DUCK. Howard first showed up in MAN-THING, which Gerber did not create, and his first issue guest-starred SPIDER-MAN to boost sales. If Gerber owned Howard, did he owe Marvel for the use of Spider-Man? Did he steal Howard from the Man-Thing stable of characters that Marvel owned? Did he fight Disney's lawsuit over Howard looking too much like Donald Duck, or did Marvel take care of that?
And HOW MUCH of these characters originated with Kirby to begin with? THOR started off as a horrible book that Kirby barely drew at the beginning and it didn't get at all good until Joe Sinnott joined Stan for a few issues. Did Kirby come up with a gray HULK who changed only at night and who talked like a thug? He didn't get his iconic personality or anger trigger until the issues Stan did with Ditko. X-MEN didn't set the world on fire until after Wein and Cockrum revamped it. CAPTAIN AMERICA seems the only exception to this rule since he started in the 40's and came out of Simon and Kirby's studio when publishers made less-than-permanent deals with packagers like Simon & Kirby--but that was a separate lawsuit.
My point is that, like the movie example, Marvel is technically the author of these stories--stories that Marvel is STILL authoring to this day, hiring many talented individuals to form over many decades. (Unfortunately, this may be why salaried editors have so much more power than the oft-times brilliant writers and artists they often bully.)
And like the movies, the producer hires the director to make a story and puts up all the financing. The director gets the artistic credit, but the producer gets the big profits and also gets the Oscar if the movie wins Best Picture. If the director wants those rewards, he needs to become a producer too. Same thing with comics creators.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132351
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 2:05am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Now, I ask you good people, why did Marvel and DC set the game up to exclude the creators out of a small percentage of these profits? ••• They didn't. "The game" predates both companies. And, as always, in this context the bigger question is Why didn't Jack Kirby do anything to change the game when he had the chance? He might have been no more than one small voice, but it would have given a lot more credibility to his later claims than a stance of "You mean the rules that have been in effect for decades apply to ME?" As anyone who has paid attention knows, my admiration and respect for Kirby as a creative force knows no bounds. But in this, my response is one of disappointment. As someone once said, if only Kirby had taken some kind of stand -- as Eisner did -- then he could be remembered for having done everything, instead of everything else. +++++++ What risk did Marvel take being that they had a vast magazine empire to fall back on? ••• From this comment, I must assume your posts are either meant to parody the rabid and uninformed fan, or you really have no knowledge of Marvel's history. If the latter, I suggest you absent yourself from this discussion until you have done your homework.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 4:06am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Life is a series of trade-offs. This lawsuit and argument are a result of a society that wants its cake and eats it too. Sorry, but if Kirby wanted health insurance, he should have taken that art director job Stan tried to give him. But Kirby wanted to work from the comfort of home and spend time with his family. I just spent 14 years working at a job I often hated, and the reason was for the health insurance! |
|
|
How could Jack take the art director job when he was forced to move to California to accommodate his wife's health condition? There is far more to the story. Could it be possible that Marvel knew this and were in no danger of having to give him the position and the extra perks? In rational cases, society doesn't want all the rewards with no responsibility; they simply want to be treated fairly and ethically. This is not how most corporations operate and you very well know it. What would it have cost Marvel to give the man some security? If we all keep shrugging our shoulders and muttering "that's how the world works" nothing will ever change. Thankfully, there have been a few people over the years out there fighting the good fight to improve things.
That said, you seem to be under the impression that I feel Kirby should have been in a 50/50 partnership with Marvel. Not at all. Marvel should have raked in most of the profits, I'm just saying that the system they were using was unethical and that Kirby should have been treated as a part of the structure that was raking in those benefits. To view a creative talent like that to be on the same basic level as the guy working in the mail-room is absurd.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 4:15am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| They didn't. "The game" predates both companies. |
|
|
And they were powerless to change those rules? Of course not. They didn't change the rules because they were completely focused on their own self-interests. This unethical and immoral climate allowed the people at the head of those company's to flourish as it fit the nature of their characters.
QUOTE:
| And, as always, in this context the bigger question is Why didn't Jack Kirby do anything to change the game when he had the chance? He might have been no more than one small voice, but it would have given a lot more credibility to his later claims than a stance of "You mean the rules that have been in effect for decades apply to ME?" As anyone who has paid attention knows, my admiration and respect for Kirby as a creative force knows no bounds. But in this, my response is one of disappointment. As someone once said, if only Kirby had taken some kind of stand -- as Eisner did -- then he could be remembered for having done everything, instead of everything else. |
|
|
I'm not going to argue that Kirby should have been more proactive and educated himself like Neal Adams did, but I'm never going to play "blame the victim." The onus for fair play is clearly on Marvel and DC and they have shown time and time again to have little to no interest in such unless forced or shamed.
QUOTE:
| From this comment, I must assume your posts are either meant to parody the rabid and uninformed fan, or you really have no knowledge of Marvel's history. If the latter, I suggest you absent yourself from this discussion until you have done your homework. |
|
|
I've read a few books on the subject but I'm no scholar. Martin Goodman published many magazines and had other business interest, so I'm a little puzzled here unless you simply take an issue with "vast magazine empire." I do know that he published all sorts of magazines and even paperback books.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132351
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 5:02am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Whether it's parody or stupidity, or simply a desire to be annoying --- well, in the latter category, you have succeeded.Buh-bye!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 5:26am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
So, in JB's view, Martin Goodman DIDN'T publish men's magazines, humor mags, paperback books and WOULD have gone under if Kirby didn't hit it out of the park in 1961? Like under completely as a business? Man, you must eat soup with a knife!
I still love your work. It's just a sad state of affairs that you never learned the art of debating other peoples views without implying that said peoples have insidious ulterior motives. Ah, well. I'm not the first, and I won't be the last, to be victimized by the dreaded Ignore Feature. It certainly has been an interesting 10 years. Bye!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2065
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 6:03am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"If you know anything about the law, you know there's no such thing as being 'allowed to sue'. I can file a lawsuit against you tomorrow for any reason I care to dream up. It will likely get thrown out of court..."****
You've obviously never heard of the Straight Face Doctrine.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 6:16am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
JB, you compare Kirby on this issue, as you have in the past, with Eisner, stating "if only Kirby had taken some kind of stand -- as Eisner did -- then he could be remembered for having done everything, instead of everything else."
I'm curious what "stand" of Eisner's you are referencing. I'm aware that Eisner stated, some years after the fact, that Stan Lee had approached him about taking over as editor in chief of Marvel and he declined because he felt that if he did he would want to see that the writers and artists got royalties, etc., although I'm not sure he says that he articulated this reason to Stan, nor am I aware as to whether Stan has made any statement on the subject.
I'm not aware that when Eisner ran his own shop that he returned original art to artists or offered any kind of royalty payments. Did he? If not, can you tell us what Eisner's "stand" was?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132351
|
| Posted: 27 September 2014 at 6:20am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
So, in JB's view, Martin Goodman DIDN'T publish men's magazines, humor mags, paperback books and WOULD have gone under if Kirby didn't hit it out of the park in 1961? Like under completely as a business? Man, you must eat soup with a knife!•• Ah, I love a good housecleaning!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
