Marvel Kirby estate lawsuit

I.... don't like this. Not for one reason, but for a lot of them. On the one hand, I'll always be on the side of the creators for recognizing their creations and getting paid for their work. People should always know who created what.

On the other hand, seeing Disney/Marvel lose the rights to these characters pretty much squashes my dreams of a eventual unified Marvel movie studio where all of it's characters are under one banner. Instead of being more unified, it would be even more split up and scattered out. God, maybe the Kirby estate will choose to rub it in on Disney and give 20th Century Fox the rights to the Avengers, which will no doubt be titled "Wolverine and the Avengers".

I'm on the side of the Kirby family. He, and most creators back then, got treated badly by every company they worked for. This may not stop a unified marvel universe movie but it'd make it more expensive as they'd have to pay the family for the rights. Most of the marvel universe is linked to Kirby in one way or another.

Hail King Kirby!

It's about time his estate got some real money for all his work. If Marvel gives his estate as little as 10% of the profits it's still a huge amount. I hope Kirby wins. It's horrible how guys like him have been treated by fat cats raking in bank vaults of profits based on their work.

The Kirby Museum is desperately struggling to scrape up enough money to rent a space in NYC to display his art for fans while Marvel and the film studios are piling up million$. Most of the characters we've known and loved for years wouldn't exist without Kirby and other guys like him. It's about time the creators got their share.

If this really does go back to court I hope it's clobberin' time for the big shots and that the writers and artists come out dripping green.

The treatment of Kirby and artists like him are why so many comic publishers these days just publish, you have to provide your own art team and such. I know when i submitted to a few companies with my scripts it turned out the books are all creator owned, the publishers don't want the hassle.

Jeyl said:

I.... don't like this. Not for one reason, but for a lot of them. On the one hand, I'll always be on the side of the creators for recognizing their creations and getting paid for their work. People should always know who created what.

On the other hand, seeing Disney/Marvel lose the rights to these characters pretty much squashes my dreams of a eventual unified Marvel movie studio where all of it's characters are under one banner. Instead of being more unified, it would be even more split up and scattered out. God, maybe the Kirby estate will choose to rub it in on Disney and give 20th Century Fox the rights to the Avengers, which will no doubt be titled "Wolverine and the Avengers".

Click to expand...

If they win, the Kirby estate has no reason to tell Marvel to stop publishing anything. More likely, they'd let Marvel continue to publish their books, but with credit to them and a piece of the profits.

But that's if they win. It's a big if.

I just can't see it, there are too many ramifications to the rich and powerful if the Kirby case wins. Those rich and powerful entities have a lot of influence wether we like it or not, for me 'not'. The supreme court is not going to hand back the rights of the Avengers, setting a precedent allowing many other artists to take back who knows what and do with it what they like potentially damaging America's economy. They know it would be Pandoras box and they are not going to open it.

That's my soap box comment anyway.


Sent from HTC-R2D2

Arguably the property we call The Avengers today is a result of decades of work invested by countless creative forces (writers, artists ...). Kirby was the biological father (I guess that makes Stan Lee the mother) but hundreds of other contributors raised it to maturity.

Disney/Marvel certainly are about making money but nobody will question that they've marshaled creative forces that have a sincere affection for the material - and that's why it's successful.
And what does the Kirby estate ultimately want? ... money. That's all.

If Kirby were alive and behind this I might be more sympathetic but the folks speaking for his estate have less interest in the realization of the comic to the screen than they are about grabbing as much $$$ as they're entitled to. I might be even a little more sympathetic if the cause was a difference in creative vision ... but they have no position other than, "pay me."

So where does restitution lie? With his "impoverished" heirs?
What does it mean for his estate to acquire the rights to a multimedia franchise at this point without the creative machinery, experience or interest to realize? The end result of Disney/Marvel's loss of rights is the demise of the comic fan's dream come true.

A property like The Avengers isn't like a piece of land or a consumer product. It is a living, breathing, evolving entity. In that sense it is not unlike a child in a custody battle. On one side you have the child's estranged relatives of the deceased biological father whose interest is rooted in the child's net worth and have no experience or interest in raising a child to his full potential.

On the other side are the adopted parents (and extended family) that have raised the child to adulthood.
In such cases you have to consider what's best for the child.

Do artists get screwed? Historically, yes. It's an old tale. Some of us know the story of Superman and his creators who lived in poverty even as the Donner film flourished. With the appropriate counsel and assistance they were able to get salary, healthcare and printed acknowledgement of their creative contribution. (If you want an enthralling telling of this tale I highly recommend Kevin Smith's Fatman on Batman podcast - his three part interview with artist, Neal Adams. *I've said a lot of crappy things about Kevin Smith in the past but, since I've been following his podcast I take it all back. Highly recommended for anyone who is a comic fan!).

but this isn't the same as the Siegel & Schuster Superman case . This isn't about an obscure artist getting recognition he deserves. It's about his estate grabbing money.

God bless him, but Kirby is dead. And FWIW I don't recall him dying in squalor and anonymity. He's been lauded throughout his life. And, from what I understand, he wasn't exactly a shy shut-in, starving artist in need of pity.

Heck, even Stan Lee doesn't earn a dime off The Avengers, X-Men or Spider-Man. I don't see him whining about it.

i agree. this is just a money grab.

if kirby was alive, and doing the lawsuit, then id say sure, go for it.

but his family is doing it:

lets do the math: hey, iron man hit cinemas 2008, oh they made a ton of money?
lets start a lawsuit (which was started the year after 2009)

why was this not done earlier? cause there was not enough money in it. comic sales, while profitable, dont earn nearly as much as one big movie.

also, while it maybe was an unfair work environment, i cant remember kirby ever complaining. he was an adult, he knew what he was getting into. he was not a "freelancer" he did work for marvel.

im not saying that the treatment was right or correct, but it was contract work more or less, and thats just about it.

I could care less about the Kirby estate. All I want is for Disney to keep telling us the stories of the avengers and what the hell is going to happen with Tony Stark! Now that's what's important!

I can't see them winning. It would set a precedent where anyone who designed anything for a corporation would have to get reimbursed for their designs. Just think about the car companies that would have to pay out to every designer who worked on every car they ever built. When you work for a company, you are agreeing to work under those terms. I think if it made it to the Supreme Court, they would say the same thing, that the person in question agreed to those terms. Now, they could rule that going forward that was unlawful and in the future would have to pay people for their designs.

A lot of you are missing the point that these artists and writes are seeking additional compensation because their work is being used beyond the medium for which it originally was created and for which they were paid. They invented these characters and were paid for work that appeared in print. Once the characters are transferred to other mediums--film--the writers/artists should be compensated for use of their creations, but they're not.

About a decade ago, Kurt Vonnegut and other novelists brought suit against the publishing industry for releasing their work as ebooks. Publishers asserted that the authors were paid for the work and weren't entitled to additional compensation, while the authors maintained that their contracts were for paper books and that if the work was being released in a new medium then they, as the creators, maintained ownership requiring financial compensation for their use. The judge agreed with the authors, so the precedent has been set.

While Kirby (and no doubt others waiting to see how this plays out) was paid "for hire" that was for work appearing in print. Also keep in mind that the films based on characters Kirby created have made billions and that even a compensation of 1% would mean millions to Kirby's estate. Surely Marvel and Hollywood can spare 1%.

also keep in mind that kirby doesnt get any of this money cause hes been dead for 20 years. so the only one that gets money is people who had nothing to do with the creation.
unless you can prove it, this is just a money grab.

You guys know what an estate is, right?

Also, no one is saying here that the movies based on Kirby's creations will stop being made. If the estate wins, it's very much in its interest that as many films based on Kirby's work as possible be produced.

Wes R said:

I'm on the side of the Kirby family. He, and most creators back then, got treated badly by every company they worked for. This may not stop a unified marvel universe movie but it'd make it more expensive as they'd have to pay the family for the rights. Most of the marvel universe is linked to Kirby in one way or another.

Click to expand...

He was work for hire knowing full well he didn't own what he created. They will never win.

When I worked for a software dev, I understood that everything I made for them under their contract belonged to them and I had no claim to the software. A POS Terminal software I created is still being sold to this day and has sold quite a lot.

The precedent set by Siegel and Schuster doesn't apply here. Nor is it like Vonnegut.
Kirby designed and penciled characters (possibly with input from Stan Lee) that were conceived and written by Stan Lee.
The strongest claim he might have is for Captain America - but even that credit he shares with Joe Simon.
JK didn't create these comics nor characters.

Kirby and others created more and Stan created less than you think. Stan is a sweet guy, very outgoing and was the best promoter Marvel could have had, but he'll tell you himself that he gets credit for things he didn't do simply because he's outlived everyone and it looks good to be able to give the public a champion. And don't forget that Stan sued Marvel for the same reasons as Kirby's people and won. Frankly I agree with Philly that Kirby's Estate probably won't win, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

'Work for hire' so as the article states, he was paid for the work... some people have been volunteer for hire... so they get neither money nor public credit, just the hope of a paying job or a good reference.
Credit should always be given to the creator or creative team but this situation seems to be a cash grab.

Probe Droid said:

Kirby and others created more and Stan created less than you think. Stan is a sweet guy, very outgoing and was the best promoter Marvel could have had, but he'll tell you himself that he gets credit for things he didn't do simply because he's outlived everyone and it looks good to be able to give the public a champion. And don't forget that Stan sued Marvel for the same reasons as Kirby's people and won. Frankly I agree with Philly that Kirby's Estate probably won't win, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Click to expand...

that Kirby would have had a greater hand in the conception of certain characters is understood, but how do you establish that on a case by case basis?
Even if he had a greater part in the conception its still a far cry from establishing that Kirby alone deserves sole ownership of the characters.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

I can't see them winning. It would set a precedent where anyone who designed anything for a corporation would have to get reimbursed for their designs. Just think about the car companies that would have to pay out to every designer who worked on every car they ever built. When you work for a company, you are agreeing to work under those terms. I think if it made it to the Supreme Court, they would say the same thing, that the person in question agreed to those terms. Now, they could rule that going forward that was unlawful and in the future would have to pay people for their designs.

Click to expand...

That's not how copyright law works, though. The thing about copyright law is that it's controlled partially by principles of equity, but also by very specific laws with very specific doctrines interpreting them. The designs on cars are a tricky beast because that tends to be a mix of patent and trademark law, each of which have their own highly nuanced sets of laws and doctrines controlling them. You can't really analogize from one to the other, except in the most basic sense, and that ends up giving way to the legal nuances when you start digging into things.

That said, "works for hire" -- if I remember my copyright law -- involves the worker assigning all rights in the underlying work over to the company for which they're working. That means all rights to produce what are known as "derivative works" which includes works in a different medium (e.g., film, electronic versions of their printed works, sequels/prequels/offshoots based on the story, etc.). This is different from a license agreement, which is where a creator gives another entity a right to use the work in some way that would otherwise be reserved for the creator.

Probe Droid said:

A lot of you are missing the point that these artists and writes are seeking additional compensation because their work is being used beyond the medium for which it originally was created and for which they were paid. They invented these characters and were paid for work that appeared in print. Once the characters are transferred to other mediums--film--the writers/artists should be compensated for use of their creations, but they're not.

About a decade ago, Kurt Vonnegut and other novelists brought suit against the publishing industry for releasing their work as ebooks. Publishers asserted that the authors were paid for the work and weren't entitled to additional compensation, while the authors maintained that their contracts were for paper books and that if the work was being released in a new medium then they, as the creators, maintained ownership requiring financial compensation for their use. The judge agreed with the authors, so the precedent has been set.

While Kirby (and no doubt others waiting to see how this plays out) was paid "for hire" that was for work appearing in print. Also keep in mind that the films based on characters Kirby created have made billions and that even a compensation of 1% would mean millions to Kirby's estate. Surely Marvel and Hollywood can spare 1%.

Click to expand...

The Vonnegut story would be highly dependent upon the documentation signed between the parties. If he assigned his rights, or his books were treated as a "work for hire" with the publishing company, then the publishing company could tell him to stuff it because they own the work outright. If he merely licensed his rights, then the publisher can only exercise those rights that were licensed to it for the duration of the license. If, for example, the publisher only had the right to produce copies in print, then it couldn't say "We're making a movie of your book, and you can just suck it." They don't have that right, unless Vonnegut signed it over to them. Likewise if he licensed the right to print the book only for 15 years, once 15 years is up, they can't say "So, we're gonna keep printing the book, and you can just suck it." Again, they don't have that right -- it reverts back to Vonnegut at the end of the license. The question in that case, I'd bet, is more about whether an ebook counts as "print" or is a separate form of electronic media, which would require a separate license.

With the Kirby estate, the question probably depends on the terms of whatever agreements were in place between Kirby and Marvel. If Kirby was just an employee or contractor of Marvel, and his works were "works for hire," then as much as it might be nice to give him credit and money, Marvel isn't legally obligated to do so, because Kirby never owned the stuff he made in the first place. I'm all for Kirby getting recognition for his work, but that doesn't mean his estate is entitled to a dime from Marvel. If Stan Lee negotiated better contracts for himself, then bully for Stan, but that doesn't have jack to do with Kirby. (sorry, too good to pass up)