James Sturm Boycotts 'The Avengers' Film over Marvel's Treatment of Jack Kirby

[WarPig]

I did a search and didn't see this posted.

James Sturm - respected comics artist - is organizing a boycott of the new Avengers (and other Disney/Marvel films) over the raw treatment given Jack Kirby and other Marvel artists.

Read the article here.

Sadly, Kirby and others were under contract to Marvel as "work for hire", so they get squat.

 

[Talisen]

Sorry, but this argument by Kirby's Estate is getting old. Yes, it took even Stan Lee years in court to get some comeuppance from any of the Comic companies, but really, they were paid to do a job, they did it and went home. No one expected these "funny books" to become a cultural fixture. They did this for 30 or so years before someone got smart about it and started raising a stink. Creators left companies, started their own (with obvious rip-off characters no less), companies thrived, stalled, disappeared, whatever.

It can be argued to death but it's not gonna change the past, I'd like some of these comic icons to get the respect they deserve as well. These days people are a bit smarter about it. But then watch that documentary "Comic-Con Episode Four: A Fan's Hope", artists are begging to get into the industry and i'm sure a few are getting the bums rush once their in.

 

[MooCriket]

Well spoken, Talisen...and I highly doubt any boycott will work on The Avengers.

 

[WarPig]

I also agree with Talisen. I was just posting some info that may/may not be of interest here

As mentioned, many artists wised up - but it's still a shame that some creators of cultural icons don't get better treatment.

 

[Funky]

Sorry, but this argument by Kirby's Estate is getting old. Yes, it took even Stan Lee years in court to get some comeuppance from any of the Comic companies, but really, they were paid to do a job, they did it and went home. No one expected these "funny books" to become a cultural fixture. They did this for 30 or so years before someone got smart about it and started raising a stink.

I completely agree.
Who "created" the Pillsbury Doughboy for Pillsbury? (BTW, this is pure speculation. I have NO idea if this is true, but you get the picture) It was probably some artist who was working for an advertising firm and was hired to create a character. I doubt he or his family are getting residuals on the character. He was paid to do the job and he did it.
Sure it's sad, but that's the way it goes. If these characters would have failed he would have still gotten paid, right? So he created them, so what? He wasn't working for HIS company. HE wasn't taking a chance with HIS money. The company took all the risks.
Do I feel his estate needs to be compensated any further? Absolutely not. However, there's nothing wrong with listing Kirby as the creator in the credits.

 

[Wes R]

Kirby for sure should at least get mentioned in the credits. At least things have changed and the artists and others have learned from what's happened to these people. So many of the moderately sized companies these days emphasize creator owned books.