BREAKING NEWS: Jack Kirby's Estate Loses Character Rights To Marvel

BREAKING NEWS: Jack Kirby's Estate Loses Character Rights To Marvel

Jack Kirby's estate lost the case to get his share of rights for the characters he and Stan Lee created between 1958-1963

News
By BooYah - Jul 28, 2011 01:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Marvel Comics
Source: wsj.com

Jack Kirby's estate issued notices to Marvel 2 years ago saying that they planned on taking their share of copyright for the characters Kirby co-found. Well it turns out they lost the case to get their share of rights for the characters Jack Kirby and Stan Lee created between 1958-1963. Some of those characters include the super groups X-Men and the Avengers.



The Judge decided that Marvel owns the rights "whether that is 'fair' or not" and that the characters were "works for hire".

"This case is not about whether Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is the real 'creator' of Marvel characters, or whether Kirby were treated 'fairly' by companies that grew rich off the fruit of their labor," the judge said.

What do you guys think of this?
THE ULTIMATES #4 Reveals Horrifying Fate Of The Fantastic Four In The Maker's New Ultimate Universe
Related:

THE ULTIMATES #4 Reveals Horrifying Fate Of The Fantastic Four In The Maker's New Ultimate Universe
Eisner Award Winner Jen Bartel Reveals Why She Stopped Illustrating Covers For Marvel Comics
Recommended For You:

Eisner Award Winner Jen Bartel Reveals Why She Stopped Illustrating Covers For Marvel Comics
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
BooYah
BooYah - 7/28/2011, 1:54 PM
@thanos thanks I will edit it now.
HelaGood
HelaGood - 7/28/2011, 2:05 PM
seems to be fair. and a complete waste of money for his estate to even bother trying...
ColonelKilgore
ColonelKilgore - 7/28/2011, 2:11 PM
Thats a butt load of $. Sucks to be Kirb's estate. Good to be Lee
THRILLHO
THRILLHO - 7/28/2011, 2:20 PM
Ryguy88
Ryguy88 - 7/28/2011, 2:35 PM
When writers are working for a company their work always belongs to said company unless otherwise stated in their contract. The writers are rewarded by having their work sell well and getting more money and flexibility on their next contract.
JULEZ13
JULEZ13 - 7/28/2011, 2:38 PM
I think the judge made the right call. It was a "work for hire," they were working for Marvel when they created the characters so technically Marvel owns them.

Just another example of greedy offspring trying to make money off of their ancestor's hard work. *cough-seigel shuster family! cough cough*
HelaGood
HelaGood - 7/28/2011, 3:04 PM
@metalmachine this is not a "creative" issue... his works were done for Marvel. Marvel owns them. end of story. as with all work-for-hire... it doesn't belong to the artist or writer... it belongs to the people that PAID THEM TO DO THE WORK. when the estate tries to get more money or the rights to something that IS NOT THEIRS, it appears to be greed.
nuclearpriest
nuclearpriest - 7/28/2011, 3:15 PM
It doesn't matter how "creative" Jack Kirby was, if Marvel had not been there to put money and promotion behind that creativity then no one would ever have heard of The Hulk or The FF or any of the rest of Jack and Stan's characters.
HelaGood
HelaGood - 7/28/2011, 3:16 PM
i confirm nuclearpriest's comment!!
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 7/28/2011, 3:16 PM
I'm not sure when the rich ever decide try are rich enough?! They must all be loaded but have nothing else in their lives than to feed their pockets further.
eyesore
eyesore - 7/28/2011, 4:48 PM
Lucky for us fans, Who knows what he would have done with his "share" of characters, The Avengers may not have been possible if Kirby won.

The next civil war will be between whats left of the middle class and poor, against rich people. That is if Marvel doesn't do theirs first.

....Vote Independent and send 'em a message.
marvel72
marvel72 - 7/28/2011, 4:56 PM
i've got that x-men vs avengers,f*ckin good limited series.
skullboy
skullboy - 7/28/2011, 4:58 PM
Shite
djohnpi
djohnpi - 7/28/2011, 6:23 PM
He was working for Mavel if there as something in the contracts then it would have went another way it is what it is
nuclearpriest
nuclearpriest - 7/28/2011, 6:34 PM
@metalmachine if you think my comments were ignorant you should re-read your own posts because they are a primer in abject ignorance.Jack Kirby did not leave Marvel and publish for himself as the guys at Image did, he instead went to DC and created more characters that he doesn't own. Rob Leifeld does not own Cable for the same reason that Jack Kirby does not own The Silver Surfer. They created these characters under the auspices of Marvel Comics. How you cannot understand this simple fact is baffling to even someone as ignorant as myself.
jjmeylar
jjmeylar - 7/28/2011, 6:59 PM
GOOD!
peppy
peppy - 7/28/2011, 8:27 PM
[frick]ING SUCK SHIT KIRBY KIIDS YOU GREDDY BASTARDS !!!!!!!!. THEIR MARVEL CHARACTERS AND THIS IS FOR THE MARVEL FANS.
DarthLaney
DarthLaney - 7/28/2011, 10:03 PM
I wonder why this wasn't the case for Superman - I bet this will open a whole new can of worms in this genre
WeaponX
WeaponX - 7/28/2011, 10:44 PM
Good, although I wouldn't really lay into the Kirby heirs for this one, not completely at least. The greedy prick Marc Toberoff was the one who pushed the Kirby heirs into this. He'll be back to appeal this as well. I'm glad he got his ass handed to him and sent packing but it ain't over.
It's a bit of a suspicious move that as soon as Kirby characters start making money on the big screen, this dick Toberoff - who is also (surprise,surprise) a movie producer - is banging on the Kirby's door pulling his Grima Wormtougue routine about them being owed something and that he has most likely worked a deal with them to have his own company hold a vast percentage of the character's rights, much in the same way Toberoff and his company stand to gain the majority of anything gained from the Superman case while the Shuster/Siegel heirs contend with scraps, yet again.

Toberoff is the parasite manipulating these people for his own agenda. This bitch is using the plight of the little guy as a smoke screen. Glad at least one judge saw through this.
ScionStorm
ScionStorm - 7/28/2011, 11:51 PM
@WeaponX I feel like you just described Mephisto. :P
parafonia
parafonia - 7/29/2011, 12:45 AM
Wow... Stan Lee has reaped the benefits of having worked with Jack Kirby and the public loves Stan Lee. The way some of you are reacting towards Jack Kirbys estate is very disrespectful. He created and co-created the vast majority of the Marvel universe. I say "co-created" to be fair to men like Stan lee. Often times Lees only contribution to a creation would be to say, "Hey Jack, what if we had a guy on a surfboard?" Then Jack would create the Silver Surfer while Stan lee promoted himself. Jack Kirby suffered in life when he should have been coddled and adored by corporate Marvel. You have no idea what went down in the 70s and 80s as Kirby struggled and Stan Lee and Jim Shooter and others grabbed every bit of glory they could for themselves and the profits for Marvel.
loki668
loki668 - 7/29/2011, 3:04 AM
Here's the deal: When Kirby created these characters, the language of his contract and a later statement signed by Kirby in 1972 BOTH clearly indicated that it was "work-for-hire". When Kirby created these characters, there was no way of knowing whether or not they would be successful and Marvel was taking all of the risks in publishing and marketing. If the characters had tanked and no money was made, then Marvel would have had to eat the loss. They could not have made Kirby give back his fees, so Marvel assumes the risk and, therefore, reaps the rewards. Not always great or nice, but it is the way it is.

Lord Loki has spoken
loki668
loki668 - 7/29/2011, 3:18 AM
In addition, some of you have been throwing petulant fits on here and insulting others because you claim to be an "artist" (though I'm not sure fan-fiction or fan-casting qualifies). This statement asserts that we must not be artists because we understand the concept of logic and law. Asinine, just like many of the arguments in support of the Kirby Estate. Here's my suggestion: Honor the man for his contribution to the worlds in which we lose ourselves, but also recognize that without the "machine", in which Kirby was a cog (one of the singular, most important cogs, but a cog nonetheless), NONE of this would exist for us to enjoy.
loki668
loki668 - 7/29/2011, 3:22 AM
As for the Image Comics comparisons: I suggest you brush up on your history to avoid being seen as ill-informed. Image comics was created by FORMER employees who worked for Marvel and DC. They created NEW charaters (though some were blatant copies *cough, cough* Rob Liefeld *cough, cough*). They did NOT bring the characters that they created with them from Marvel and/or DC.
loki668
loki668 - 7/29/2011, 3:23 AM
In closing: Get down off of your collective crosses, use that wood to build a bridge and get over it.

Lord Loki has spoken
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 7/29/2011, 6:01 AM
I'm waiting for the Stan Lee haters to start bashing this.

The bottom line is Kirby KNEW exactly how things worked. He KNEW that he didn't own the characters he created. There was no shadiness going on. There was no trickery on Marvel's part. That was the deal that he agreed to. Not once did he himself ever try to get the rights, because he knew what he was doing. If he was fine with it, then his kids certainly didn't have any rights to their father's creations.

and Loki is completely correct. Image was created by former marvel/dc writers and artists. All their creations that they own at Image, was created while they were with IMAGE. They didn't bring any of their creations from Marvel or DC over there.

Image was created for the sole reason of its writers and artists owning their creations.
RaySimpson
RaySimpson - 7/29/2011, 7:32 AM
What a pity that it came to this, for both parties.

I think the ‘fight’ is being contested by two parties more interested in winning, fame and fortune than the actual characters and work involved.

Here you can watch Stan Lee praising Jack Kirby, saying he couldn’t have done it without him…

http://www.webofstories.com/play/16759
RaySimpson
RaySimpson - 7/29/2011, 7:32 AM
Priest
Priest - 7/29/2011, 9:23 AM
I am a graphic artist and I work for a marketing company. If I want to include the work I have done for my employer in my personal portfolio, I got to ask for permission because I don't own the work I did for the company.

If I ever make a comic book, and I want to keep the rights for that comic book, I will publish it myself instead of working for a company.

Kirby was a master comic book artist and deserves much glory and praise but he was working for a company. Marvel owns the characters. Period.
djohnpi
djohnpi - 7/29/2011, 10:32 AM
Ok this is dumb as hell some of you just don't understand. The man didn't own the characters he created damm. Its called contract law leave the emotions out and stick to the law. By the way he did give Jack credit, damm know what you are talking about bfore you say dum sh**.
BillyBatson1000
BillyBatson1000 - 7/29/2011, 12:44 PM
THIS MAKES ME SPIT FEATHERS! Money going back to Money. Why SHOULDN'T KIRBY'S family have a stake in HIS work. WOULD ANY OF YOU DENY YOUR POTENTIAL GRANDKIDS a legacy of SOME KIND. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT MARVEL DID WITH KIRBY'S ART? They stiffed him in his own life time. They HAD no F*CKING RESPECT for his art. F*CK Marvel and DC. They screwed The SUPERMAN estate too. Before ANY of you bitch - WRITE a god damn original comic and DRAW IT TOO. Watch some rich asshole take the rights from you - THEN COMPLAIN.
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder