Superhero Copyrights: Jack Kirby Estate Can Go Forward With Legal Battle Against Marvel

While I admit that Jack Kirby probably deserves a little more recognition (perhaps adding his name to the "Stan Lee Presents..." at the star of relevant issues) this is all about money, and I dread to think what would happen to the characters if they were to win. For that reason, I hope Marvel crushes them.

what the heck does jack kirby have to do with spider-man other than draw the cover of amazing fantasy 15?

Interesting.

I am not sure how copyright and royalties work with comic book characters. Or how the law determines who is involved, legally, in creating a superhero character.

Honestly, if it can be legally proven that Jack Kirby helped create the iconic look of a character then surely his estate should be entitled to some form of royalties rather than just the intial paycheck he got at the time. Especially when you consider how much Marvel (and now Disney) are profitting from all this work.

If it is worth THAT much money (potentially Billions!!!) then it isn't the fault of the Kirby estate. I have no idea how Jack got on with his family but surely there is part of him that would want to make sure they recieve the benefit of his work?

The Tolkien estate have always protected and managed (quite secretly sometimes) the work of JRR Tolkien so it doesn't necessarily follow that if the rights went to the Kirby estate (which they won't) that a creative disaster would happen.

But I am sure they just want a percentage of royalties. Maybe an out of court settlement will eventually be reached?

This is getting ridiculous now....its all about greed!!!

Why werent all these estates making these sort of claims 15 - 20 years ago!!! I'll tell you why, cause superheroes werent the hot commodity they are today thanks to comic book movies!!! And most of the original creators like Jack Kirby were still alive and would never dream of do anything like this....

The Siegel/Shuster/Kirby estates bring shame to their parentage!!!

If they are entitled to royalties it should be royalties from sales of the comics...not from the movies as they are a different medium!!

This makes me sick to my stomach!!!

Oh yes. Smash Marvel! Smash them good Kirby! Halfway joking.

BMP!

Oh for the love of God, this is already being a pain in the ass. Marvel has Disney help, so they will win :P
If they lose this characters at some point, will be a tragedy.

TheDarqueOne@ Are you seriously comparing Kirbys imput into the marvel characters to that of a 'stock boy'?

Seriously?? SERIOUSLY?!?!?

Dude, shame on you for that one...

Ed@ You are 100% right, my friend.

But the bottom line is this: if there wasn't merit to their claims, the copyright law wouldn't allow them to file these motions in the first place. Some may call it a loophole, but the reality is that LEGALLY they are allowed to pursue this, just like LEGALLY the companies don't have to pay royalties on work-for-hire. If it's fair for the publishers/studios and their stockholders to stick to their legal guns, then isn't it just as fair for the creators or their estates ("stockholders") to pursue theirs?

Here's my stand on this: whoever created the character created the character. As a writer, one would expect me to take the writer's side, but I don't. The artist can be the creator too. Bob Kane was the artist that created Batman. I'll give Bill Finger some credit for his contributions, but he didn't CREATE the character. STAN LEE created Spider-Man and all of the others. Kirby DREW those characters. I give him his credit for those contributions, but I stress that he did not CREATE the characters. If I create a character and some guys draws it for me I expect that guy to get some credit, but not credit as a co-creator. In the same vein, if an artist friend of mine created a character and I wrote the story for him I wouldn't expect to be titled co-creator. It's all apples and oranges on the surface, but looking at things more closely all of these things are ridiculous. Furthermore, creative teams like Siegel and Shuster and Eastman and Laird have co-creator status because both individuals had a hand in the creation of their characters. I don't deny them that. However, Stan Lee, in my eyes, is the sole creator. As I'm sure Kevin Smith said to Alex Ross on this issue "F*ck you!"

like the Shuster and Siegel estate, they did not create anything! this is complete bullshit. why would they get the right to something they have nothing to do with exept being the kids and grand kids of the one who created those characters. DC and Marvel paid for the works of those guys and they made those characters what they are today. So screw you greedy bitches!!

Here is my take... Say you worked an hourly job at a automotive plant. You get paid to build a race car. Years later, that car you built wins several major races, and earns millions in endorsements. Does the owner of that car owe you? I hate to belittle the works of such Genius, but boiled down, that's how it is! I remodel houses, and when they sell, I still get a set amount. 50 years later, Even if the price appreciates 10 fold, I promise, no check for me! I got paid to do a job, But i don't own my work after payday!

@ Spiderneil

Jack Kirby worked on a character called Spider-man. However from what I've heard there are some similarities between Kirby's Spider-man and the one we know today, there were also a lot of differences. Kirby's Spider-man had a completely different outfit and he had a Web gun. The similarities seem to be, the name, and that they are both teenagers who live with an aunt and uncle. Overall though it doesn't sound like Kirby had as much as a hand in the creation of Spider-man as Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.


I found a website that goes into more detail,

http://io9.com/5363689/who-created-spider+man

@loganoneil, Kirby was and is credited for the creation of these characters and has been very fairly compensated. The fact is that he was working for Marvel comics and his job was to create for the express use of Marvel. This is a matter of his children and grandchildren feeling that they should be paid as well for his work. It's not their property, it wasn't even Jack's property. The whole Superman thing IS different, because Joe and Jerry were not working for a company when they created Superman. They took their idea to the company and SOLD it. That being said, they also don't have a case because they gave up control the moment the first royalty check was cashed... those are still coming to the families by the by.

This is about nothing more than money.just greedy little bitches that wanna get paid for somethimg there father and gramdfather did. I say [frick] you!!!

these lawsuits will kill the comic book industry. comics are getting more and more expensive... add on a few lawsuits and you'll be paying $6 or more at your local comic shop.

The problem with arguing about what's moral is that morals are relative. They differ from person to person and culture to culture and they always change with time. Add to this the additional problem of trying to impute morals to a corporation. It doesn't fit. Corporations deal in contracts. And as Samuel Goldwyn said, 'An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.'

Sorry Ed, I respect your opinion but I have to say (as an attorney) your statement that, "bottom line is this: if there wasn't merit to their claims, the copyright law wouldn't allow them to file these motions in the first place" is misguided. I have people ask me everyday, "Can I be sued for this?". And my answer is that you can be sued for anything in the United States. Whether they prevail or not is a seperate issue. The fact that the Court is going to let it continue and may actually hear evidence doesn't mean much, other than they climbed the first anthill.

The truth is no one knows the full truth, except for the contract.

In the end, it always comes down to "contracts". What did Kirby ACTUALLY sign? I don't care how in need Kirby was at the time or by which means the clever Stan Lee got Kirby to sign his creations away. If the truth is that he actually did sign a contract stating that all the work he did INCLUDING his creations where to be the sole property of Marvel, then the estate should get [frick] all, regardless if he's the creator or not. I've said this many MANY times, i'm an artist and i have my own characters. If i ever so choose to sign away my characters, it's my loss. No matter what i get for them, whether it be a dime or a million, the second i sign, they aren't mine anymore and sure as hell aren't my kids' property either! As much as i would like my kids to live long and prosper, i want them to work for what they get. Not live off of what i did with my life. When i die, any character i created/own will revert to them in my testament along with everything else i own but not what is no longer mine because i sold them away, regardless if it was only for meager earnings in a time of need. None of that holds up or should hold up if my name is signed from my own hand on the dotted line. PERIOD. So if there's no such contract, then the Kirby estate should get what is rightfully theirs. If the contract says otherwise, i want Kirby's estate to [frick] the hell off! I'll take the side of the contract, not Lee's, not Kirby's. And if the law sees it otherwise, then in my opinion it should be changed so that any contract is final and let things be as life lessons to everyone else. I mean seriously, if you think about it, the other side of the coin would mean that the law would prevent people from using their own free will. That's just retarded, regardless if people choose to make retarded choices. That's what life is, consequences to the choices we make. And i want people to stop playing the victim card and own up to whatever choices they make, regardless of outside influences. It should always be "Fool me once, shame on me" and nothing else. No matter who fools you, the bottom line is you're the fool and you should own up to it. That's my opinion and i sure as hell am owning up to it. It takes a bigger man to own up to having been fooled than it does to play a victim. And Kirby was a GREAT man! He did what he needed to do regardless what it cost him and he owned up to it all throughout his entire life. If he did sign that contract, his children could learn a thing or two from him.

Siolentvex, obviously I'm no lawyer. All I'm aware of is that there is apparently something in the copyright law that allows for the estates to do exactly what they are doing after a certain period of time. Whether they'll prevail in court or not, of course, will be a matter of time.

Of course you're right that the corporations deal with contracts, but -- and maybe I'm wrong here -- there must be something to this copyright issue or else the courts wouldn't allow them to go to trial. Am I wrong there?

You owe no man more than what you make a contract for! That's it. I agree it sucks but I'm sure he got adequate compensation at the time. Its like old athletes or musicians saying they got jerked out of money, and look whats happening now, they make 10xs what we did. But in their time they made 10xs what others did. Its no ones fault they cant manage their money.

I'm not against the Kirby's getting some kind of payment and recognition for Jack's work, but the timing of it all makes it just seem like greed.
And they should NOT get the rights, if thats what they're asking for.