Marvel wins fight against Kirby estate

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Really though? I mean, we all think of Marvel as the bad guys because they are a big corporation, but an agreements an agreement. If he worked For Hire then he worked For Hire, why should Marvel relinquish their rights because Kiby's Estate don't like the fact they're not getting any money?

If you are referring to the Superman case, I believe there are some fundamental differences between the two cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#Copyright_issues

Here's a tidbit about another Superman movie:

A July 9, 2009, verdict on the case denied a claim by Siegel's family that it was owed licensing fees. U.S. District Court judge Stephen G. Larson said Warner Bros. and DC Comics have fulfilled their obligations to the Siegels under a profit-sharing agreement for the 2006 movie Superman Returns and the CW series Smallville. However, the court also ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start a new Superman film by 2011, the family will have the right to sue to recover damages

Any more questions about why DC seems a bit...over eager to get another movie going?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

From a legal standpoint, there is the point of view that Marvel owns them and that they feel Kirby and his estate deserve nothing.

From a moral standpoint: there is the viewpoint that if it weren't for Jack that many of these characters wouldn't exist at all or in the form they exist now, so pay up.

Currently the evidence supports the legal standpoint. Whether it is ultimately right or wrong depends on one's point of view.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

From a moral standpoint, I'd say Kirby is dead, and his family who didn't create anything deserve nothing.

As he was work for hire, what he created was for the company. It's no different than any other creator working for a company.

If this case actually involved Jack Kirby that would be one thing. But he's been gone for 17 years, and much of the work involved was from 50 or more years ago. If he were still alive today and was in dire need of cash for a pacemaker and Marvel was telling him to go hang, the case would be much more compelling.

But is it really moral for a writer's heirs and their lawyers to circle like vultures after his death, hoping to pick the carcass clean?

Copyrights were originally tied to the life of the creator. Not to some deathless corporation or bickering heirs wanting to steal a piece of their father's immortality. Most of Kirby's work would be in the public domain by now if giant corporations hadn't convinced Congress to change the law in their favor.

The copyright and patent system is terribly broken, and should be fixed before it completely stifles innovation in this country, as endless lawsuits crush anyone with an ounce of creativity (especially in the software industry).

Exactly. I feel for him, personally, if he truly got shafted. But how much of the current characters personas are directly traceable to him?

No, copyright (in this country) was originally for 14 years with a single extension of 14 years. It was the Berne Convention, iirc, that extended it to Life of Author + 50 years at minimum. THEN it was, again iirc, Sonny Bono that got it extended yet again in the States. Now, it's basically assumed that things like Mickey Mouse, Superman, The White Album, etc., will never be allowed to fall into the Public Domain.

Yes, it is. If a creator/owner can be assured of profit (nevermind that it's copyright, not profitright) for his life plus the life of his grandchildren from a single work, he has no incentive to produce more works.

Patent reform could be done as simply as stating that if you are not producing anything, or in good faith working towards producing something, you cannot sue simply because you bought a patent. That would eliminate the vast majority of patent trolls.

The question is though, is it morally right to demand more money for work that you have already done at an agreed price?

Of course as mentioned, this is a moot point since Kirby isn't involved at all, only his estate.

qft

Because books and works of art immediately lose all value the instant their creator dies, amirite?

That's how I feel about the Superman case. Those sueing had no say at all in the creation of the character, and I'm pretty damn sure they weren't even born at the time so they are owed nothing..but still won.

And an interesting contrast to the recent court decision in the UK.
There a worker who created the molds for the original Star Wars helmets still had a mold and was granted permission to continue using it and selling it outside of the Stars Wars/George Lucas copyright.

Not equivalent, but interesting in relation.

While I get what you're saying, I'll toss it out there that when my dad passes away, I don't expect to receive his pension....

But Stephen King's children can expect to inherit from his estate because he is a successful author and creator.

Agreed to this.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Which is his, and entirely in his remit to leave to them.

The characters may have been made by Kirby, but as WORK for Marvel. His heirs have done diddly squat. Why do they deserve anything again?

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Because they would have stood to get residuals and licensing fees for things like the new Thor movie, had not Stan Lee managed to legally screw over Kirby. Those residuals would still be paid if the rights still belonged to Kirby's estate, just like Stephen King's estate would still be paid if they made a Dark Tower movie after he passed away.

The properties that Kirby created still have value and still make money. Copyright continues on after the death of the author, and their estate can still collect money even though the people receiving said monies did not do any work.

Sadly, I don't think the Kirby estate has a legal leg to stand on, but they have as much right (ethically) to profit by Kirby's work as Marvel/Disney do. Especially since Disney's driven so hard for the extension of copyright, Kirby's heirs would still have the rights to the characters and worlds he created for another 60 years or something like that.

Elvis' estate can still collect money, though his heirs didn't do any of the singing or acting. Why should Kirby's estate be different? (Answer: because Stan Lee successfully and legally stole the fruits of his labors.)

So my statement stands: Any of you who are saying that the Kirby heirs deserve nothing because they did nothing are arguing that copyright should expire the moment of the artist's death. And I disagree with that statement.

This isn't a case of "bad guys" vs. good guys, this is business - and comics has never exactly been a fair one. This case wouldn't have even made it to trial if Marvel, which in its early days was not exactly run as a professional company, had issued proper contracts to Kirby and the others instead of getting by on chutzpah and handling. The fact that Kirby never had a written contract from 1958 to 1963, when he helped create characters who are headlining multi-million-dollar motion pictures today, is shockingly unprofessional, even by the standards of the day.

While the judge based his decision mainly on Stan Lee's first-hand testimony, please bear in mind that this is the same Stan Lee who kept Kirby's name off the 1979 Captain America TV movie as a co-creator while making sure to get billing for himself as a "consultant", even though he had nothing to do with the character's creation.
Marvel has a history of downplaying the creative contributions of its great Silver Age artists, its executives going on record to imply that they were mere illustrators of Stan Lee's when in fact Lee would often give them as much freedom as they liked to create the issues. (See the "Marvel Way" of handing artists basic outlines for issues and adding dialogue and narration once the artwork was finished.) This was particularly true for Kirby and Ditko, who left Marvel on less than good terms after years of being portrayed as secondary contributions.

Because Stephen King, as the copyright holder of the body of his creative works, has been able to take full financial advantage of it and then arrange to pass along the benefits from it to his heirs as part of his estate, something that Kirby, who was stuck in an ambiguous state regarding his work, was never able to do. {Or on preview, what Smersh said.}

While I don't believe that copyright should be handed down from generation to generation like some kind of feudal title, Kirby is just one of many brilliant artists and writers in the comics field who was never treated completely fairly or adequately professionally in his lifetime. Awarding his heirs the copyright Kirby never received is no less fair than setting damages in a breach of contract case.

I disagree. I wasn't even thinking that when I felt that Kirby's heirs should get jack and squat in regards to royalties or revenue for his work done at Marvel. I feel that the Kirby's heirs deserve nothing because they did NOTHING, no contribution, no work, zip, zero. All the heirs want is to get something for nothing, and that's why I celebrate this court verdict.

What Kirby did still has value, then. If that thing which has value was stolen from him during his lifetime and it still has value, who should get that value?

Obviously, the company that stole it from him.