Marvel wins fight against Kirby estate
By
Arnabas,
Posted on: 2011-07-28 18:55 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
I guess my biggest reply is that I'm always confused when someone works to provide for his family, and even if you're an artist, you still want to make enough money to leave something behind for them. Copyright is just about the only way to do that, unless you have a royalty contract with the big bosses, as has become the custom. I'm confused when people act like the family doesn't "deserve" any of the fruits of that labor. Is the company more "deserving" the millions from all of his creations than the guy's own flesh and blood? Nobody at the company now even worked there when Kirby was there, so how do they have any kind of purer claim on the rewards from the moral standpoint when people are insulting the family?
Regardless of how the ultimate legal ruling decides things, all I'm trying to say is that the law was changed, the family was encouraged by the law to see what, if anything, they were owed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of their actions. And I certainly know that Jack Kirby would have wanted any fruits of his labors to go to his family, that was why he cashed their checks at the time, so he could provide for his loved ones. any fanboys that are scared their DC universe would be forever altered if they "lost" Superman, that's really not a legitimate reason to try to convince people that the company has some legal or moral edge in this court battle. The company absolutely does not have any great moral beacon it can point to with regard to being a legitimate heir to the creative talent of Kirby, who helped create the foundation for all these $100 million movies that Marvel is reaping the benefits, while the family, the ones Jack was working for, receive zero. I suspect the appeal to a higher court might lead to a reversal, depending on how strong the family can present the evidence of the existence of certain characters and plots before Marvel bought them from Kirby.
-TP
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
Just read one of the links above which led to this article:
http://www.tcj.com/jim-shooter-our-n...1994/?pid=3185
"I once told Shooter that he wasn't robbing me. He was robbing my grandkids," Kirby said. "I love them. They are beautiful kids, and if I got my artwork back, they would own it."
This in particular was not even involving copyright, just the return of his original art to him, since Marvel was withholding it and admitting to only having 88 pages instead of the 8000+ Kirby did for them. But it shows from his own mouth the fact that he felt as I have described, and certainly believed his family had a much higher place in "deserving" the effort of his labors than Marvel.
-TP
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
Quote:
So not only was Kirby fully aware of what he was doing he agreed to it each time he cashed his check.|
Originally Posted by tpull
2. "Now here's the kicker, all these comic book creations were created by people under the exact same condition. They had a contract. They weren't forced to sign it."
Again, not true. The artists were paid by check, and the "contract" was on the back of the check, so they had to sign the check to cash it, and the comic companies said that the signing of the check also meant they agreed to the conditions they wrote on the back of the checks. I don't think any other industry got away with this, and the companies stopped doing it later, but there's definitely some room for legal discussion on the propriety of that, and if you can hold the artist to the "legal contract" he "signed freely." -TP |
It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid.
I can't help but point out you never here this kinda of **** from the descendants of the guy who invented the light bulbs we've all been using for like a hundred years now. Guy went to work, had his stroke of genius that made the light bulb better and the company he worked for took all the credit.
You also never hear this from anyone's descendants that created an invention and sold it to someone else.
The only reason these people get away with it is cuz we're all suckers and think that art is somehow intrinsically owned by the artist and hate companies which is utter nonsense... I'd love to see the reaction of you all if those very same artists came into your how and took all your comics away. You'd tell them to get lost. You paid for them. You own them. And yet you still think that when DC paid Seigel and Schuster for Superman Seigel and schuster still owns it.
Quote:
Somewhat true...|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
So not only was Kirby fully aware of what he was doing he agreed to it each time he cashed his check.
It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid. |
Written contracts take Precedent over verbal and witnessed over written and notarized over witness, but there is also how the parties and the understandings of what is said in the contract that matters.
It's really mucky if you have any ambiguous language involved, but we make legal contracts all the time though our actions without realizing it..
For example if I were a shoe shiner and every single one of my clients paid me $.50 every time I shined their shoe, but whenever I shined your shoes you never paid me... then if you suddenly asked me to pay you one day out of no where it would be up held as you are in the wrong as the previous actions imply that no money should exchange hands in this situation, but all future shoe shines I would be able to charge you as the precedent of asking has been set. Also if this went to court I'd end up paying your lawyer fees.
On the other side of that is that if this was my first time to shine your shoes and you tried to not pay you'd be liable to pay me the $.50 and i could sue you for it...however I don't get my lawyer fees paid if I win unless the judge deems it.
Any time service, goods, currency are exchanged for service, goods, or currency a contract is being agreed upon.
Quote:
The Siegel and Shuster case is different, because they created Superman on their own and shopped it around to several different places before coming to DC. Thus, it wasn't work-for-hire. They could (and did) sell the copyright, but because it wasn't work-for-hire, the law allows them to attempt to reclaim the rights after a certain period:|
Originally Posted by Durakken
And yet you still think that when DC paid Seigel and Schuster for Superman Seigel and schuster still owns it.
|
http://www.lib.uidaho.edu/copyright/...reversion.html
99458: The Unbearable Being of Lightness
191775: How the Other Half Lives
My Webcomics
Quote:
Copyright should expire with the artist's death because otherwise we're going to end up in a situation where no one can create anything because someone, somewhere will be able to sue for infringement.| 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. |
Creator's rights have nothing to do with because 90% of the time the money is going to go to a publishing company anyway. Supporting copyright extension is just putting more money in Disney's pockets.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Quote:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Somewhat true...
Written contracts take Precedent over verbal and witnessed over written and notarized over witness, but there is also how the parties and the understandings of what is said in the contract that matters. It's really mucky if you have any ambiguous language involved, but we make legal contracts all the time though our actions without realizing it.. For example if I were a shoe shiner and every single one of my clients paid me $.50 every time I shined their shoe, but whenever I shined your shoes you never paid me... then if you suddenly asked me to pay you one day out of no where it would be up held as you are in the wrong as the previous actions imply that no money should exchange hands in this situation, but all future shoe shines I would be able to charge you as the precedent of asking has been set. Also if this went to court I'd end up paying your lawyer fees. On the other side of that is that if this was my first time to shine your shoes and you tried to not pay you'd be liable to pay me the $.50 and i could sue you for it...however I don't get my lawyer fees paid if I win unless the judge deems it. Any time service, goods, currency are exchanged for service, goods, or currency a contract is being agreed upon. |
You have mixed up a bunch of legal issues in this discussion.
1) Oral contracts are as valid as written ones, with certain exceptions. Oral contracts are usually more difficult to prove, but are equally valid. The main exception is the "Statute of Frauds" which requires any contract regarding real property or a contract which is to be performed over a period of greater than one year must be in writing. Of course, there are exceptions to that, too, where oral contracts can still be held valid.
2) Ambiguities in contracts is an entirely different topic. There are two primary types -- Patent and Latent Ambiguities. Patent are ambiguities which are obvious on the surface, like where a contract describes something one way in one place and a different way in another place, but they were supposed to be the same. A Latent ambiguity is something that is not obvious on the face of the contract, but becomes evident when the contract is applied to the real world -- the classic example is when a contract called for goods to be shipped out on the ship "Peerless," but there were two ships with that name.
3) as for the shoe shine example, you have a lot of problems. One, you change perspective in the middle of the example. Second, even if someone provides a service for free, they are not obligated to continue to provide that service for free, as there is no "consideration" which is required to create a contract. Plus, a service provider can change his prices as long as the customer is notified before the service is provided. Finally, the "American Rule" does not allow a party to recover attorney's fees in court unless there is either a contract provision or a statute that specifically allows for the recovery of attorney's fees. That's why all these contracts have attorney's fees provisions in the fine print.
With every one of these legal principles, there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, but that's a quick run-down.
(Local Man is a lawyer in real life.)
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
Local Man I hate to ask for free legal advice but without going into the details of my situation I am like I said in my previous post under a contract which extends 5 years past my period of employment that allows the company I worked for to claim any inventions I make that could have anything to do with communications, electrical transmission, or power generation. I have an idea I'm going crazy from not being able to work on. If I started to work on and test it now would they be able to claim it if I waited to file my patent until after the contract expires? Or should I continue to be paranoid and play it safe and not do any work on it until the contract expires?
Work in progress no more. I have decided that I'm going to put my worst spelling errors here. Triage Bacon, Had this baster idea, TL
R"I'm going to beat the Jesus out of Satan!" My Wife while playing Dante's Inferno
Quote:
I can't give any legal advice on this because, (a) that's not my area of practice, (b) there is no way I can understand the total situation based upon the small amount of information you gave. Generally an attorney is going to have to know the law of your particular state under which the contract can be enforced, read the contract itself, and then research other similar cases and rulings to see whether the contract is enforceable as written. There are all kinds of limitations on a type of contract called a "covenant not to compete," which is what I suspect you have. In general, it has to be reasonable in terms of scope, duration and area. The facts of each case determine whether the terms are reasonable.|
Originally Posted by Crim_the_Cold
Local Man I hate to ask for free legal advice but without going into the details of my situation I am like I said in my previous post under a contract which extends 5 years past my period of employment that allows the company I worked for to claim any inventions I make that could have anything to do with communications, electrical transmission, or power generation. I have an idea I'm going crazy from not being able to work on. If I started to work on and test it now would they be able to claim it if I waited to file my patent until after the contract expires? Or should I continue to be paranoid and play it safe and not do any work on it until the contract expires?
|
Frankly, you should spend the money to consult with an attorney in the jurisdiction (state, usually) where the contract can be enforced to determine whether the contract can be enforced and to what extent it can be enforced.
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tpull
I guess my biggest reply is that I'm always confused when someone works to provide for his family, and even if you're an artist, you still want to make enough money to leave something behind for them. Copyright is just about the only way to do that, unless you have a royalty contract with the big bosses, as has become the custom. I'm confused when people act like the family doesn't "deserve" any of the fruits of that labor. Is the company more "deserving" the millions from all of his creations than the guy's own flesh and blood? Nobody at the company now even worked there when Kirby was there, so how do they have any kind of purer claim on the rewards from the moral standpoint when people are insulting the family?
Regardless of how the ultimate legal ruling decides things, all I'm trying to say is that the law was changed, the family was encouraged by the law to see what, if anything, they were owed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of their actions. And I certainly know that Jack Kirby would have wanted any fruits of his labors to go to his family, that was why he cashed their checks at the time, so he could provide for his loved ones. any fanboys that are scared their DC universe would be forever altered if they "lost" Superman, that's really not a legitimate reason to try to convince people that the company has some legal or moral edge in this court battle. The company absolutely does not have any great moral beacon it can point to with regard to being a legitimate heir to the creative talent of Kirby, who helped create the foundation for all these $100 million movies that Marvel is reaping the benefits, while the family, the ones Jack was working for, receive zero. I suspect the appeal to a higher court might lead to a reversal, depending on how strong the family can present the evidence of the existence of certain characters and plots before Marvel bought them from Kirby. -TP |
As to your last point . . . appeals courts don't work that way. You can't present new evidence on appeal. An appeals court can only reverse errors made by the trial court if the error was properly "preserved" by the attorneys. All of the evidence and rulings made by the trial court are first presumed to be correct, and then the appellant tries to point to places where the trial court made a mistake, whether it was in allowing or excluding a piece of evidence, or applying a certain legal principle incorrectly to the facts of the case as established at trial.
I don't know all the details of the case, but if Kirby was fully an employee of Marvel, then most likely his work is entirely owned by Marvel. While the artist is a huge contributor to the creative process, there are a lot of others involved before a project can become a success, and it is hard to say that the artist alone is responsible for the success of the project. For example, if Kirby had been working for some small comics company or trying to publish his work on his own, would it have been successful? Isn't likely that much of the success of his work was due to the reputation Marvel had for publishing comics? Or the effort and expense Marvel made to promote and publish the comics? Or the effort made by Marvel all these years to build upon and expand the characters, to expand them into other media (TV, Movies, T-Shirts, Books, Lunchboxes, Toys, etc.) There are issues of Trademark vs. Copyright, too. While the artist/creator of a comic character is a key step, it is one of many steps needed to make a character into an icon.
The situation with Superman is entirely different, in that Siegel and Schuster were not DC employees.
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
Thank you for responding. It looks like I'm in a catch 22 then. The only way I can justify an attorny's fee is if I know that it will work and if I know that it will work I'll have already built and tested it which could possibly give them legal claim to it. Unless my situation changes and I get a lot more disposable income I either have to wait the remaining 4 years to even start or work on it in in some secure place, get a successful test, and then demolish it.
Also now that you mention it I think it is a "covenant not to compete". I am beginning to hate the damn things. It seems like every single company has them and they always seem to contain vague language as to what they cover. Its partly my own fault for signing it but when its a condition of employment and you need a job...
Work in progress no more. I have decided that I'm going to put my worst spelling errors here. Triage Bacon, Had this baster idea, TL
R"I'm going to beat the Jesus out of Satan!" My Wife while playing Dante's Inferno
Quote:
It is not uncommon for a "covanant not to compete" to be found invalid because it is overly broad. The companies do not always win on those, because the law in most states tends to construe them strictly as they are not favored.|
Originally Posted by Crim_the_Cold
Thank you for responding. It looks like I'm in a catch 22 then. The only way I can justify an attorny's fee is if I know that it will work and if I know that it will work I'll have already built and tested it which could possibly give them legal claim to it. Unless my situation changes and I get a lot more disposable income I either have to wait the remaining 4 years to even start or work on it in in some secure place, get a successful test, and then demolish it.
Also now that you mention it I think it is a "covenant not to compete". I am beginning to hate the damn things. It seems like every single company has them and they always seem to contain vague language as to what they cover. Its partly my own fault for signing it but when its a condition of employment and you need a job... |
It should not cost you more than a few hundred dollars (most good attorneys charge from $200-$350 per hour, but that can vary widely depending on the area -- New York City attorneys get a lot more) to get a consultation with an attorney just to get an idea of your rights. An hour or so should be enough for an attorney who practices in this area to look at the contract, listen to you about your area of work, and give you some kind of idea about whether there is any chance to challenge that Covenant. 4 years seems too long unless it is very narrow in scope and location.
Sometimes, a waiver of the covanant can be negotiated, too. There are a lot more options than just "wait it out." It may be worth while to see that attorney just to get an idea of what you are dealing with rather than having to wait for 4 years.
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
Quote:
Again, not true. There are all types of cases with intense discussion about what was signed, and how each party may have been forced to sign, and the validity of someone signing under duress. Withholding someone's check unless they agree to a contract that obviously is unfair to them is a sordid practice, and there's a reason nobody does it anymore, and it's precisely because of the concern that it might not be upheld in a court of law. It amazes me how people make sweeping generalizations without having the least amount of knowledge of the actual subject.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
So not only was Kirby fully aware of what he was doing he agreed to it each time he cashed his check.
It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid. |
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
So you're saying Kirby was under duress working for Marvel?
Quote:
I didn't say they weren't as valid...in fact the rest of post sorta says that explicitly. I'm saying that a written contract takes precedence over a verbal one. It's more a matter on the proveability of the contract and the concreteness. I'm ignoring the instances where it is only a legal contract if it's written and speaking more in general terms.|
Originally Posted by Local_Man
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You have mixed up a bunch of legal issues in this discussion. 1) Oral contracts are as valid as written ones, with certain exceptions. Oral contracts are usually more difficult to prove, but are equally valid. The main exception is the "Statute of Frauds" which requires any contract regarding real property or a contract which is to be performed over a period of greater than one year must be in writing. Of course, there are exceptions to that, too, where oral contracts can still be held valid. |
Quote:
| 2) Ambiguities in contracts is an entirely different topic. There are two primary types -- Patent and Latent Ambiguities. Patent are ambiguities which are obvious on the surface, like where a contract describes something one way in one place and a different way in another place, but they were supposed to be the same. A Latent ambiguity is something that is not obvious on the face of the contract, but becomes evident when the contract is applied to the real world -- the classic example is when a contract called for goods to be shipped out on the ship "Peerless," but there were two ships with that name. |
Quote:
|
3) as for the shoe shine example, you have a lot of problems. One, you change perspective in the middle of the example. Second, even if someone provides a service for free, they are not obligated to continue to provide that service for free, as there is no "consideration" which is required to create a contract. Plus, a service provider can change his prices as long as the customer is notified before the service is provided. Finally, the "American Rule" does not allow a party to recover attorney's fees in court unless there is either a contract provision or a statute that specifically allows for the recovery of attorney's fees. That's why all these contracts have attorney's fees provisions in the fine print. With every one of these legal principles, there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, but that's a quick run-down. (Local Man is a lawyer in real life.) |
Note that the example has the person asking for money after the fact and after a pre-established pattern which is important and agrees with what you're saying.
I thought the person suing always had to pay for a defendants legal fees when the suit fails unless the court itself waves that due to whatever reason.
Anyways thanks for clarifying. Maybe one day I'll refresh myself on these things as I have a book with all this stuff in it that i got when i took a class on business law ^.^
Quote:
Making all the artist people (not just Kirby) sign away rights in order to receive payment for work already done can be seen as a sign of duress, yes. When the agreement was to turn in art for money, and the company won't pay your for your work unless you sign a new agreement after the fact, that's something that doesn't hold up in a court of law.|
Originally Posted by Zikar
So you're saying Kirby was under duress working for Marvel?
|
The other key fact is that Marvel let go of the artists at one point, making Kirby an independent contractor. If, during the appeal, a different judge agrees he was not a regular paid employee, but an independent contractor, that changes things. And while I was wrong to say it would be "new evidence," the judge could also rule to allow the testimony of Evanier and Morrow, which were both given in the original, and may help to turn the case.
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
Quote:
It's not a sweeping generalization when it's already been upheld in court. Or have you forgotten that Kirby's heirs lost.
|
Originally Posted by tpull
Again, not true. There are all types of cases with intense discussion about what was signed, and how each party may have been forced to sign, and the validity of someone signing under duress. Withholding someone's check unless they agree to a contract that obviously is unfair to them is a sordid practice, and there's a reason nobody does it anymore, and it's precisely because of the concern that it might not be upheld in a court of law. It amazes me how people make sweeping generalizations without having the least amount of knowledge of the actual subject.
|
Quote:
Actually, no, a written contract does not have "precedence" over a verbal contract. There is a legal principle that states that if there is a written contract, you can't modify that written contract by testifying that there was a simultaneous oral agreement that modified the terms of the written contract. But an oral contract, if proven, is equally enforceable as a written contract. (There is another principle that allows for subsequent oral modifications of a written contract, but the contract can specifically disallow oral modifications.)|
Originally Posted by Durakken
I didn't say they weren't as valid...in fact the rest of post sorta says that explicitly. I'm saying that a written contract takes precedence over a verbal one. It's more a matter on the proveability of the contract and the concreteness. I'm ignoring the instances where it is only a legal contract if it's written and speaking more in general terms.
|
For example, assume a car dealer agrees to sell a car to me at an established price, place and time. (Assume that there are several witnesses to this handshake deal.) Then that car dealer enters into a written contract with customer #2 to sell the same car (maybe because he forgot he already sold that particular car). My oral contract, if proven, would have precedence over the subsequent written contract. I would be entitled to buy the car, and Customer #2 would have the right to sue the car dealer for damage he suffered as a result of the Car Dealer breaching the contract. If Customer #2 was able to buy an equivalent car for less somewhere else, he would have no damages. If Customer #2 had to pay more for an equivalent car, the difference in price would be the damages, plus court costs. Customer #2 would not be entitled to attorney's fees unless his written contract specifically states that he can recover fees.
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
Quote:
The judge didn't rule on this part of the law, the decision was made about another aspect entirely. Your generalization was "It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid." That generalization is false. That's what the entire discussion about duress was.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
It's not a sweeping generalization when it's already been upheld in court. Or have you forgotten that Kirby's heirs lost.
|
And this was the first stage, and may not be the final way it all shakes out. Toberoff lost a few parts of the Superman case early on, and those were later overturned.
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
Quote:
Anyone know what the current Superman case status is? Last I read it was that the estate won back the rights to Action Comics #1 and that the judge told DC/Warner that if they want to keep the movie rights they must have a movie started by 2011, hence all the early buzz and casting for the reboot movie. Any updates?
|
Originally Posted by tpull
The judge didn't rule on this part of the law, the decision was made about another aspect entirely. Your generalization was "It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid." That generalization is false. That's what the entire discussion about duress was.
And this was the first stage, and may not be the final way it all shakes out. Toberoff lost a few parts of the Superman case early on, and those were later overturned. |
Quote:
That's the latest thing I heard, too.
|
Originally Posted by Nericus
Anyone know what the current Superman case status is? Last I read it was that the estate won back the rights to Action Comics #1 and that the judge told DC/Warner that if they want to keep the movie rights they must have a movie started by 2011, hence all the early buzz and casting for the reboot movie. Any updates?
|
I have an idea! No wait...it's just gas.
Hellscorp
Quote:
Must still be further litigation pending then.|
Originally Posted by tpull
That's the latest thing I heard, too.
|
To me though, while this can be said to be a money grab by the Siegel/Schuster estate, both Siegel and Schuster themselves were trying for years to regain ownership before their deaths, and I think they started the legal process again before their deaths and the estate is continuing the fight as both to honor the wishes of Siegel/Schuster and of course for money.
For the Kirby estate, they believe they have a claim to ownership as copyright laws indicate that ownership is allegedly expiring soon. The issue is whether they really have a claim or if Marvel has the ownership since day one. To me this feels like partly a money grab and partly justice for Jack. I'm definitely for the justice for Jack part.
Quote:
It's not false and Kirby was not under any duress. No one was holding a gun to his head. He was free to walk and take his talent elsewhere any time he liked.
|
Originally Posted by tpull
The judge didn't rule on this part of the law, the decision was made about another aspect entirely. Your generalization was "It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid." That generalization is false. That's what the entire discussion about duress was.
|
1. "Kirby pitched ideas but never worked on anything unless Marvel gave him the green light."
Absolutely not true. Kirby brought several things to Marvel he had already created, and Marvel passed on them. Some characters currently at Dc might have ended up at Marvel early on if marvel had given the green light.
2. "Now here's the kicker, all these comic book creations were created by people under the exact same condition. They had a contract. They weren't forced to sign it."
Again, not true. The artists were paid by check, and the "contract" was on the back of the check, so they had to sign the check to cash it, and the comic companies said that the signing of the check also meant they agreed to the conditions they wrote on the back of the checks. I don't think any other industry got away with this, and the companies stopped doing it later, but there's definitely some room for legal discussion on the propriety of that, and if you can hold the artist to the "legal contract" he "signed freely."
3. "If you use company time or resources then the company is entitled to a share or the whole thing depending on how good their lawyers are. Company reasources can include any training you might have recieved while working for the company or any potential training you could have recieved if you have open access to the learning materials."
Except on Jack Kirby's case, he didn't work at Marvel. He worked at home, in his basement. He never got any kind of "training" associated with his job. I'm not sure on this point, but I have heard that he paid for all his own art supplies too, which means he worked at home, created stuff on his own dime, and came in to Marvel to submit it. That's a large part of the reason this was not a clear-cut case as with, say, all the CrossgGen artists, who had contracts, came to work, used company supplies, and worked together in an office environment receiving assignments. Things were a little bit different in the '50s and '60s.
The final point I would make is that the families aren't necessarily greedier than the company, and the company definitely wasn't an angel in their business practices, so it's weird to see an entire family thrown into the gates of hell, while a large corporation is upheld as the epitome of goodness. The family didn't do this until Sonny Bono got his law passed through Congress which allowed for them to attempt to take back all of the copyrights for which they had a legitimate claim. I don't see how people following what the law allows (and even encourages them) to do can be automatically classified as greedy jerks. It's a complicated legal issue, and I would say the heirs have (at least) every bit as much claim as a faceless corporation. I'm not sure how I would rule on the issue, but I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about the character of the Kirby family. Jack Kirby was an awesome guy, and I would tend to think he had a pretty good family, if going by Jack was any way to make an initial assessment of things. But this part is definitely in the opinion area, and separate from thee straight facts of all the other stuff above.
-TP
3) I'm not saying the companies were angels. I just don't see the family having rights to these comic book creations under those previous workings.
Not to mention, what are they going to do with it? Really? Thier plan is likely to take it and sell/lease it back for huge profits.
In the case of Superman, do you think they'd really keep it as huge as it is now? And you think fans hate the reboots now? If they took control of Superman, they'd have to disregard so much of what's been done with Superman.
The same goes for anyone else.
No. I don't like the business practices that were in use at those times. It's great that these practices have changed, they needed to be changed. But that doesn't change that these arrangements were agreed upon by the parties involved to begin with (though obviously they favored the ones with the money over the ones without).
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection