Marvel wins fight against Kirby estate

The duress question is what is still open, but I'm pretty sure any company that thought they could still get away with back-of-the-check contracts would still be doing it if they thought they could get away with it from a legal standpoint. No industry tries it today, and in the wake on the Enron scandal and the latest bailout shenanigans, you can't tell me there aren't people who wouldn't be willing to try and get away with it. The duress question was not addressed in any ruling to date, because it was not considered. From a legal standpoint,you can't argue that there was no duress when the question hasn't been put to the court. But you keep changing the subject from whether there was duress or not, when the real question is if a contract is valid just because both parties signed it. No matter how many times you say it, that's just not true. Whether that will be the final determination in this particular case is still open to question, but the fact is, there are plenty of cases where the court has ruled that a contract is not valid, despite having the signature of both parties.

In point of fact, Kirby did leave Marvel and go over to DC and write a bunch of other titles, so you kind of proved my point. If you read any of the links mentioned earlier in this thread, it takes you to interviews with Kirby where he talks about the check thing, and him moving over to DC, and how he felt at the time he didn't have much choice but to sign the checks, to support his family, but concedes maybe it was cowardice and he should have taken a stand sooner.

It's weird to see you insist "it's not false" when there are all sorts of rulings out there that declare contracts null and void, or otherwise illegitimate. I'm not sure how you think you can ignore the rest of reality:

http://contractsknowledge.com/duress...-into-contract

North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705

Occidental Worlwide Investment Corporation v Skins A/S Avanti (The Sibeon and the Sibotre) [1976]

Agreement was not compulsorily but voluntarily entered into

Both concluded that 'duress of goods' existed

I'd like to review the testimony that was stricken and the reason for why it was ordered striked from the record.

As for "under duress" I can see Kirby and others at the time being under duress when these so called contracts were signed . I hope the judge really takes a long hard look at that and contemplates the term "under duress" and makes a well thought decision. Preferably in favor of Kirby, but then I tend to root for the underdog which is definitely Kirby, and I am a major fan of his work.

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

Seeing this post and others, it really seems to be akin to those million dollar lawsuits against bigname companies.

Were the jury awards the plantiff because the defendant is a billion dollar company, nevermind the fact that the plantiff should of known the coffee was hot.

This seems to be the same thing. Side with Kirby because Marvel's a big company with some possible "I hate what they've done to my comics" mixed in.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no "hatred for what they did to my comics" in how I feel regarding the Kirby case.

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

There's hot, and then there's stupidly hot.

I love it when people try to trot out that chestnut.

I can't speak for everybody, but the history of how Marvel treated Kirby was atrocious, and part of the reason Congress passed these laws the Kirby estate was invited to take advantage of is the recognition that the true creative talent should have had a larger participation in the massive success of the property. When every other artist got a one-page agreement to give their original art back, and Marvel sends Kirby a four-page tract that agrees to only give back 88 pages out of 8000+, and he has to agree to waive his right to ever sue them...

In this case, all I can say is that the big company's actions at the time were pretty bad, and it's hard to see anyone taking their side with full knowledge of how they treated the guy while he was alive, especially when you see how the vast majority of their success is STILL due to milking those same properties.

This was never about the comics themselves, whether you like how they're publishing some of those tales today or not. It's about creator's rights, and basic fairness, and fair play to one of the primary people that gave you all the toys in the toybox that are making multi-millionaires out of people, some whom weren't even born at the time. So yeah, there's money involved on both sides, but I don't see how that makes either side more "pure," since they're both after control of the same concepts that help to deliver the pot of money. But if you know the history of what Marvel did to the guy, it's hard to see how you could be rooting for the big company. Hard for me to see, anyway.

Because 1: The guy's dead and this isn't about him any more and 2: I would like to continue to see comics and films made by Marvel, I get the feeling if the heirs were granted copyright they might be spiteful enough to give them to other companies.

Well, that just makes it sound all about you, then. I think his family might disagree with point #1, and I'm pretty sure if the family ended up with some copyrights, they would still be able to to come an arrangement for Marvel to keep using the characters. It would simply be a matter of agreeing on the profit sharing, and there's more involve din the merchandising than in the comics themselves.

Well, I was using it as a general example of law suits against big business comopanies. And that article proved the point...2.7 million was what the jury awarded (even if it was lowered).

I used to assume I knew the facts of the McDonald's hot coffee case til I saw the photos of the actual burns caused by the scalding coffee. In a way, that lady was lucky it spilled on the outside and she didn't ingest it, likely resulting in excruciating pain and maybe life-threatening internal burns.

Check this out if you get a chance. It may open your eyes about your assumptions of so-called frivolous lawsuits:

http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/

As far as Kirby's legal rights to his creations, it's bothered me more and more over the years that Stan Lee has become a multi-millionaire by disingenuously claiming, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, sole credit for many of Marvel's mainstay characters (including Captain America, as someone pointed out earlier, which was co-created by Kirby and Simon). He almost never mentions his co-creators, while reaping the benefits.

Anyone receiving credit as a co-creator, such as a "character created by" by-line, should own it as intellectual property, especially when the visual concept owes so much to the artist and not the writer. We forget that Image comics was founded as a rebellion against Marvel Comics' treatment of artists. Without making a case either for or against Image's publications, at least they changed our perceptions of artists' powerlessness against corporate strangleholds on their creations.

On the contrary, if this decision stands, then it sets a legal precedent, and it becomes about all creative productions performed, however vaguely, as work for hire. Anyone who has ever signed a work-for-hire contract, whether in house or freelance, would be that much less secure in where their legal position lies. Companies would of course be quite happy with letting this ruling stand since it gives them broader license on how to define the work-for-hire relationship.

And now we reach the self-interest on the other side after the Kirby estate has been criticized for going after theirs.

Why do you think they'd be so spiteful, particularly given how successful Marvel Studios' movies have been lately*? Please cite interviews or sources that would suggest such a self-destructive level of animosity. It seems more likely that Kirby's estate want their father to be acknowledged as co-creator and a split of revenue. At worst, they might perhaps step in when a project is trashing the established characters (*cough*FantasticFour:RiseOfTheSilverSurfer*cough* ).

(The Siegel heirs, on the other hand, have no reason to be satisfied with the last few Superman movies. Since Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel" movie has been pushed back to 2013, i.e. past the rights deadline, they now have a stake in that - unless that film undergoes even more rewrites just to cut them out of it.)

* That would include Captain America, Thor, X-Men, and Iron Man, as well as the upcoming Avengers - all of which were co-created by Kirby during his contract-less period. {EDIT: To clarify, Kirby brought his WWII-era creation Capt. America to Marvel in this period.}

Apart from the Kirby estate lawsuit involving copyright claims, creator rights, and contract law and the McDonalds one product liability, they're definitely both against big business companies.