io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 2:17 PM
Fri Dec 11
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
[kotaku.com]
Then the pain set in.
09/22/09
just as i believe ditko has rights to creating spider-man, as the primary artist for 41 issues, kirby may have a case with FF or the others he was the chief artist.
ditko, lee and john romita sr. are the creative fathers of spider-man. they laid down the look, the feel, the attitude that have endured over the years.
btw. thank the lord kirby's vision of spider-man wasn't adopted, or he'd be sued for cloning someone else's idea.
09/22/09
So, given this, I'd LOVE to see Ditko incorporate Kirby into this...
09/22/09
09/22/09
Lol at Kamandi...
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
Because DC did right by him and gave him a chunk of change for creating Darkseid. In fact, because he created the New Gods before such agreements came into place, Jeannette Kahn hired him to redesign the character slightly so he could claim the money.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
One of the reasons that Neil Gaiman said he wasn't going to write another big comic book was because unlike his novels, the comic book companies don't allow the characters he creates to be his own.
That said, publishers like Image (and, to a degree, Dark Horse) publish creator-owned content all the time.
09/22/09
/anyone not reading Criminal, you need to. It's awesome.
09/23/09
09/25/09
It didn't, that's why Stan Lee sued the company he's been the continued mouthpiece for, just to get a little compensation for his works. The only way he would see any money for it was to take legal action. It makes more sense for him to sue and recieve something, being alive, even if it looked like money grubbing when it all went down. It does however look much worse on Kirby's family doing this and him not being alive to comment on it himself.
If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC.
Stan Lee's said it in interviews time and time again (like he does with every thing else he says, god bless him) back in those days, when Spider-man was created, they were lucky the books went to print at all let alone an idea be excepted. Times were much tougher then for the industry as it was still seen as new, as well as "the enemy" by government and parents (just like video gaming is now), and Comics were much harder to sell period. Even DC, who had been in the game longer, had trouble bringing a lot of ideas to print out of fear that they wouldn't be accepted. All that uncertainty is part of the reason why Creator rights were so overlooked then, no one thought about it because they were too concerned with just trying to get something out at all.
09/27/09
"If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC."
He was a very complicated man. No one understood him but his woman (sorry)...
Seriously, they treated him roughly in the mid 80s, when all he really wanted was his original art. He died in 1994, and he was not in the best of health for the decade up to his death. He didn't want to put his wife through a big trial, and I don't blame him.
09/22/09
I don't see a side to support here. I mean, they shouldn't own the rights because they're dad sold them. They have no interest in the characters they just want money money money since Disney just bought Marvel.
Its pathetic. Sorry Mr. Kirby.
09/22/09
b) Why did Disney buy Marvel? "They just want money money money."
09/22/09
Disney is able to make good movies, rides, video games and more.
09/22/09
09/22/09
I have no horse in this Kirby race incidentally. Glad he played a part in creating characters I have enjoyed at points in my life, but I think his art looks like shit.
09/23/09
the Kirby family would probably get a cut of that, and maybe some amount of veto over certain items. I doubt it would be in their best interest to totally hoard the characters.
09/23/09
Do you mean "good" as in "Little Mermaid III - Ariel's Beginning" or "good" as in "Dadnapped?"
I think it's just possible that the uninvolved family of a deceased artist may actually be able to do more with Marvel characters than Disney can, at this point. And that's just sad.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Flip it around. Start making a comic book character who is a teen-ager living with his aunt and uncle, acquires spider powers and becomes a superhero named "Spider man," and who has a costume entirely unlike the current Marvel character. Would Marvel sue you, or would Marvel let you make all the money you wanted off of your "Spider Man"?
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
I think it's basically a negotiating tactic, anyway.
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
Moreover, he kept signing away his rights to material that he did create, every time he signed one of those contracts that he negotiated himself.
And, I guess, extra-moreover: I'm not sure that you can copyright an idea or a "core concept" like that.
09/23/09
Under your principle, anyone who owes anyone else money should murder the person they owe money to. "He's dead, which obviates the need for compensation."
"Sure, I inadvertently poisoned your kids by dumping pesticide in the lake, but they're dead, which obviates the need for compensation!"
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
There is the world as it really is and the world as we might prefer it to be. You have to make a living in the world as it is.
I don't disagree with your point if your point is that copyright law has gotten completely out of hand. But given the laws of the moment, I think the Kirby estate would be foolish not to pursue this suit. The whole world has its hand out. If banksters living in the Hamptons can screw the pooch and still say "gimme" to the FDIC or Geithner, I think we can spare the Kirby estate its day in court.
Sheesh!
You don't think Jacob Kurtzberg cared about his family? It's the main reason he wasn't more of a troublemaker - he was trying to shelter, feed and clothe his family! He tried to avoid courtroom entanglements because he was always hoping to get more work or money by playing within the existing system as a gentleman. With hindsight we might call that a devastating miscalculation. Sadly, Kirby grew up in a time when people were taught to know their place - you stated your claim and then stopped pushing because some sense of common decency should kick in with your opponent and things would then work themselves out. Ultimately, that's what his story "Street Code" is all about. Kirby grew up in a time and place where even the petty crime bosses had a sense of common decency.
Kirby didn't know how to fight these greedy Marvel bastards in court. Jack didn't know how to deal with people without a sense of common decency. He didn't know that the bloodsuckers at Marvel could and would outlast him with their greed. The mistaken notion that Kirby sued Marvel a few decades back arises from the fact that Marvel lawyers were always trying to get him to sign papers in order that Jack might reclaim his original artwork. Most artists were made to sign a one page waiver of some kind, but Kirby's document was to be a several page, complicated affair. Of course, as most of the artwork had already been looted, the lawyers were actually trying to get him to sign away his authorial claims for almost nothing in return.
Dave Sim, another comics pro, would probably opine that Kirby had the classic problem of having made some kind of agreement - contractual or not - with an entity much larger than himself. The larger entity has the legal team, the time and the money to make one agree with whatever they want.
This is one small salvo to correct the savage injustice done to the artist we know as Jack Kirby. However you want to divvy up the percentage of authorship over various Marvel characters, Jacob Kurtzberg has the moral right to be identified with the work he created and his family now has the right to financially benefit from it.
09/21/09
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you are receiving a salary to create FOR a company, the work IS the property of the company, UNLESS an alternate agreement has been signed by both parties.
I'm not saying any of this is fair per se, it's just how the laws are set up. Artists that can start and manage their own companies do— think Todd McFarlane of McFarlane Toys or Herb Alpert, the 'A' in A&M records.
Kirby et al made the comic companies money (NOW, as it turns out, quite a bit of money), and by those same companies distributing his work, they (quite unintentionally) made him— a legend.
09/22/09
09/21/09
09/23/09
It's because people think (mistakenly, IMHO) that the Kirby family will "pull a Fox" and try to delay further Marvel projects, like Fox did with Watchmen. The situation is very, very different. The Kirby family would be much better served by a strong Marvel releasing new stuff with the characters.
Like I said, I don't care if it is "only his heirs," Marvel screwed him over, it's time they pay up.
09/21/09
09/21/09
Then how come Stan Lee was treated very differently?
At the very least, give them back *all* the original art.
09/21/09
Copyright law has changed over the years, and companies have done all kinds of things to try to retroactively secure copyrights. In the case of the Kirby estate, who knows what kind of contract--if any--Kirby signed before he created the Fantastic Four and the Hulk and the Avengers, etc?
09/21/09
While I didn't actually say that there is a contract involved, it's pedantic to point it out. It's inherent. The entire question revolves around the specifics in said contract. Wondering if there was one ever signed is strange to me. Maybe there wasn't a contract, but I highly doubt it.
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/21/09
It's exactly that kind of attitude that keeps me from talking to most of my family and out of the biz, but it serves as an example of what may be happening here.
Does Jack Kirby deserve more credit? Sure, though I think every single fanboy out there knows exactly who he is and what he did.
I've seen how families can get crazy about money, and even lie to themselves and say it's something they 'deserve.' This strikes me as that. Especially so close to the Disney deal.
Still, even if they win (very unlikely)? No Spider-Man. That's got to hurt.