Event: Marvel vs Jack Kirby: Legal Rights and Ethical Might

[Francis Dawson]

Forthcoming event at the Center for Cartooning Studies, White River Junction, Vermont. Cartoonist Steve Bisette, who has called for a boycott of all Marvel product due to their treatment of Kirby (http://srbissette.com/?p=12761) will be joined by Oliver Goodenough from the Vermont Law School.

http://thepanelists.org/2011/10/kirby-in-vermont/

I completely agree with Bisette's stance and sincerely hope that Marvel reaches an agreement with Kirby's heirs that is at least equivalent to Stan Lee's 2005 settlement. The moral case for this is totally compelling. You should think so too, if you don't then shame on you. The thread on this board when the judge ruled in favour of Marvel was one of the most wretched things I've ever read.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com...d.php?t=378489

Boycott Marvel. Make Mine Kirby.

[Brian M.]

I just want to conto us to read comic books.

[Gryphon]

If they hadnt tried to take the rights to characters Kirby didnt create or that other creators had just as if not more important roles in creating, I might feel differently.

[Iron Maiden]

While I am very sympathetic to the fact that Jack Kirby deserved more while he was alive I also recognize that in those times it was done as work for hire and Jack Kirby knew this. He was considered a "no hire" at DC because of running afoul of an editor over there who was taking his cut over the Sky Commanders comic strip. So he took his chances with Marvel. Did Martin Goodman do right by him? Probably not and that is why he moved over to DC. He was a freelancer. Just like if I created a software program for a company I work for, I know they have the rights to it. If I want to market it myself, I undertake all the risks, hire staff etc. When Kirby and Simon ran a shop together, they used the practice of work for hire also as I recall but please correct me if I am wrong. That's just the way things were done.

I'd love to see Disney/Marvel give some kind of remuneration to the Kirby heirs and perhaps they will some day. But the Marvel of today has very little relation to the Marvel of Kirby's days so I don't feel compelled to boycott.

[Francis Dawson]

Erratum: the event is taking place at Vermont Law School.

http://www.cartoonstudies.org/index....ethical-might/

[Francis Dawson]

If they hadnt tried to take the rights to characters Kirby didnt create or that other creators had just as if not more important roles in creating, I might feel differently.

My understanding is that the Kirby heirs were exercising their right under the Copyright Act of 1976 to regain control of "Kirby Works" created between '58 and '63 which were defined as "authored or co-authored." That wording doesn't negate the contribution made by others.

http://ipbrief.net/volume2/issue1.pdf (scroll down for the Kirby article).

[Kenny Rogers]

Already not buying any Marvel product. I wish the Kirby family all the luck in their fight for just compensation.

[Leunames]

I sympathize with the Kirby family. But the fact is that by boycotting I become an active participant in this legal battle and if anyone knows the economic concept of utility, mine goes down to zero if I do this.

My favorite character is Galactus. He appears in few issues enough as it is; compared to the avengers and the FF, he basically never appears. My "boycott" would not only go totally unregistered by the sales data at my local comic shop, it would hurt me far, far, far more than it would hurt my comic shop, much less Marvel.

That's just me, and having read the links posted above, I don't see that as "rationalizing" or any other blanket label term. it's simply an economic principal of utility.

[pedroparkero]

Already not buying any Marvel product. I wish the Kirby family all the luck in their fight for just compensation.

are they fighting for compensation or total control?

i am for compensation but total control of spider-man? hell no!

[dr chimp]

My understanding is that the Kirby heirs were exercising their right under the Copyright Act of 1976 to regain control of "Kirby Works" created between '58 and '63 which were defined as "authored or co-authored." That wording doesn't negate the contribution made by others.

http://ipbrief.net/volume2/issue1.pdf (scroll down for the Kirby article).

i don't see how kirby's heirs can win this tho.

It's already been ruled as work for hire and "the Act expressly prohibits an author of a “work made for hire” from exercising a termination right on their creation. Instead, a work for hire vests the rights of copyright in the employer"

however i only read some of that article so there may be more to it.

on a side note was all of kirby's work ever returned to him or does marvel still have the vast majority of it? I can't work out how to google the answer to that and i've been curious.

[Iron Maiden]

i don't see how kirby's heirs can win this tho.

It's already been ruled as work for hire and "the Act expressly prohibits an author of a “work made for hire” from exercising a termination right on their creation. Instead, a work for hire vests the rights of copyright in the employer"

however i only read some of that article so there may be more to it.

on a side note was all of kirby's work ever returned to him or does marvel still have the vast majority of it? I can't work out how to google the answer to that and i've been curious.

As for Kirby's work, he did get some of it back but definitely not all of it. I recall reading in another book about Marvel's early days is that they were very lax in storing and maintaining some of it. It was not a very secure environment. I think it was Steranko who first complained to Stan about it. Some staff members were a bit light fingered and would take stuff and sell in at the early comic cons or some other buyer. I honestly don't think anyone thought back then that some of it would sell for 5 figures or so today. I imagine of someone asked Tom B at his formspring, he could clarify. But a lot of that stuff just sort of "walked away".

[dr chimp]

As for Kirby's work, he did get some of it back but definitely not all of it. I recall reading in another book about Marvel's early days is that they were very lax in storing and maintaining some of it. It was not a very secure environment. I think it was Steranko who first complained to Stan about it. Some staff members were a bit light fingered and would take stuff and sell in at the early comic cons or some other buyer. I honestly don't think anyone thought back then that some of it would sell for 5 figures or so today. I imagine of someone asked Tom B at his formspring, he could clarify. But a lot of that stuff just sort of "walked away".

i think later though it was ruled that all art belonged to the artist not the company. Every artist received all the existing art in the company archives apart from kirby who only received around 20% and that was after a battle. However, I cant remember why Kirby had to fight for his art when everyone got theirs without hassle, why he only got a percentage and exactly what did happen to rest of it. Was it returned later or do marvel still have it and what did marvel want kirby to sign before they returned his art? This is only from shoddy memory though so could be nonsene though i seem to remember it having something to do with just how much kirby contributed to the creation of characters and writing of stories - the pages had lots of annotations, script notes etc on them that showed he was heavily involved in the scripts as well as the visuals and pages. I only bring it up as an example of the very shoddy treatment of kirby although someone on here will be able to give a proper account of what happened.

However, none of this will have any impact on the fact that as I understand it Kirby's heirs will lose their case. Such is life especially when its the companies that write the law

[DeadXMan]

Didn't the courts just rule in marvel's favor?

[Alan2099]

As for Kirby's work, he did get some of it back but definitely not all of it. I recall reading in another book about Marvel's early days is that they were very lax in storing and maintaining some of it. It was not a very secure environment. I think it was Steranko who first complained to Stan about it. Some staff members were a bit light fingered and would take stuff and sell in at the early comic cons or some other buyer. I honestly don't think anyone thought back then that some of it would sell for 5 figures or so today. I imagine of someone asked Tom B at his formspring, he could clarify. But a lot of that stuff just sort of "walked away".

Heck, Stan and some of the other top guys sued to just give the artwork away as keepsakes to people that visited. On top of that, lots of it just ended up in the garbage.

i think later though it was ruled that all art belonged to the artist not the company. Every artist received all the existing art in the company archives apart from kirby who only received around 20% and that was after a battle. However, I cant remember why Kirby had to fight for his art when everyone got theirs without hassle, why he only got a percentage and exactly what did happen to rest of it. Was it returned later or do marvel still have it and what did marvel want kirby to sign before they returned his art? This is only from shoddy memory though so could be nonsene though i seem to remember it having something to do with just how much kirby contributed to the creation of characters and writing of stories - the pages had lots of annotations, script notes etc on them that showed he was heavily involved in the scripts as well as the visuals and pages. I only bring it up as an example of the very shoddy treatment of kirby although someone on here will be able to give a proper account of what happened.

However, none of this will have any impact on the fact that as I understand it Kirby's heirs will lose their case. Such is life especially when its the companies that write the law

The decision to return the art was made while Kirby was in the process of suing Marvel. Marvel's lawyers thought t would look bad to return it the for some reason, perhaps they thought it would look like they were admitting guilt or something, I'm not sure. Regardless, that's why Kirby didn't get his art back when everybody else did.

[dr chimp]

Heck, Stan and some of the other top guys sued to just give the artwork away as keepsakes to people that visited. On top of that, lots of it just ended up in the garbage.



The decision to return the art was made while Kirby was in the process of suing Marvel. Marvel's lawyers thought t would look bad to return it the for some reason, perhaps they thought it would look like they were admitting guilt or something, I'm not sure. Regardless, that's why Kirby didn't get his art back when everybody else did.

ahh heres a very good essay http://archives.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html that involved work for hire and return of art. the article states that kirby got 1,900 pages back eventually. although that was obviously far short of the total number of pages he drew for marvel so there must still be thousands of pages somewhere unless things changed since that article was published in 2002.