Comic Book Resources

When are the settlement talks scheduled with Steve Ditko?

Ditko hasn’t made moves to terminate copyrights.

So…

Marvel agreed to hold talks, then stabbed the heirs in the back. Typical corporate move.

Or it could be the heirs were unreasonable and Marvel took a preemptive step instead of waiting for their inevitable lawsuit.

Kirby’s heirs seem to think Jack was a moron, as he had experience when he was working for Marvel, he’d co-created Captain America, he knew how those things worked i fact didn’t he and Simon create, and own, Fighting American before Jack’s stint at Marvel?

Yes, in fact they did, they co-created and retained ownership of Fighting American. Kirby KNEW THIS COULD BE DONE, and HAD DONE IT.

If he had wanted ownership, he would have demanded it or walked, Kirby was a strong willed guy, he left Marvel when he wasn’t happy, he was fine with how things were when he was working for Marvel, and when he wasn’t HE LEFT. He wanted an audience. He didn’t care about ownership, he wanted the audience Marvel could help him get, he would rather have had his work read and not own it than to have it languish in obscurity and own it. And that’s how things were back then.

Does Kirby deserve more recognition? I say yes, I think it should be Stan and Jack Present, and on Ditko co-creations Stan and Steve Present. But that’s besides the point, these people are disparaging Jack’s name to make some money from creations he never cared about owning. He created Captain America, didn’t own it, decided to create Fighting American which he did own. It’s clear, Jack knew about creator ownership, and was a pioneer in it. He didn’t want it on these characters. You don’t think it ever came to his mind? You think he was that DUMB?

But, y’know, don’t let reason, and facts deter you from your Marvel hate.

I don’t know if it’s fair to say that your interpretation of Jack Kirby’s actions (or inaction) should constitute “reason” or “facts”. The truth is, many people who knew Jack Kirby, like Mark Evanier, have said that Kirby was deeply distressed and depressed about things like the Secret Wars action figures of his creations. And the idea that somebody didn’t quit their job–a job that they needed to support their family–leads to an implication that they had no problem with anything that happened at that job, is simply grabbing at straws.

I guess I would give the benefit of the doubt about what Jack Kirby would want to his family, to people who actually knew him, than some random dude on a message board.

And as Kurt Busiek would point out, even if what you say is true, and Jack Kirby did the work and knew that Marvel would own the characters, at the time, the length of their ownership was supposed to be 56 years. It has since been extended, and it is only fair for creators who gave away ownership of their creations for a set amount of time get to renegotiate for more money when that amount of time is extended.

So basically, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I actually have to side with drunkenjack here, it’s not like Kirby was a brainless fop.
He went into it with open eyes.

It’s not that he (or even his &%§$&/$ heirs) shouldn’t get some recompensation, but I fear for Marvel’s future with a move like this.

@RJT: he does, it’s just that, as is often the case in this senseless internet debates, you choose to insult him, because he doesn’t come to the same conclusions you do.

DrunkJack, are you talking to me? Are you talking to me?

I don’t hate Marvel. I hate their actions.

Ain’t nothing going to happen to Marvel’s future because of this except perhaps less profits for Marvel.

I never understood why heirs should have rights to creations.
They created nothing! Should they get paid for the use of the creations? Yes! Should they control them? Hell no!

How are the Kirby heirs any better to decide what happens with Jack’s creations, than current Marvel, which has lots and lots of talented and experienced artists, writers and editors working on them?

Drunkenjack doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s saying he knows what Jack Kirby would want, and that what he would want would be for his children to in no way see any of the fruits of his labor. And that he was happy that Marvel refused to give him back his artwork–his rightful property–in an attempt to leverage him to not pursue other rights that they were afraid he might have because of uncertainties with their contracts back in the early 1960s. Now, maybe Drunkenjack is right, because nobody knows exactly what Jack Kirby would want, since he’s been gone over 15 years. But I feel like maybe his family might have a better idea than you or I. Or Drunkenjack.

These arguments come up each time an article like this is posted. I’m waiting for the “if I sell you a car, do I then get to come and try and take the car back if I feel like I got a bad deal.” analogy. Which is wrong on two fronts: first of all, intellectual property and physical property are two different things. You cannot buy an idea forever, like you could a car or a computer. And secondly, the Kirby estate is not pursuing a copyright termination because Jack got a bad deal (although I personally believe he did.) They are pursuing their rights because when Jack Kirby created or co-created the characters he did for Marvel, whether or not he knew it or not, he was giving Marvel the creations for 56 years. That’s how long copyrights were supposed to last. And if the law hadn’t changed the copyright would expire; Congress extended the length of copyrights, but with a stipulation that the original creators would have the ability to either have the copyright transferred to them or renegotiate their payment for the additional length of the copyright. This isn’t about being greedy. It would be like if someone rented a car for a week and then decided to keep it for an additional three days. Are you arguing that the car rental place would be greedy for asking the renter for additional moneys for those three additional days. Marvel, in effect, “rented” the copyright of Jack’s Marvel creations for 56 years. They are planning on keeping it for longer, so the Kirby estate is saying either compensate us for the additional time you keep the car or bring the car back.

Steve Bissette has been running a feature on his website (http://srbissette.com/) about the Comic Book Wars of 1986 (detailing the ‘labeling’ war, as well as the fight for Jack Kirby’s artwork) and points out that when Marv Wolfman was fired from DC comics for speaking out against a ratings system, The Comics Buyer Guide mentioned it in their news section. But the headline for that issue was “Captain America Fired”-an article about what was happening in the Captain America comic book–and Marv’s firing was mentioned later on, with the headline “Marv Wolfman Fired” in smalled type. And when I read that last night, I thought about how fitting it was that what happened to a fictional superhero was more important and newsworthy than what happened to the real life people who wrote and drew their stories. Because even twenty-five years later, people are still arguing that ‘yes, Jack Kirby got screwed, but please please please don’t let anything happen to Iron Man.’

>> I never understood why heirs should have rights to creations.>>

For the same reason heirs can inherit houses, money, businesses and other such things. Intellectual property is something that can be owned, therefore it’s something that can be transferred. Including by inheritance.

Archie Comics is a family-owned business. That means that its ownership has been transferred through inheritance. That includes copyrights.

So what you’re suggesting — that people named Goldwater can inherit copyrights, but people named Kirby can’t — doesn’t seem to be terribly fair. Those rights are property. They can be sold, licensed, reverted, given as gifts, split up, recombined and more. Of course they can be inherited. Why wouldn’t they be?

If I were to de tomorrow, my wife would own Astro City. [Actually, she does today, because we're married and it's community property. So let me amend that to: If my wife and I were to die tomorrow, my daughters would own Astro City.] I don’t see any logical reason it should become someone else’s property on the grounds that “heirs shouldn’t have rights to creations.”

If Kirby was alive, he’d have the legal right to file these rights reversions himself. That right is inheritable under law, as surely as the rights to Captain Victory and Silver Star, or the deed to the Kirby home.

kdb

How dare the Kirby family go after a giant corporation who made people billionaires due to his creations. Don’t forget it was Disney losing rights to Mickey Mouse that engendered the change in copyright law in the first place. I love how people like Drunjack and die-ying take such offense to this. This had nothing to do with what Jack did or didn’t know, and everything to do with the fact he spent the last decade or so of his life trying to get the rights back, or at least fair compensation for his creation. not for him but for his family. Another thing he apparently is guilty of caring for his own.

Not that DC isn’t also guilty of these acts, the aforementioned Bissette articles, Mike W Barr was fired for mentioning that Bill Finger never received credit or payment he was due. What’s worse about this is the how the industry is feeding on itself now, almost all work still work for hire, Warner tightening ownership on creator books to give them more leverage for outside marketing. Don’t think the same won’t happen at Marvsney.

actully kirby and joe created captain america before jack was part of marvel marvel just dediced to add cap to the universe. so his heirs really do not need to file any claim on captain america at all for he was not a work for hire. the other characters given that Marvel does not pay royalties. jack estate should at least get some compensation for marvel contiuing to profit from his co creations even if they were work for hire. as for steve Ditko filing a claim on spider man .its only a matter of time even though Steve has not had any opinion on how marvel has uses hid co creations since he left. marvel. and proably does not care what is going on with marvel and jack. and any other future copy right claims.