Marvel soon to lose right to use Kirby's created characters?

[Chaos Descending]

Quite possibly, but not necessarily.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101201/film_nm/us_marvel

If I read this right, the long and the short of it is that when Jack Kirby died, his estate put Marvel on notice that they intended to "terminate copyright". Marvel counter-sued, claiming that Kirby's efforts were "work-for-hire" and therefore his estate had no grounds to terminate copyright.

A judge just ruled that the Kirby estate's claim is NOT without merit, which means the case won't be thrown out. Whether they ever ultimately rule in Kirby's favor or not remains to be seen, but if the Kirby estate gets their way, Marvel will lose the right to pretty much ALL of their mainline popular characters, including Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, etc.

Honestly, I think Kirby's estate will lose. But I think that if they win, they'll settle for back pay and future royalties. There's no way Marvel will stand for losing the cream of their crop.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yep, checks will be written and cashed.

 

[Captain Craig]

Property of Marvel, case closed.
Next

 

[That Weirdo In The Corner]

Property of Marvel, case closed.
Next

Well that depends on the terms of the contracts he and Marvel signed.

Although it seems unlikly Marvel would have signed a contract not given themselves copyright.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
I know, that was largely me being facetious.
Between the Siegel&Shusters w/Superman, Gary Friedrich w/Ghost Rider and now this I'm over creators and/or their heirs (especially the heirs) trying for a money grab.

Kirby didn't solely create the staple of Marvel characters that would be in dispute though. Most, if not all were at mimimum co-created with Stan Lee. What if Lee is just fine with those creations staying with Marvel(should they win the court case). I would think a court granting the Kirby estate SOLE copyright holder then would be a case for Stan Lee to bring up, opening a whole new can of worms. A can I might add that is instantly closed using the "work for hire" that Marvel is indicating.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Well, it's generally known that throughout the Golden Age and Silver Age that comic book artists and writers operated on a "work-for-hire" basis but there is an argument to be made that the companies were in collusion to systematically deny creative rights to authors and artists, and so the companies unfairly "stole" ownership of intellectual property from the creators. If I am not mistaken, there were a few (or one?) comic artists from that period who recently (within the last 10 years IIRC) who successfully won a lawsuit on those grounds to get the rights to their original creations.

I don't think Kirby would win, but he could.

 

[Captain Craig]

I'm waiting for Rob Leifeld to sue on behalf for his co-creating of Deadpool back in 1991. Of course maybe all the legal stuff was nailed down by then and he has no leg to stand. Which of course may be why Image comics was indeed created.

 

[Captain Craig]

Well, it's generally known that throughout the Golden Age and Silver Age that comic book artists and writers operated on a "work-for-hire" basis but there is an argument to be made that the companies were in collusion to systematically deny creative rights to authors and artists, and so the companies unfairly "stole" ownership of intellectual property from the creators.

Maybe, Possibly true or it could just be the losers way of spinning stories to warrant some pity. News loves to root for the alleged 'vicitm' at times in a David vs Goliath contest.

Still, they worked back then knowing the conditions and terms. To turn the Kirby estate into Siegel&Shuster 2.0 who keep coming back for more and more to Warners is overkill if not without merit from some activist judge(yeah, those exist).

This reparations cycle has to be stopped. A firm understanding laid down. Otherwise we are going to see many other Golden/Silver or even some Bronze Age characters. Blade being the example here. Marv Wolfman sued over Blade and the "work for hire" angle worked + Marvel indicating the character had changed significantly since then.

In 1998, on the eve of the impending release of the Blade motion picture, Wolfman sued Marvel Comics over ownership of the Blade character, a lawsuit he eventually lost in 2000. According to The Comics Journal, "Wolfman had argued that he had not been bound by any work-for-hire contract at the time he had created the characters in 1972 and that Marvel's subsequent use of the characters had been contingent on his approval. The court ruled, however, that Marvel's later use of the characters was sufficiently different from Wolfman's initial creations to protect it from Wolfman's claim of copyright ownership."

I hope this judge is like the one who ruled against Wolfman. Put this stuff to bed. I don't want every few years some estate saying "Show me the Money", given the number of comic properties likely to find larger success.

 

[CaptainCanada]

but if the Kirby estate gets their way, Marvel will lose the right to pretty much ALL of their mainline popular characters, including Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, etc.

No they won't; they would still own Lee's half of the copyright(and, in the case of Spidey, Ditko's share).

Kirby's status at Marvel during his time there is...confusing, frankly, because Martin Goodman ran a pretty loose ship in terms of paperwork. I think the Kirbys have a tough row to hoe, but it's not impossible.

 

[Chaos Descending]

but if the Kirby estate gets their way, Marvel will lose the right to pretty much ALL of their mainline popular characters, including Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, etc.

No they won't; they would still own Lee's half of the copyright(and, in the case of Spidey, Ditko's share).

Kirby's status at Marvel during his time there is...confusing, frankly, because Martin Goodman ran a pretty loose ship in terms of paperwork. I think the Kirbys have a tough row to hoe, but it's not impossible.

In a co-ownership situation like that, one side cannot unilaterally give consent to the use of the owned property. If the court rules in favor of Kirby's estate, Kirby's estate would have grounds to tell Marvel to piss off regardless of how Lee thinks about the matter.

That said, the ruling would suddenly mean that Stan Lee had a credible share in the ownership, which he does not currently have. If Kirby wins, don't expect for Lee to automatically consent to Marvel's continued use of the characters. I'm sure Stan Lee wants his piece of the pie too.

Money talks and bullshit walks. If Kirby's estate wins, the Lee and Kirby families are going to get paid if Disney/Marvel wants to keep making Spider-Man movies and comics.

 

[Kirby]

I feel like I should say something here...

 

[cultcross]

I feel like I should say something here...

But you're represented by counsel?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Unfortunately, I don't think the Kirby estate has much to go on here, but I'd like to know what merit the judge sees in the case. I'd be happy to see the Rights revert-- or be shared-- with the estate, since Marvel seems to be pretty much all done as far as a viable creative force. "The Bullpen" is certainly a thing of the past.

 

[Turtletrekker]

My take: Marvel is owned by Disney and Disney employs the best copyright lawyers in the world. Marvel won't lose anything. The Mouse might write a fat check to the Kirby estate, but no rights will revert.

Stan Lee has been conspicuously quiet during all of this, and Lee should get at least what the Kirby's get. My guess is that he will let the Kirby lawyers do all of the heavy lifting, and then bring his own lawyers into it.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Marvel isn't going to lose any of its characters. It'll either be a case of a big check being given to the Kirby estate--or not, IMO.

With comic book characters now seen as multi-million dollar-generating movie, television, and merchandising properties, I expect more lawsuits against Marvel and D.C. by various creators and the estates of decesaed creators. Smaller independent comic book publishers will not be immune to this either if their properties strike gold too...

 

[Harvey]

Whatever happens with the case, I doubt Marvel will lose the rights to these characters for more than thirty seconds. It's all a matter of how much money they'll have to pay to the Jack Kirby estate, and if the estate wins the case, then it'll just be a lot more.

 

[C_Miller]

Yeah, I don't foresee this happening. Worst case scenario is that the Kirby family gets a better cut of the royalties. That would be the best case for them, seeing as comics are a multi-billion dollar industry right now (even though sales of actual Comic Books are going down). However, I have a problem with estate copyright claims in the first place. I this case at least Kirby's Children were alive, but in the case of Siegel and Schuster a few years back, I believe it was their grandchildren. These people had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of these beloved characters, yet they make these legal claims to make money grabs in the names of their dead parents or grandparents. I find that incredibly immoral. I'm all for workers getting paid more for what they do and Kirby was probably grossly underpaid in his time and didn't get money he deserved through royalties in life, but his family had nothing to do with that...