Marvel & Jack Kirby Family Settle Long-Running Legal Dispute

[Rimmer]

I noticed in the article that the Supreme Court was supposed to decide if they would review it on Monday, and low and behold, settlement today.

Just my speculation, but either (A) Marvel flinched first, realizing how much this COULD be if the Supreme Court looked at it, so they offered the settlement, or (B) the Kirby lawyers realized if the Supreme Court shot down the case, then it might end up stuck in court for even longer, so they decided to settle. It would be interesting to see how that all played out, but obviously none of my/our business in the end.

Glad this is behind everyone.

EDIT: like what Kodave said 1.5 nanoseconds before I posted!

[cookepuss]

In addition, I would assume the settlement agreement also bars the Kirby heirs from filing any further suits against Marvel over ownership issues in exchange for what is probably a nominal amount of money for Disney/Marvel in this day and age.

EXACTLY! The money is likely more to make them shut up and stop suing. The Kirby estate likely knew that they'd never win. This whole show was them hoping to wear Marvel/Disney down, which they eventually did. It's an underhanded tactic, but pretty effective. Almost like a kid annoying a parent until they cave. ^_^ Companies like Disney can afford this sort of "go away" money. I mean, some companies pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less.

[funeralthirst7]

After GotG got a lot of cash Disney couldn't take the chance and decided to pay them off.
It would have been awesome of Marvel fought and lost, i really would've liked seeing if Marvel was going to create new characters, shift the ones they still own, or just folded.

Why would that be awesome? Do you hate Marvel or something?

[rasalghul]

Does this open them up to more suits from other creators who, fairly or unfairly, feel that they have been taken advantage of?

[Cmbmool]

So it's over, right...it's all done and Marvel and the Kirby Family can work together again to uphold Jack's legacy ? I mean I'm confused by the message of this.

[Michael P]

So it's over, right...it's all done and Marvel and the Kirby Family can work together again to uphold Jack's legacy ? I mean I'm confused by the message of this.

That's the upshot, yes.

[Ceebiro]

So it's over, right...it's all done and Marvel and the Kirby Family can work together again to uphold Jack's legacy ? I mean I'm confused by the message of this.

What is there to uphold? The Kirby family really doesn't have anything of substantial value to offer Marvel.

[cookepuss]

Does this open them up to more suits from other creators who, fairly or unfairly, feel that they have been taken advantage of?

The standing legal precedent is that Kirby sued Marvel and lost. They [the Kirby estate] appealed and lost again. An out of court settlement means that the terms are likely to only be known to the affected parties. Nothing is legally "on the record" here. It's an out of court settlement. There's no admission of guilt or wrong doing. There's nothing there that can come back and bite Marvel in the butt. You'll never stop people from suing, but there's nothing here that'd make it easier for litigants to win. They'd still face the same uphill battle as the Kirbys initially did. Worse since they now have to deal with the Kirby losses being on the record.

What is there to uphold? The Kirby family really doesn't have anything of substantial value to offer Marvel.

Yeah. Anything of value was already bought and paid for long ago.

[Iron Maiden]

After GotG got a lot of cash Disney couldn't take the chance and decided to pay them off.
It would have been awesome of Marvel fought and lost, i really would've liked seeing if Marvel was going to create new characters, shift the ones they still own, or just folded.

I don't know why you would want to wish that

Anyway, Marvel has been quietly doing things lately RE: the Bill Mantlo case. It only recently made the news because they arranged for him to see GOTG at the extended care facility which he will probably never be able to leave. IIRC His brother said that not long after Disney was in the picture, they started doing things to help out.

Again, where were some of these people wanting to sue when Marvel was in bankrupcy? They want none of the risk but want to sit at the table when their investment doesn't match what the company does....hire inkers, letterers, colorists, printing and distribution, promotion, payroll expense, building lease, etc.

[He-Kal]

Please don't tell me this means a bunch of titles are going to have a silly statement of "with special arrangement with the Jack Kirby family" like the Superman titles say for the Siegel family. Cant they just say, "Created by" and be enough?

[jhfrail]

TBH, there was nothing to settle. Given both the 2011 win for Marvel and the failed appeal in 2013, Kirby's estate was probably going to end up losing again anyway.

Just because Marvel's suddenly very successful doesn't mean that they owe the Kirby estate any more money. Work for hire is still work for hire. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kirby cashed his paycheck. That alone would've damned him in any court. Formal, written contract or not, cashingt he check after doing the job satisfies all of the requirements for a contract: offer, consideration, acceptance.

If he had felt that his compensation had been unfair then he should've never cashed it. Period. Kirby didn't own any of those characters. He created them and Marvel effectively bought them. That's the nature of the business. As a pro artist myself, it's a situation I'm very familiar with. Unless they came to some other agreement regarding the IP ownership beforehand, Kirby's reward was just his paycheck and an "attaboy" for a job well done. That's it.

I feel for the family. I do. Imagine finding a "worthless" rock, selling it for $5, and then finding out later on that it was worth $5 BILLION. I'd crap myself twice and die. Still, what's done is done. Crying after the fact is pointless.

That Marvel/Disney settled with them is more PR than anything else. I sincerely doubt that they'll get any sort of prolonged royalties. Kirby co-created, but he didn't own these properties. Disney is probably tossing them a bone with a lump sum and a series of payments that end after a certain period of time. It's probably not even enough to put a slight dent in their coffers.

This settlement, imo, is probably Disney's way of being nice and saving face. I'm sure that they didn't want any more bad press, even if precedent favored them heading into the Supreme Court. I don't think that Marvel/Disney was in any real danger of losing.

Quoted for truth. I work in publishing. There's a lot of other people who help to hone these ideas into the money makers they are today. What were these properties worth even a decade later, during and immediately after Marvel's golden period? Not that much, in comparison. It was after decades of stories handled and guided by a host of other writers, artists, and editors. Don't forget the cartoons, which had as much or more to do with putting the characters into the public consciousness, as the comics ever did. Were they suing after that canned Fantastic Four picture, or 1989's Captain America disaster? The talent of the actors, directors, and effects people had nothing to do with the success of the more recent films, and thus, subsequent additive value for the property, right?

Really, what's telling is that the heirs who sue are never the heirs that could actually DO anything with the property. You don't see Andy or Adam Kubert suing to claim anything Joe did. It's all about wanting a payout, never about wanting creative control again so that they can help build and expand upon the rich history their dad laid out.

[KingsLeadHat]

TBH, there was nothing to settle. Given both the 2011 win for Marvel and the failed appeal in 2013, Kirby's estate was probably going to end up losing again anyway.

Just because Marvel's suddenly very successful doesn't mean that they owe the Kirby estate any more money. Work for hire is still work for hire. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kirby cashed his paycheck. That alone would've damned him in any court. Formal, written contract or not, cashingt he check after doing the job satisfies all of the requirements for a contract: offer, consideration, acceptance.

If he had felt that his compensation had been unfair then he should've never cashed it. Period. Kirby didn't own any of those characters. He created them and Marvel effectively bought them. That's the nature of the business. As a pro artist myself, it's a situation I'm very familiar with. Unless they came to some other agreement regarding the IP ownership beforehand, Kirby's reward was just his paycheck and an "attaboy" for a job well done. That's it.

I feel for the family. I do. Imagine finding a "worthless" rock, selling it for $5, and then finding out later on that it was worth $5 BILLION. I'd crap myself twice and die. Still, what's done is done. Crying after the fact is pointless.

That Marvel/Disney settled with them is more PR than anything else. I sincerely doubt that they'll get any sort of prolonged royalties. Kirby co-created, but he didn't own these properties. Disney is probably tossing them a bone with a lump sum and a series of payments that end after a certain period of time. It's probably not even enough to put a slight dent in their coffers.

This settlement, imo, is probably Disney's way of being nice and saving face. I'm sure that they didn't want any more bad press, even if precedent favored them heading into the Supreme Court. I don't think that Marvel/Disney was in any real danger of losing.

Everything you say is correct in legal terms. However, the ethical argument is far more significant. It's interesting how you frame the onus on Jack Kirby, "Well, if he didn't like how the game was set up, he shouldn't have cashed the checks." without even acknowledging that the game was fixed and he had no other options if he wanted to be a comic artist. Was he to self-publish in 1961? If he somehow did, and somehow had success, you can bet your ass that Marvel and DC would have muscled him out in some fashion.

But let's ignore whether or not Jack Kirby should have been given a small royalty pittance that would have made him comfortable for life. We're talking about a company in Marvel that wouldn't even give this man basic healthcare or even acknowledge that he was a co-creator. Their lawyers told him, to his face, that he was basically delusional and that Stan Lee created everything and told him what to draw. This is the level of insidious, institutionalized unethics that we're talking about here. I'm sorry, but it's time for companies that lobby to change laws in their favor to be made to realize that they don't just "have the right to make a profit" and treat people infinitely more creative than they are as "wage slaves." They do indeed have very large moral, ethical and societal obligations to live up to.

If you want to be "tell it like it is" and pragmatic about working for an industry that's hollow at the core, that's fine for you. It's your right. But lets not hold up the law and contracts as being sacrosanct when they're hollow and corrupt. We all know that we can't change the world overnight, or in our lifetimes, but it should change and it sure as hell shouldn't be the way it is. I'm never going to give these corporations a pass on the thuggery of yore. I believe fully in retroactive justice and I hope creators keep chipping away at these company's until we see a day when creators have all the power and these ubiquitous parasites in business suits find out what its like to run a business when they don't have people to generate ideas. These people couldn't create a product that the public cares about if a gun was held to their head. So why do they have all the power? Strange society we've constructed.

[KingsLeadHat]

Quoted for truth. I work in publishing. There's a lot of other people who help to hone these ideas into the money makers they are today. What were these properties worth even a decade later, during and immediately after Marvel's golden period? Not that much, in comparison. It was after decades of stories handled and guided by a host of other writers, artists, and editors. Don't forget the cartoons, which had as much or more to do with putting the characters into the public consciousness, as the comics ever did. Were they suing after that canned Fantastic Four picture, or 1989's Captain America disaster? The talent of the actors, directors, and effects people had nothing to do with the success of the more recent films, and thus, subsequent additive value for the property, right?

Really, what's telling is that the heirs who sue are never the heirs that could actually DO anything with the property. You don't see Andy or Adam Kubert suing to claim anything Joe did. It's all about wanting a payout, never about wanting creative control again so that they can help build and expand upon the rich history their dad laid out.

As long as we stay on this logical path (eyes straight ahead) we can reduce Jack Kirby to the level of that intern in the mailroom who always smelled funny! I get it now!

[Iron Chi]

Not sure how I feel about the legal aspects. What I do know, is that guy could draw comics. I love the way his characters and environments looked. I couldn't always get into his stories (especially some of his DC work), but his art was...and still is....amazing.

[SupaHood]

I think if you check out Sean Howe's Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, you'd change your mind. Jack was the brainchild behind most of the early Marvel universe. Stan held it together, but he delegated almost everyting after a point. He wasn't the creative force behind most of the big heroes.

No . He is right . Stan should have the rights . Don't get me wrong , Jack was the brainchild early on . But Stan kept it all together business wise , on top of coming up with characters along with Kirby . That's alot to put in . He was a work horse .