That version of Thor was developed by him which could then included "Based upon ideas from Jack Kirby"
According to IMDB he gets credit for the comics along with Stan Lee and Larry Lieber
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/fullcredits/
That version of Thor was developed by him which could then included "Based upon ideas from Jack Kirby"
According to IMDB he gets credit for the comics along with Stan Lee and Larry Lieber
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/fullcredits/
Thanks for the true insight Mr. Busiek on this case and thanks for clearing up the confusion on who truly sued who.
I'm just catching up with this thread, but I think this calls for the classic:
Kurt Busiek wins!
Exactly. Archie Comics published a TMNT the same time that Mirage was publishing a TMNT book.
And, surprisingly, it worked..and neither publishing house imploded. Funny, that.
It CAN be done..giving a creator control over their creations, even with big publishing houses.
Has the lawsuits around Sherlock Holmes been settled at this point yet, as that would have a huge impact on whether guys like Cap and Namor would have got to public domain. It's been a while since I looked at that, but IIRC (big IF) the Conan Doyle estate was arguing that the Holmes Canon had to go into public domain together AFTER copyright expired on the whole canon.
My stance on the Kirby thing in light of what you posted is that the Kirby estate took a legal action they had to know would result in a lawsuit. I think you're right Marvel blinked as the stakes are too high. We may see Kirby co-credited with Lee now, but I somehow doubt that.
Yeah, they've lost at every turn, on that. It's just not how copyright works. They've even been told to pay the opposing party's legal costs, and while they appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court told them to take a hike.
Which is not the same as them suing, of course.My stance on the Kirby thing in light of what you posted is that the Kirby estate took a legal action they had to know would result in a lawsuit.
I bet we do see that.We may see Kirby co-credited with Lee now, but I somehow doubt that.
kdb
Visit www.busiek.com—for all your Busiek needs!
But would the last Supreme, Astro City/Samaritan, Mister Majestic, Hyperion, and Shazam stories have been written? I am with Darrell, if you create something, regardless of your employment situation, you should retain at least 25% of all future copyright and publishing rights. This idea of a corporation as a person needs to die, pardon the pun.
I got an idea: what if all of Kirby's work was united within its own universe? Thor to OMAC and everything else. Might be a cool idea.
#InGunnITrust, #ZackSnyderistheBlueprint, #ReleasetheAyerCut
Kurt you have been on the heir's side from the beginning and not that there is anything wrong with that but it clearly still shows in your posts.
Why else would you try to split hairs on the who sued who, other than to try and give sympathy towards the heirs.
But the fact does remain that the heirs fired the first shot and filed for full/part ownership of those characters and Marvel/Disney had to respond.
So don't let anyone try and make it feel like it was any other way.
I also don't agree with your opinion that the heirs had nothing to lose. They started this process with the hope they would gain "something" and probably knew it could go all the way to the Supreme Court and clearly decided that they were willing to go this far. To go all the way and still end up with nothing would be devastating.
Plus I'm fully confident that talks have been going back and forth the entire time but neither side finding that middle ground. This is common practice. The heirs shoot for the moon and Marvel respond by lowballing and it would go from there.
The heirs have lost all lawsuits leading to this and from what I've read, most experts believed the Supreme Court wasn't going to review the case and let these cases be dealt with on an individual basis as opposed to a huge blanket ruling. So I think the heirs wouldn't want to walk away empty handed (again to go this far and end up with nothing would be huge to them as well)
But I do agree that Marvel wouldn't want to take the chance either, however slim it was. Marvel/Disney have invested BILLIONS into these characters and would want to have certainties. Plus Marvel's PR looks good. Also if and that's a big IF the Supreme Court rules in the heirs side, this would open a floodgate for Marvel...and DC...and not just writers/artists but the entire Freelancing world...including the freelancer graphic artist who created the Burger King logo (I don't know this, but just as an example) the software developer wanting his "code" back, etc etc and hence why the experts believed the SC wouldn't review the case and leave these as individual cases.
I'm positive the heirs came way down on their side and Marvel came up on theirs. I highly doubt the heirs gained any "ownership" of these characters but the credit will continue (Kirby has been given credit in the movies in case you missed it) and I'm sure the heirs are getting good money for any foreseeable future.
Both sides "win"!
Perhaps to some, it just would feel a bit better if they felt the Heirs/Marvel "caved"...and I guess there is nothing wrong with that. To each their own I guess.
Now ALL of us fans can stop pretending we know what went on, etc and continue/get back to enjoying the characters/stories/artwork ;-)
Cheers
I would like to respectfully disagee a little. When the Kirby family sent those termination notices...it was done expressly for the sole pupose of getting money. Otherwise, there would be no need to file. They knew Marvel would respond...and they did. I do not blame the Kirby family for getting a large settlement but stating it wasn't for the money is a joke. When they say it's not about the money...it's about the money. Always has been, always will be. Again, I do not fault them for that. What I wished for was that they pushed the case all the way through. I hoped the Supreme Court would take the case. While the family would still end up with a big check...the goodwill that they would have accomplished for artists everywhere would have been monumental in scope. They would have done a great public service while getting a big check to boot. Now all we have is them signing away any future rights for a big payday today. I cannot blame them...I might have done the same thing...but the thought of them swiping a firm hand across Marvel and helping out thousands of artists in the process would have been GRAND. Seriously though...you cannot possibly think this was not about money. That's just naive. My two cents.
You bet I'm on the heirs' side. I think they're in the right.
Accuracy?Why else would you try to split hairs on the who sued who, other than to try and give sympathy towards the heirs.
People saying that the Kirby heirs up and decided to sue is incorrect. People saying they did it because of the Disney purchase are incorrect. It's wrong to say either of these things.
They were certainly very likely to respond. But yes, the heirs did exactly what the law provided for. This is not the same as deciding to sue out of the blue.But the fact does remain that the heirs fired the first shot and filed for full/part ownership of those characters and Marvel/Disney had to respond.
I bet we'll see creator credit in the comics, too.I'm positive the heirs came way down on their side and Marvel came up on theirs. I highly doubt the heirs gained any "ownership" of these characters but the credit will continue (Kirby has been given credit in the movies in case you missed it) and I'm sure the heirs are getting good money for any foreseeable future.
kdb
Visit www.busiek.com—for all your Busiek needs!
Of course it was about money. But it wasn't because the heirs were greedily overturning a deal Kirby made because they just up and felt like demanding more money.
The law specifically provides for creators to get some benefit out of extended copyright, just as publishers do. It's not one-sided.
And since the work for hire definition they were seeking to overturn doesn't apply to post-1978 works, a victory wouldn't change anything for artists of the last 35 years or so. Only pre-1978 deals.
I don't think the Kirby Estate was morally or ethically required to fight for all other artists. But the reversion law is still there to benefit those artists, too, and the amicus briefs are still there, too. And publishers will be more likely to settle such claims going forward, because the blueprints for such a fight are laid out for anyone who cares to try, and the Hollywood guilds and others who wanted to weigh in on the Kirbys' side will still want to weigh in to settle the question. They weren't doing it because they admired Kirby, they were doing it because they want to make sure their members' interests are protected.
So I think things did get at least somewhat better for a lot of those pre-1978 creators, and I think this case has set things up for an eventual victory.
[I also think that putting off the actual Supreme Court case to a future in which hopefully the Court may be a little less pro-corporate might be a very good thing, too, but on that score only time will tell.]
kdb
Visit www.busiek.com—for all your Busiek needs!