Marvel & Jack Kirby Family Settle Long-Running Legal Dispute

[Pessoa]

Kurt, thanks for your clarification. It's regrettable some fanboys root for corporations and not for the creators. Like Greengo said: "Now ALL of us fans can stop pretending we know what went on, etc and continue/get back to enjoying the characters/stories/artwork." Greengo, we don't know what happened but someone well informed as Kurt Busiek can connect the dots. If some fanboys lived in the 60s they would be fans of Apple and not of The Beatles... LOL...

[Greengo]

I have all the respect for Kurt and no I'm not anti-creator or anti-corporation, but I'm not sure what Kurt is trying to do here.

Things like this: "So the lawsuits started with Marvel suing the Kirbys, not the other way around."

This statement is only to give some impression that Marvel went after the Kirby's when in fact, what the Kirby's did was a HUGE move, they went after ownership of these now iconic characters. OF COURSE Marvel would RESPOND...to try and make it sound like Marvel "started" this, is false.

Again I'm not saying anything against the Kirby's for filing and not saying anything against Marvel for filing...

The Kirby's used "the law" to try and get (or to some, get back) ownership of those characters and Marvel used "the law" to respond and try to stop them. Both within their rights to do so.

Also, what the heir's did wasn't a surprise at all, Marvel wasn't caught by surprise, etc. There were rumblings for years that the heirs would try this, based on the new law.
I don't fault them at all for doing so.

As much as Kurt doesn't like Marvel's argument, it was, in fact, "winning" to that point. The Courts were agreeing with them. In fact it was a strong argument and based on what was "common practice" back then including what Kurt says, very little paper work and more with handshakes and "your word" and "understandings"...of course decades later these types of practices would be challenged over time and evolve the common practice to have everything in writing these days. Including the now infamous "read the small print" but I digress.

but still there is a grey enough area to continue the heir's challenge and using their last resort. The Supreme Court.

In the end,

IF the Kirby's were or felt they were close to a win/victory in the Supreme Court....why settle? If you were about to win ownership of characters now worth billions and achieve what Jack would want...why settle?

IF the Supreme Court is completely Pro-Corporate, why would Marvel settle? IF Marvel felt that it was black and white and not grey...again, why settle?

The truth is we know the answers.

My opinion from here is that in some way, where the Kirby's were losing in the courts and had to try and go before the Supreme Court, it could scare some creators from doing the same. Or at least show them that they may need to be in it for the long hall.
Also, on the other side, Marvel might be softened up some and may be more willing to offer better settlements in these types of cases.

I'll end it with a quote from Kurt that says it best

"I have no insider info, but we'll see what happens."

[ExcelsiorPrime]

I have all the respect for Kurt and no I'm not anti-creator or anti-corporation, but I'm not sure what Kurt is trying to do here.

Things like this: "So the lawsuits started with Marvel suing the Kirbys, not the other way around."

This statement is only to give some impression that Marvel went after the Kirby's when in fact, what the Kirby's did was a HUGE move, they went after ownership of these now iconic characters. OF COURSE Marvel would RESPOND...to try and make it sound like Marvel "started" this, is false.

Again I'm not saying anything against the Kirby's for filing and not saying anything against Marvel for filing...

The Kirby's used "the law" to try and get (or to some, get back) ownership of those characters and Marvel used "the law" to respond and try to stop them. Both within their rights to do so.

Also, what the heir's did wasn't a surprise at all, Marvel wasn't caught by surprise, etc. There were rumblings for years that the heirs would try this, based on the new law.
I don't fault them at all for doing so.

As much as Kurt doesn't like Marvel's argument, it was, in fact, "winning" to that point. The Courts were agreeing with them. In fact it was a strong argument and based on what was "common practice" back then including what Kurt says, very little paper work and more with handshakes and "your word" and "understandings"...of course decades later these types of practices would be challenged over time and evolve the common practice to have everything in writing these days. Including the now infamous "read the small print" but I digress.

but still there is a grey enough area to continue the heir's challenge and using their last resort. The Supreme Court.

In the end,

IF the Kirby's were or felt they were close to a win/victory in the Supreme Court....why settle? If you were about to win ownership of characters now worth billions and achieve what Jack would want...why settle?

IF the Supreme Court is completely Pro-Corporate, why would Marvel settle? IF Marvel felt that it was black and white and not grey...again, why settle?

The truth is we know the answers.

My opinion from here is that in some way, where the Kirby's were losing in the courts and had to try and go before the Supreme Court, it could scare some creators from doing the same. Or at least show them that they may need to be in it for the long hall.
Also, on the other side, Marvel might be softened up some and may be more willing to offer better settlements in these types of cases.

I'll end it with a quote from Kurt that says it best

"I have no insider info, but we'll see what happens."

The problem with your logic is that if Marvel thought they had a chance..why would they settle unless they knew they were going to lose something?

Its not like a corporation has an EGO...its a business. And Businesses calculate how much they would lose vs how much they seek to gain..if one outweighs the other, they make a decision.

[Greengo]

The problem with your logic is that if Marvel thought they had a chance..why would they settle unless they knew they were going to lose something?

Its not like a corporation has an EGO...its a business. And Businesses calculate how much they would lose vs how much they seek to gain..if one outweighs the other, they make a decision.

Yeah I don't know where you get "EGO" either...

Marvel wants to protect its investment/money makers...it's ALL about money for Marvel...and yes would rather deal with certainties (IE settle) instead of taking chances of losing it's investment/money makers.
It's 95% money for the Kirby's and 5% making things "right" because they heard Jack complain about getting screwed, etc etc. And they settled because so far, they had been losing their cases and would rather walk away with something as opposed to possibly getting nothing (money/credit, etc).

So no, not sure where you read EGO in any of that, but thanks for helping make my point.

Cheers

Basically when I said "The truth is we know the answers." You just gave one of the answers I was talking about.

[Michael P]

I have all the respect for Kurt and no I'm not anti-creator or anti-corporation, but I'm not sure what Kurt is trying to do here.

Correct the false statements of others by stating the facts.

[DrTraveler]

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.

Thanks. That was a really odd lawsuit anyways. Didn't expect it would hold up to scrutiny.

I bet we do see that.

kdb

I don't want to argue the point. We'll see fairly soon I'd imagine if Kirby starts getting creator credit or not. I'm doubtful if only because Disney hasn't always been forthcoming with "Created by" credit in the past and given the litigious nature of Kirby related stuff tossing that credit on there would be pretty unpalatable for them. But again, we'll see soon.

[Henry R. Kujawa]

Jack Kirby was a WRITER first, and an artist, second. He created the characters and wrote pretty much EVERY story he did for Marvel in the 1960s entirely on his own, at home, ON SPEC, with no guarantee that it would be bought, and with no pay for any pages or entire stories that might be rejected or have to be redone.

His "editor" would not allow him to write dialogue for his own stories. This allowed said editor to STEAL credit and pay for EVERY STORY Jack Kirby wrote for him. And the same goes for the bulk of work done by Steve Ditko, Bill Everett, Wally Wood, John Romita, Dick Ayers, Don Heck, Stan Goldberg... the list goes on.

Although Kirby had been writing since the late 1930s, thanks to his "editor" at Marvel in the 60s, many alleged fans are under the mistaken belief that his work at DC in the early 70s was his first foray into writing, and that many of the characters he created there were "variations" of ones his 60s Marvel "editor" ALLEGEDLY created-- when in fact, if anything, some of them were variations of earlier Kirby creations.

So don't anybody try to tell me Kirby was "properly credited". Most people these days have never even heard of him, and if they have, they think he only drew pages according to his "editor"s instructions.

[Henry R. Kujawa]

Regarding IRON MAN...

Just posted at the "Comic Book Justice" site:

"although he didn’t illustrate the origin story of founding Avenger Iron Man, he did help design his armor and draw the cover of the comic book in which it first appeared"

I once read that Iron Man took "longer than usual" to make his debut, as if there were some developmental problems (of the sort usually associated with movies).

Re-reading the early episodes, it struck me that the 3rd episode published spent an unusual amount of time describing Tony Stark's background, Iron Man's powers and abilities, and, introducing a would-be world-conquering villain clearly designed to be his arch-enemy. It was also written & illustrated by Jack Kirby (Stan Lee only wrote the dialogue) and inked by Dick Ayers, who at the time was the go-to guy for inking Kirby, especially when he started new series (like the "Johnny Storm" Human Torch spin-off series, of "The Astonishing Ant-Man", or "Sgt. Fury").

Many have dismissed the story's villain, as "Dr. Strange" never appeared again (Steve Ditko's hero of the same name debuted only a few months later). Yet reading the story, it hit me that with a world-conquering villain who had (allegedly) been around for years already, who had a German ex-Nazi sidekick, and a daughter begging him to give up his evil schemes, that Jack Kirby was reviving "The Yellow Claw", a villain based on Fu Manchu who Kirby had worked on in the late 1950s. Editor Lee seemed to have an aversion to most of the work Marvel published before FANTASTIC FOUR #1 (Nov'61) and no doubt ordered the change.

Take all this together and what becomes clear is that "The Stronghold Of Dr. Strange" was quite probably the 1st Iron Man story written & drawn, though "held back" and published 3rd. I would further suggest that all 3 Iron Man episodes written & illustrated by Jack Kirby were done BEFORE Don Heck was brought in to take over. As with Ditko Dr. Strange, the "origin" was NOT done first, but probably done purely on the insistence of the editor.

As it turns out, Kirby later came up with a different Asian super-villain, "The Mandarin", who did become Iron Man's #1 arch-enemy. But the idea of Iron Man having an Asian arch-foe was there right at the character's inception, even if readers didn't know it.

As a further tip to those unaware, almost every time you see a Jack Kirby cover back then, especially if it's introducing a new character or a new villain, you can bet Jack Kirby was supplying the story idea. He'd pass it on to his editor, who would then pass it on to the artist, while stealing credit & pay for it, thereby filling his bank account and ensuring the corporation ownership at the same time. Yerars earlier, when Kirby worked with Joe Simon, Kirby would often supply artists who worked with them with story ideas.

The biggest crime has to be that thanks to one greedy, deceitful man, who spent a decade hiding the fact that Jack Kirby was creating so many characters and writing so many stories, and supplying further story ideas for other artists to write themselves, most people out there have NO IDEA who "Jack Kirby" is."

"he did help design his armor"

Even THAT bit bugs me. It makes it sound like he walked in when the job was almost finished, and made some suggestions... instead of being the person who CAME UP WITH THE WHOLE DAMN IDEA and designed the character, over which Don Heck then made some very snazzy improvements (but ONLY after 3 whole episodes had already been finished).

TOS 041_cz_HK.jpg

[mikeSchilling]

Accuracy?

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.

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

[Darrell D.]

Correct the false statements of others by stating the facts.

Yeah, Kurt's post was straight ahead clarification of the facts.
The Kirby heirs merely exercised their right to file for copyright termination, since that window of time was available.
Marvel sued the heirs.
Simple progression of events.

[Bri]

Jack Kirby was a WRITER first, and an artist, second. He created the characters and wrote pretty much EVERY story he did for Marvel in the 1960s entirely on his own, at home, ON SPEC, with no guarantee that it would be bought, and with no pay for any pages or entire stories that might be rejected or have to be redone.

His "editor" would not allow him to write dialogue for his own stories. This allowed said editor to STEAL credit and pay for EVERY STORY Jack Kirby wrote for him. And the same goes for the bulk of work done by Steve Ditko, Bill Everett, Wally Wood, John Romita, Dick Ayers, Don Heck, Stan Goldberg... the list goes on.

Although Kirby had been writing since the late 1930s, thanks to his "editor" at Marvel in the 60s, many alleged fans are under the mistaken belief that his work at DC in the early 70s was his first foray into writing, and that many of the characters he created there were "variations" of ones his 60s Marvel "editor" ALLEGEDLY created-- when in fact, if anything, some of them were variations of earlier Kirby creations.

So don't anybody try to tell me Kirby was "properly credited". Most people these days have never even heard of him, and if they have, they think he only drew pages according to his "editor"s instructions.

Jack Kirby was a writer first? No was an idea-man/illustrator, which is not the same as being a writer. Read anything he wrote without Stan Lee scripting (& in most cases co-plotting.) The dialogue/characterization is awful. I think Kirby Deserves co-creator credit on the FF, Hulk, Cap, etc. I think Marvel should be paying his heirs. (They should have been paying him large sums of money for many, many years.) He was a great artist, a creative genius, but not a "writer first." What made the Marvel U. great was the combination of Super-heroics with unique, individual characters. And the characterization was 100% Stan Lee.

[Darrell D.]

Jack Kirby was a writer first? No was an idea-man/illustrator, which is not the same as being a writer. Read anything he wrote without Stan Lee scripting (& in most cases co-plotting.) The dialogue/characterization is awful. I think Kirby Deserves co-creator credit on the FF, Hulk, Cap, etc. I think Marvel should be paying his heirs. (They should have been paying him large sums of money for many, many years.) He was a great artist, a creative genius, but not a "writer first." What made the Marvel U. great was the combination of Super-heroics with unique, individual characters. And the characterization was 100% Stan Lee.

In my mind, Lee was a good editor and decent script writer for Kirby's stories. The credits really should have listed Kirby as story AND penciller, and Lee as script.

[Kurt Busiek]

And the characterization was 100% Stan Lee.

Considering the characterization is in the visuals, which were often drawn before Stan had any input, the characterization can't have been 100% Stan.

For that matter, reading Kirby's pre-Stan output, like BOYS' RANCH and the romance comics, reveals that he'd done more with soap-opera characterization than Stan had, at the point Marvel started doing it.

People assume that Kirby must be responsible for all the visual spectacle and Lee for the humanity, but that's just not the case.

kdb

[Darrell D.]

Considering the characterization is in the visuals, which were often drawn before Stan had any input, the characterization can't have been 100% Stan.

For that matter, reading Kirby's pre-Stan output, like BOYS' RANCH and the romance comics, reveals that he'd done more with soap-opera characterization than Stan had, at the point Marvel started doing it.

People assume that Kirby must be responsible for all the visual spectacle and Lee for the humanity, but that's just not the case.

kdb

Even reading Kirby's books after Marvel reveals that he always infused his stories with humanity amongst the epic visuals.