|
Post by G on Jan 9, 2010 10:14:55 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_en_ot/us_marvel_kirby_lawsuitNEW YORK – The home of superheroes including Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four and the X-Men sued one of its most successful artists Friday to retain the rights to the lucrative characters. The federal lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan by Marvel Worldwide Inc. asks a judge to invalidate 45 notices sent by the heirs of artist Jack Kirby to try to terminate Marvel's copyrights, effective on dates ranging from 2014 through 2019. The heirs notified several companies last year that the rights to the characters would revert from Marvel to Kirby's estate. The lawsuit said Kirby's work on the comics published between 1958 and 1963 were "for hire" and render the heirs' claims invalid. The famed artist died in 1994. The lawsuit was dismissed by Kirby's attorney Marc Toberoff, who issued a statement saying the heirs were merely trying to take advantage of change to copyright law that allows artists to recapture rights to their work. "It is a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers, and other talent of all rights in their work," the statement said of Marvel's lawsuit. "The Kirby children intend to vigorously defend against Marvel's claims in the hope of finally vindicating their father's work." The statement claimed Kirby was never properly compensated for his contributions to Marvel's universe of superheroes. "Sadly, Jack died without proper compensation, credit or recognition for his lasting creative contributions," the statement said. Comic book characters such as Spider-Man and the X-Men have become some of Hollywood's most bankable properties in recent years. The lawsuit said the comic book titles in the notices to which Kirby claims to have contributed include "Amazing Adventures," "Amazing Fantasy," "Amazing Spider-Man," "The Avengers," the "Fantastic Four," "Fantastic Four Annual," "The Incredible Hulk," "Journey into Mystery," "Rawhide Kid," "Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos," "Strange Tales," "Tales to Astonish," "Tales of Suspense" and "The X-Men." John Turitzin, a Marvel lawyer, said in a statement that the heirs were trying "to rewrite the history of Kirby's relationship with Marvel." He added: "Everything about Kirby's relationship with Marvel shows that his contributions were works made for hire and that all the copyright interests in them belong to Marvel." Marvel Entertainment, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Co., sought a judge's order that the Kirby notices have no effect.
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on Jan 9, 2010 18:38:58 GMT -5
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by G on Jan 9, 2010 21:35:58 GMT -5
The Kirby family responds... robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/Kirby family attorneys respond to Marvel lawsuit * Posted on January 9, 2010 - 07:34 AM by Kevin Melrose Attorneys for the heirs of Jack Kirby call Marvel's assertion that the late artist's contributions were work made for hire "a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers and other talent of all rights in their work." The statement comes in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by Marvel asking for a judge to invalidate 45 copyright-termination notices issued in September related to such creations as the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, the X-Men and Spider-Man. Marvel maintains that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of his four children. However, a press release issued late Friday by Kirby attorneys Toberoff & Associates points out that Marvel was unsuccessful when it made a similar argument in its legal battle with Joe Simon concerning Captain America. "The truth is that Jack Kirby was his own man," the release states. "Like so many artists in the fledgling comic book industry of the late 1950's/early 1960's, Kirby worked with Marvel out of his own house as a free-lancer with no employment contract, no financial or other security, nor any other indicia of employment. ... Kirby's wonderful creations, which leapt from the page, were not Marvel's 'assignments,' but were instead authored by Kirby under his own steam and then published by Marvel. It was not until 1972 that Kirby by contract granted Marvel the copyrights to his works. It is to this grant that the Kirby family's statutory notices of termination apply." According to Toberoff & Associates, the Kirby terminations would become effective beginning in 2014. However, it's unclear to which property that date refers. (What notable Kirby co-creations debuted at Marvel in 1958?) When Congress increased the duration of copyright, lawmakers included a provision that, after a lengthy waiting period, permits authors or their heirs or estates to terminate the grant of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 11, 2010 10:47:30 GMT -5
The Kirby family responds... robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/Kirby family attorneys respond to Marvel lawsuit * Posted on January 9, 2010 - 07:34 AM by Kevin Melrose Attorneys for the heirs of Jack Kirby call Marvel's assertion that the late artist's contributions were work made for hire "a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers and other talent of all rights in their work." The statement comes in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by Marvel asking for a judge to invalidate 45 copyright-termination notices issued in September related to such creations as the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, the X-Men and Spider-Man. Marvel maintains that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of his four children. However, a press release issued late Friday by Kirby attorneys Toberoff & Associates points out that Marvel was unsuccessful when it made a similar argument in its legal battle with Joe Simon concerning Captain America. "The truth is that Jack Kirby was his own man," the release states. "Like so many artists in the fledgling comic book industry of the late 1950's/early 1960's, Kirby worked with Marvel out of his own house as a free-lancer with no employment contract, no financial or other security, nor any other indicia of employment. ... Kirby's wonderful creations, which leapt from the page, were not Marvel's 'assignments,' but were instead authored by Kirby under his own steam and then published by Marvel. It was not until 1972 that Kirby by contract granted Marvel the copyrights to his works. It is to this grant that the Kirby family's statutory notices of termination apply." According to Toberoff & Associates, the Kirby terminations would become effective beginning in 2014. However, it's unclear to which property that date refers. (What notable Kirby co-creations debuted at Marvel in 1958?) When Congress increased the duration of copyright, lawmakers included a provision that, after a lengthy waiting period, permits authors or their heirs or estates to terminate the grant of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it. I strongly disagree with what the family is doing. While I'd like to see Marvel compensate the family out of kindness, I don't think they owe it to Kirby or his family. He knew it was a work-for-hire arrangement either with or without a written contract. To imply otherwise is wrong. Defiant1
|
|
|
Post by G on Jan 11, 2010 11:21:09 GMT -5
Yeah, for the most part, I agree with this as well. Kirby had no idea his creations would go on to be what they were. He basically worked for Marvel and was compensated as such for his contracted rate at that time.
Being that Marvel would go on to make millions upon millions with these characters, the fact of the matter is, they came out under the Marvel logo.
I also would have liked to have seen Marvel display a gesture of monetary good will upon the family of the Kirby estate. But it almost seems like they are riding on Kirby's coat tail and not building lives of their own.
I certainly remember a scene in a video clip on here where Kirby wouldn't go into a Toys R Us because he became too upset seeing his characters making so much money. The fact of the matter is, Kirby drew comics and submitted them to Marvel for publication. There are probably a lot of other artists who have some claim to character rights if this goes in the Kirby estates direction. However, I just don't see how it can. It would almost seem like it breaks comic companies up. Kirby's estate won't do anything but try and cash in. They won't make any more comics. So, they need to learn to move on....
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 11, 2010 16:28:10 GMT -5
Yeah, for the most part, I agree with this as well. Kirby had no idea his creations would go on to be what they were. He basically worked for Marvel and was compensated as such for his contracted rate at that time. Being that Marvel would go on to make millions upon millions with these characters, the fact of the matter is, they came out under the Marvel logo. I also would have liked to have seen Marvel display a gesture of monetary good will upon the family of the Kirby estate. But it almost seems like they are riding on Kirby's coat tail and not building lives of their own. I certainly remember a scene in a video clip on here where Kirby wouldn't go into a Toys R Us because he became too upset seeing his characters making so much money. The fact of the matter is, Kirby drew comics and submitted them to Marvel for publication. There are probably a lot of other artists who have some claim to character rights if this goes in the Kirby estates direction. However, I just don't see how it can. It would almost seem like it breaks comic companies up. Kirby's estate won't do anything but try and cash in. They won't make any more comics. So, they need to learn to move on.... It's also naive for the family to think Kirby would have been a legend that he is today If Marvel hadn't been there hiring him to make those comics. The stuff he made for Pacific flopped. Maybe Stan Lee's dialogue made ALL the difference. Would Todd McFarlane be anybody if Marvel hadn't given him a shot on Spider-Man? I don't think he would. The idea that Kirby could have created the Fantastic Four on his own in a vacuum and turned it into what it is today... ludicrous. Marvel subsidized the creativity. He'd be forgotten as a 40's artist without that investment Marvel made. I'm willing to bet Stan Lee has rejected some of his ideas over the years also. Kirby could have wasted his career on flops like Captain Victory and again be forgotten. Defiant1
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on Jan 18, 2010 1:29:37 GMT -5
Personally.. I think the Kirbies got this idea to pull this crap after what happened with the Superman rights.
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Jan 28, 2010 11:43:20 GMT -5
I recommend that all of you read the book KIRBY: The King of Comics. It will give you new perspective here.
Work for hire as a business term did not exist until the mid 70's. The problem is this, early on Comic books were considered the lowest rung on the ladder. Many artists including Kirby used different names on their art work so that they could have their name free for bigger days. Kirby worked out of his own studio and created roughly 3 new original titles every month. Out of his own Imagination.
His family doesn't want to take the characters from Marvel. They want to regain control over aspect of the licencing so that the Estate and the family can benefit from what should have passed on to them in the first place.
DC made right by Kirby. Marvel should also.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 28, 2010 17:44:52 GMT -5
I recommend that all of you read the book KIRBY: The King of Comics. It will give you new perspective here. Work for hire as a business term did not exist until the mid 70's. The problem is this, early on Comic books were considered the lowest rung on the ladder. Many artists including Kirby used different names on their art work so that they could have their name free for bigger days. Kirby worked out of his own studio and created roughly 3 new original titles every month. Out of his own Imagination. His family doesn't want to take the characters from Marvel. They want to regain control over aspect of the licencing so that the Estate and the family can benefit from what should have passed on to them in the first place. DC made right by Kirby. Marvel should also. To me that's like hiring a carpenter to build your house and then have him come back later saying he owns it because he did all the work. Marvel should be a hell of a lot more grateful than they are, but he was working for them on their dime. I believe the copyrights on the publications all say Marvel since the beginning. Charles Schultz said in an 80's interview that copyright law pretty much required that he go out and aggressively stop people from using Snoopy with legal action... otherwise he risked the chance of the characters drifting into public domain. Granted today you own the copyrights as soon as something is drawn and conceived, but it used to have to be published first. defiant1
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on Jan 29, 2010 20:38:24 GMT -5
There been anymore on this?
|
|