Marvel wins superhero copyright claim

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Marvel has won a legal battle to retain copyright of its lucrative comic book characters including Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk.

The company sued the family of late co-creator Jack Kirby last year after they laid claim to copyrights for work he created from 1958 to 1963.

However a New York judge ruled Kirby's illustrations of characters like Iron Man had been created "for hire".

A lawyer for Kirby's estate has said they will appeal the ruling.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14345999

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. 2 words: Intellectual Property

[Downwinder]

27. If they are "Property," who is paying the property tax?

[Occulus]

40. Now THAT is an interesting idea.

A property tax upon the holders of copyrights for intellectual property.

If we ever wanted a way to bring the public domain back in force, that would be it. Like real property, intellectual property should be taxed, especially considering the enormous haul of cash we're talking about.

Tax intellectual property. I love that idea.

[Auggie]

2. I'm glad they'll appeal

Kirby created the characters for comic books. Who in heck could ever imagine they'd be turned into films worth billions of dollars some day?

[ThatPoetGuy]

5. Stan Lee created the characters, and paid Kirby to draw them. nt

[dipsydoodle]

15. I thought some of the base ideas

were Kirby's too. :shrug:

[Prophet 451]

33. You'd be right

According to Stan's own autobiography, he and Jack would frequently brainstorm characters together. According to the same book, the Silver Surfer was entirely Jack's creation too.

[JackRiddler]

19. Untrue. These have always been known as joint creations. Without Kirby, they wouldn't have happened.

[Auggie]

26. That's how I understand it

[MurrayDelph]

29. Actually, Jack created the characters,

and outlined the stories, and Stan would punch up the dialog.

The interesting one will be Captain America, which was created by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon (who IS still around), before there was a Marvel Comics.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

3. Lame.

Jack deserved so much better.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Marvel has a case.

Kirby did not invent the characters, then approach Marvel with them. He was working for Marvel, and created them under Marvel's aegis.

That said, I think that Kirby et al deserve a bigger cut of the franchise that developed from those creations.

[blackspade]

6. Marvel is owned by Disney now.

So this is no surprise.
Disney is like a tentacled monster gobbling up the rest of the worlds good ideas rather than creating their own.

[cstanleytech]

Disney owning them is a moot point.

The facts are whats important here and if kirby was as someone already mentioned an employee of Marvel then his heirs are out of luck, now would it be nice if Disney/Marvel shared some of the profits? Sure it would be and I think they should but thats up to them to decide if they want to.

[drakonyx]

14. Legal question

It's true that if Kirby created the characters as an employee of Marvel, he's SOL. That said, Disney has the money to "prove" pretty much whatever it wants in this case. I've seen court cases bought and sold too many times to have much faith in our legal system.

[cstanleytech]

18. And your question is................?

[tammywammy]

21. From the article

"Kirby had also signed a written agreement in the spring of 1972 admitting that he was not entitled to retain ownership of the work."

[blackspade]

28. You missed my point.

I wasn't disputing the facts as layed out in the article.
I was pointing out that this litigation is typical of Disney.
The old Marvel Company may have been much more willing to strike a deal with the family, but its purchase by the money grubbing Disney in late 2009 ended any chance of some sort of equitabe/amiable solution.

I hope that is more clear to you.

[Occulus]

41. Disney's ownership of anything is relevant in any discussion of copyright.

They and they alone are responsible for the "Life plus seventy years" so-called "limit" on copyright.

I want that slashed down to seven to ten years, full stop. Disney is directly at fault for most of the problems we all have with copyright law. Even content creators are pissed off at Disney over what they pulled.

(In case you didn't know, Disney pulled a fast one back in the 70s, I believe- they got the copyright extensions passed that they wanted and then trademarked their characters! They don't need the copyright extensions they got put into the law in the first place!

Also, Disney buys all the rights to things when they buy them, and tend to completely ruin products they don't understand (See: "Legend of the Seeker", based on Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" novels). They completely butchered that property in bringing it to television, and now nobody will ever be able to give the books the treatment they deserve. Thanks, Disney. Thanks awfully.

[hifiguy]

7. Jack designed every one of those characters

Stan wrote the words, Jack drew the pictures. I managed a comic shop for several years and heard many horror stories about the way Jack's work was treated after he left for DC. Jim Shooter, the editor in chief of Marvel from the late 1970s to the late 1980s (who was, by all accounts a truly world class shitheel in addition to being a tyrannical, capricious and lousy writer/editor) used to give people he wanted to impress original pages of Jack's art from the Marvel files.

The only major comics artist who was treated worse than Kirby was the late, great Dan DeCarlo, whom Archie Comics treated worse than a dog. Without DeCarlo, there would have been very little of the Archie books for about thirty years and he was a superb artist and nice man.

A decent company would return what remains of Jack's original art to the Kirby estate to do with what they see fit. EVen the trolls at Archie let Dan keep his original artwork.....

[cstanleytech]

9. Were they working and being paid by marvel when they did them to create them?

[hifiguy]

13. Yes, technically, but the real point is that

when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster - the creators of Superman - were down on their luck in their late years DC, under some pressure to be sure, agreed to pay them enough to live out their lives in some dignity even though they had sold the rights to the Man of Steel for a few thousand dollars decades before. Frankly, it was good pub for DC and Jerry and Joe have forever since received a credit in Superman comics as creators.

It sounds as though Disney/Marvel (and I cannot tell you how much it disgusts me, as an old time comics guy going back 40 years, to contemplate that prospect) is going to stiff the Kirby estate entirely. Which doesn't surprise me. Disney is as ruthless a bunch of snakefuckers as have ever walked the planet. As noted, even the hard-asses at Archie let Dan DeCarlo keep his art, much of which he sold off over the years to finance his lawsuit and because he had nowhere to keep the tens of thousands of pages anymore and his fans clamored for the stuff. I have a framed original Betty & Veronica page hanging on my living room wall - a gift from an old industry friend who bought it from a reputable dealer that paid the DeCarlo family a fair price for it.

I am also a lawyer and know that just because you can do something that does not make it decent or ethical.

[cstanleytech]

20. I agree with you on Disney being ruthless pricks and in fact

they were part of the reason our copyright length is so absurdly long now.

[hifiguy]

22. Yep, it's the Protect Mickey Mouse in Perpetuity Act

because that's virtually the sole thing it was designed to do. Reasonable copyright would be the life of the creator plus 10-20 years and no more.

[cstanleytech]

23. Meh I would consider it more reasonable if it was

45 years after creation or 25 after death of the author whichever is soonest, that way an author can hopefully enjoy the fruits of their labor or if they say die with young children then the children are atleast taken care of including hopefully their college education.

[No Elephants]

36. And it's pretty clear that Walt stole Mickey from another artist to begin with.

[Occulus]

42. "Life of the creator" is still forever for too many people

It should be dragged down drastically. I said seven to ten years above, but maybe that's too short a time. No more than thirty years, certainly.

This "life of the creator" bullshit has to be dealt with, though. We need to eliminate that entirely.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. In the early Disneyland days they'd have barrels full of animation cells for sale in the gift shops.

It was treated like cheap souvenirs. My grandparents brought back a couple from vacation for my brother and me. Not sure whatever happened to them, but I know somewhere along the line Disney and others obviously wised up to the collector potential. Even if Stan Lee himself were to have suggested returning some of Kirby's art to his family when the sale went down, I don't see Disney biting.

[Morizovich]

8. Thank God!

I can rest easy tonight!

[onehandle]

11. When you are producing creative as a hire, they own everything you do.

But if you are designing independently, you own everything you create even if the client is paying you for the work. You have to sign an agreement to give them the rights.

Sounds like the great Jack Kirby was indeed, a hire.

Technically, I have to ask permission to use designs I have created as an employee in my portfolio.

Technically...

[drakonyx]

12. It's Disney

Disney. Money. Game over.

[onehandle]

16. It's the law.

When Tim Burton wanted to do The Nightmare Before Christmas, he had to get permission (and financing) from Disney.

He created the characters when he was a Disney animator and they owned them.

[Yavin4]

17. Two Words: Arthur Fry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Fry

[msanthrope]

31. Carolyn Davidson is more apropos, I think....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Davidson

[Yavin4]

32. Yep. Her Too.

When you work for Corp. America, you give up your soul.

[No Elephants]

38. Dupe

[No Elephants]

39. Davidson seems less apropos than Fry.

The OP is about cartoonists did work as employees of Marvel. Fry developed the post it as an employee of IBM. Davidson designed the swoosh as an independent contractor.

However, Nike seems to have had more conscience than Marvel and Disney. They hired her afterward (hopefully at a good salary) and.....



"Although Davidson left Nike in September 1983, Knight invited her to a company lunch. There, he presented her with a diamond ring engraved with the swoosh, and an undisclosed amount of Nike stock. Of the gift, Davidson says, "this was something rather special for Phil to do, because I originally billed him and he paid that invoice."<1>


Judging from how happy he looked in the photo in his wiki article, I am assuming IBM treated Fry fairly well, too.

[No Elephants]

37. In that photo, he seems happy.

[mac56]

24. King Kirby was a genius. His influence is incalculable.

He's been called the William Blake of comics. That said, he surely knew the rules when he began working with Lee.

[hifiguy]

25. That has a nice ring to it

"The William Blake of comics." Jack Kirby and Will Eisner virtually invented the visual language of the modern comic book, and far more people saw Jack's work. Neal Adams, Gil Kane, Paul Gulacy and Jim Steranko extended it, but they stood on the shoulders of the giants, Kirby and Eisner.

[mac56]

30. Kirby, Eisner, and Carl Barks were the first three inductees

into the Will Eisner Comic Book Hall Of Fame.

[Prophet 451]

34. Nice to see Barks in there

I often feel he doesn't get enough credit.

[mac56]

35. "The Good Artist"