Kirby Estate Pulls a "Seigel," Marvel to Possibly Lose Cap, Thor, Hulk, etc.

[The Hitman]

Read More Here

Do you think this has something to do with Marvel now being owned by a larger company, one that is more likely to "throw money at the problem until it goes away?" 'Cause I do.

[yell0w_lantern]

I'm always amazed how people suck off of their dead relative's intellectual legacy (e.g. Christopher Tolkien). Geez, try coming up with your own idea, like Frank Herbert's no-talent son.

[Talavar]

Disney has stated they knew this was coming before their acquisition of Marvel, so I'm sure it's been in the works for awhile.

And this is copyright law - it allows creators to get their rights back from the company they assigned them to after 56 years.  Should those creators' families lose out because the creators themselves didn't live long enough to file those petitions themselves?

And finally, Disney/Marvel aren't going to lose anything, except some cash.  The Kirbys (like the Siegels) don't want to take their characters and lock them up in a closet; they want money.  Disney/Marvel will pay to use the characters, instead of just using them for free, and the exact same thing will happen with the Superman situation.

Really, I think this coming back to bite Marvel & DC in the butts is somewhat funny.  Maybe someone should have spent some more time and effort developing and promoting newer characters instead of just relying on old stand-bys for so long?

[AfghanAnt]

This is just ridiculous and will lead to spin-offs of original characters. I can't wait until 50 years from now when Warren Ellis' daughter tries to cash in on the Authority.

[Podmark]

Blargh this stuff is annoying.

[Ajax]

Even if the Kirby estate wins, Marvel retains the rights till 2014 I believe. More than enough time to come to some resolution. I don't see anything wrong with what they were doing, this is karma imo considering how poorly both DC/Marvel treated Kirby. Heck when DC hired Kirby to do Superman they erased the his Superman head and had another artist draw the head cause they were afraid it would be less iconic or some ridiculous crap like that. As for the Afghan Ant's comment, I think Ellis's daughter is getting into engineering if his blog posts are any indication of anything

[GhostMachine]

It was pointed out at another board that most of those characters Kirby's estate is after are characters Kirby didn't actually create - unless you count the visuals. Most of them were created by Stan Lee, not Kirby, and Joe Simon actually created Captain America. And Thor is a mythological character and doesn't even look the same as he used to when Marvel first introduced him. Kirby did create Iron Man's original armor design (and I believe drew the cover to his first appearance), but if I remember right Don Heck actually drew IM's first story, not Kirby. So I think its a losing situation for the estate, since all the defense has to do is put Stan the Man on the stand, and all Marvel would have to do to quash any claim is to give all those characters new appearances that don't look remotely like anything Kirby drew. (Which I would have to see happen - Invisible Woman would look bad as a brunette and who wants a Thing who looks like he's made out of brick rather than rocks?)

Now, if Kirby's estate wanted to go after DC over Darkseid and the New Gods characters (Mister Miracle, Orion, etc), they'd have a stronger case - but they'd still lose, most likely.

Basically its a money grab that should be laughed out of court.

[Zippo]

And this is copyright law - it allows creators to get their rights back from the company they assigned them to after 56 years.  Should those creators' families lose out because the creators themselves didn't live long enough to file those petitions themselves?

Yes, absolutely. I'm just personally against this sort of thing. Also, copyright law needs a major revamp. The only thing you ever hear it used for is selfish purposes. Granted, that's all that is really ever newsworthy, but the sheer amount of money that has been lost to nothing companies that make vague copyrights on technology, not to mention the hinderance of progress caused by companies simply copyrighting things to bar others from doing anything with the material (while doing nothing themselves) is ridiculous.
This sort of thing just makes me angry.

[Talavar]

And this is copyright law - it allows creators to get their rights back from the company they assigned them to after 56 years.  Should those creators' families lose out because the creators themselves didn't live long enough to file those petitions themselves?

Yes, absolutely. I'm just personally against this sort of thing. Also, copyright law needs a major revamp. The only thing you ever hear it used for is selfish purposes. Granted, that's all that is really ever newsworthy, but the sheer amount of money that has been lost to nothing companies that make vague copyrights on technology, not to mention the hinderance of progress caused by companies simply copyrighting things to bar others from doing anything with the material (while doing nothing themselves) is ridiculous.
This sort of thing just makes me angry.

I think you're conflating patent and copyright laws, but yes, the whole point of both is selfishness.  People copyright or patent their ideas to protect their ability to make money on them.  No one copyrights their ideas out of charity, or a desire to benefit the community.

Copyright law does need to be revisited; sadly, if that happens any time soon, it'll likely turn out even better for large corporations, and worse for actual creators and fair use.

[JKCarrier]

It was pointed out at another board that most of those characters Kirby's estate is after are characters Kirby didn't actually create - unless you count the visuals. Most of them were created by Stan Lee, not Kirby,

According to whom?

Basically its a money grab that should be laughed out of court.

It's a pretty standard contract negotiation, actually. The law says Marvel's ownership lasts x number of years, then they have to re-negotiate the deal. Big whoop. Marvel is certainly no less motivated by greed, and has used the copyright laws to their advantage for decades. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Marvel will pay out some minuscule percentage of their annual profits, and life will go on.

[yell0w_lantern]

I think that the only fair resolution is that the characters go in to the public domain.

[steamteck]

I think that the only fair resolution is that the characters go in to the public domain.

Well, that would sure quell this sort of thing. Personally,I'm wondering if the heirs went to the lawyer or the lawyer went to the heirs.

[Talavar]

I think that the only fair resolution is that the characters go in to the public domain.

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.  Disney has been one of the strongest supporters & lobbyists for extending copyrights, and has already had some success in that area.  With the purchase of Marvel, they just have that much more incentive to put money towards extending and strengthening copyrights.

[BentonGrey]

You know, I imagine that Jack himself would be rather disgusted with this whole thing.

[JKCarrier]

You know, I imagine that Jack himself would be rather disgusted with this whole thing.

Considering Kirby's numerous clashes with Marvel over the years, and his complaints that he never got the credit or compensation he deserved, I think he'd be thrilled. Being able to provide for his family, and to have something to pass on to them when he was gone, was a big concern to him.

[yell0w_lantern]

His kids can draw their own Marvel characters for all I care and Marvel can go fly a kite. Public domain.

[BentonGrey]

You know, I imagine that Jack himself would be rather disgusted with this whole thing.

Considering Kirby's numerous clashes with Marvel over the years, and his complaints that he never got the credit or compensation he deserved, I think he'd be thrilled. Being able to provide for his family, and to have something to pass on to them when he was gone, was a big concern to him.

True, but he was also a man who believed very strongly in making your own way.  He thought people should create their own characters and stories, rather than build on what someone else did.  I don't doubt that he would want to see his family provided for (a very important ideal for any American who lived in or around the Depression era), but at the same time, I imagine that several elements of this thing would strike him as comically wrong.

That being said, Kirby got a raw deal from both of the big companies, and it's a shame he didn't get his just deserts while he was alive.  Giving something to his family is probably the least way that justice could be served.

[Talavar]

His kids can draw their own Marvel characters for all I care and Marvel can go fly a kite. Public domain.

Why should they be public domain?  What's the reasoning there?  Existing copyright law is good for 75 years (barring any extensions lobbyists of large mouse-themed corporations are able to get) and that's not up. 

[yell0w_lantern]

Because it's nonsense. Cut the baby in half, that's what I say.

[thanoson]

I say lets trade Superman for Hulk and Thor. Who doesnt want to see Hulk vs Doomsday? Superman vs Thanos? The Asgardians vs the Amazons? This could be great stuff.

[Talavar]

Because it's nonsense. Cut the baby in half, that's what I say.

What's nonsense - people pursuing their own best interests through legal methods?  Copyright law in general?  Yeah...

[Previsionary]

I say lets trade Superman for Hulk and Thor. Who doesnt want to see Hulk vs Doomsday? Superman vs Thanos? The Asgardians vs the Amazons? This could be great stuff.

Wha? Copyright != Trademark... something to keep in mind. . If Superman's copyright were to expire, Marvel still couldn't use him -- and vice versa for DC attempting to use marvel characters' whose copyrights expired. We'd still be stuck with Sentry-clone and Gladiator-clone because of Trademark laws.