According to Deadline Hollywood, Marvel/Disney has won summary judgments against the Jack Kirby estate, meaning that the House of Ideas will retain ownership over the characters that Kirby created for the publisher. The court apparently not only ruled in favor of the publisher/studio, but also denied the Kirby estate’s counter-motion for summary judgment. According to Kirby estate attorney Marc Toberoff, however, “This is just the beginning,” so expect news of an appeal sooner rather than later.
Developing.
July 28th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Good, I’m glad.
July 28th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Well the Superman lawsuit lasted almost 40 years and the Seigels losing is how they started.
July 28th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Jack already conceded he signed documents giving away his rights to the characters. They even paid him for all the work he did. Trying to reclaim ownership he gave away makes as much sense as returning books you bought and damaged yourself to get a refund.
July 28th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
This is exactly why the creator rights movement started. Remember the guys who created Superman died broke but the big corporation with the deep pockets bullied them and their heirs for DECADES until they finally partially won, which is why we’re getting a “52″ reboot.
July 28th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
The Siegel heirs and their greedy lawyer got greedier and whatever sympathy I had for them has long been spent.
July 28th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I agree with mk, the Siegel’s lawsuit is a joke. They further help dc ruin books and make Superman look like an idiot. I hate his look and I also hate Grant Morrison, because he is quite literally the worse comic book witer in the industry today. ANd has ruined almost all my favorite comic icons. (sorry, got a little carried away and off topic.)
July 28th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
The Siegel’s only have the right to the character as he existed prior to signing with DC, in the case of Kirby most of his characters were create while under contract to Marvel, thus work for hire. If the family really believes that they are entitled why have they not filed a similar suite against DC (New Gods, Forever People,etc…..)?
July 28th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
There must be something special about the Siegel lawsuit. It doesnt make sense. You don’t see every creator of every character coming out to take ownership. It would be like the guy who created Wolverine suing Marvel. The employment contract nullifies any claim to this. Unless somehow, US law is different to English law and that they *DO* look at whether consideration (payment) for work is of sufficient value?
July 28th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
If Reece is right…then now it makes sense.
Kirby has buckleys then if it was created while he was on contract at Marvel.
July 28th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Manic-6, I think what’s special about it is the fact that becuase of the copyright extension law change, they “shoud have” had an opportunity to reclaim the rights when they originally would have expired. I don’t know that any of those dates have even happened for Marvel characters as it’s at least a 50-year period.
July 28th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
And now we are reminded of why Kirby and Simon’s names are buried in the credits of Captain America. Marvel wasn’t about to be all at thankful to them for creating Cap with lawsuits going on.
They both deserve a little better, even if Simon’s claim of creating Cap himself is a bit odd.
July 28th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
This particular lawsuit was kind of strange anyway, wasn’t it? As I recall, the Kirby Estate included characters in the lawsuit that Jack didn’t actually create, most notably Spider-Man. I doubt the creators of the non-Kirby characters would’ve been too thrilled if the Kirby Estate had won.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
He’s dead, as far as I’m concerned that’s the end of it. If Jack Kirby comes back to life tomorrow then maybe there’s a case, but frankly I think he could think of something better to do than sue people. Maybe beat up Stan Lee.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I agree 100% if the man is dead let it rest…
July 28th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Looks like the Kirby kids will have to get real jobs. Also, Marc Toberoff is the same lawyer representing the Siegel family. That greedy S.O.B.(who also happens to be a producer) already has a piece of Superman. Of course he wants to appeal. He wants a piece of the MArvel charcters as well.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
“I hate his look and I also hate Grant Morrison, because he is quite literally the worse comic book witer in the industry today. ANd has ruined almost all my favorite comic icons.”
It’s WAY off topic, but I just wanted to commend you. It’s nice to know that I’n not alone in thinking Grant Morrison’s terrible. I liked All-Star Superman just fine, with a couple of reservations, but it’s his Batman work of the past few years that caused me to quit buying any books starring my favorite character of them all.
His run on Batman proper was lousy, and then RIP and Final Crisis were two of the worst events in the past few years. Given how many lousy “events” there have been in that time, that’s really saying something. Don’t know what happened to the Morrison that wrote good Batman stories like Gothic, or Arkham Asylum, not to mention a great run on JLA and the excellent We3, but he disappeared and never returned.
Sorry, now I’m off topic!
The Kirby lawsuit didn’t seem to have much merit, so that’s fine. I hope the Siegel lawsuit ends in much the same fashion, since his heirs had nothing to do with creating Superman anyhow, and Siegel and Shuster signed their rights away long ago.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
@Shaun: The Siegel suit is a little different. The Siegels are suing to reclaim the copyright of Superman (which they are entitled to under the copyright law). The Kirbys wanted money.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Jack did NOT sign away rights to his work for Marvel. That is the problem and reason for the Kirby suit. He did do work for hire, but, in the 60′s there was no contract with Marvel and paychecks did not contain the disclaimer that cashing/depositing relinquished all rights to the works. Kirby’s suit is valid and deserving to him.
Also, many of you should put yourselves in Kirby or his estate’s shoes. So many of you are just pure disillusioned and plain mean in your ignorance of the facts in this matter.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Shaun: To go off-topic again… IMHO, it’s the same Grant Morrison today as it was in the books you mentioned (well, I never read We3, but the other ones) – an insanely creative (or some might say just insane) person who has a flood of ideas, but needs a good editor to help form it into a coherent story. He hasn’t changed. What’s changed is the fact that he’s so big now that people just step back and let him do what he wants. The result is sometimes brilliant storytelling, sometimes an incoherent mess and always extremely creative.
At least, in my eyes that’s what’s going on and I’m sticking to my story.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
@bobbyt “deserving to him” Yeah, HIM not his kids.
This is absurd, to say that his family deserves money for his creations is stupid. They weren’t the ones who made these characters. If they were trying to get more knowledge about the man and get his name at the top of the credits in movies and show that HE created these characters that are so beloved then I’m all for it. But they’re just looking for money. Even if he didn’t sign an agreement that doesn’t give his kids the rights to the characters, if he’s not alive to put in his thoughts let it rest.
As for Schuster and Seigle; The rights were bought fair and square they agreed to the money, and neither DC nor them knew how popular Superman would become. If I sold you a car that you did a lot of work on and 70 years later it was worth a lot of money my kids would have no right to take the car from you.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
*Shuster and Siegel (before you trolls get to me, It’s been a long day)
July 28th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I’ve always heard that Joe Simon created Cap by himself, and Kirby just tweaked the costume a little. That’s to take nothing away from Jack Kirby, a big reason comics are what they are today.
July 29th, 2011 at 2:18 am
jack kirby estate = G R E E D
July 29th, 2011 at 4:02 am
mark said, “jack kirby estate = G R E E D”
I say, corporate publishers of superheroes are benevolent, altruistic and just plain good people!
July 29th, 2011 at 4:08 am
Jack got paid the first time he did the work, there was no guarantee that any of his creations would make millions in the future. Like any business his employers took a gamble on publishing comics every month, some months I’m sure they did well, some others not so great, but Jack still got paid month in and month out. If Jack had a crystal ball, I’m sure he would have made a different deal, but no one can see into the future. I’m sure his family is frustrated to see their former patriarch’s creations make millions, knowing that he worked hard and received a working-class wage, but if they want the big payday decades after Jack’s labors then he would have to have made sacrifices in the moment that may have never paid off – he would have to had worked for himself, with no guarantee of a paycheck every month, a choice few family men can make.
July 29th, 2011 at 5:44 am
No matter where you fall on the matter of creators rights and the Kirby Estate, it pays to remember that STAN LEE certainly hasn’t suffered for lack of worldwide recognition, massive monetary gains and constant public accolades (supported by the parent company).
Stan’s name is prominently attached to “anything” Marvel-related, hell, half the time he is interviewed, or even referred to by any media source, it is as the guy “who created Marvel Comics”. Solo? To those reporters Jack Kirby was simply one of the “wrists” who moved a pencil around on a piece of paper.
Look, somebody is always getting paid big bucks whenit comes to these types of disputes; think how much better off we would all be as fans, if the corporate owners would just sit down and negotiate an acceptable settlement with the estates (or the living creators) – using the same millions that their attorneys and CEO’s are going to end up with otherwise?
July 29th, 2011 at 6:04 am
A reboot is being done because of a lawsuit?
I don’t think so. What about the other reboots DC
has had over the years were they bought about
because of the Siegel lawsuit. No.
Leave the reboot alone, your still going to buy
the books anyway. cry babies!!
July 29th, 2011 at 6:37 am
@Chuck: Stan Lee is a nice guy, Jack Kirby was an asshole his entire life. In this case at least, nice guys finish first.
July 29th, 2011 at 7:08 am
When I met Jack Kirby at Comic Con in 1993, he was very nice to me. I shook his hand and thanked him for all his wonderful work that I have enjoyed since pickup up my first comic book (Captain America #196). I have a big framed photo of Jack Kirby & I from that con. A wonderful man who was and still is year ahead of his time.
July 29th, 2011 at 8:40 am
bobbyt – have you actually read the full judgement posted on bleedingcool.com?
Your assertions are just wrong:
“Jack did NOT sign away rights to his work for Marvel. That is the problem and reason for the Kirby suit. ”
This wrong on the first point – he didn’t have any rights to sign away. The rights belonged to the Marvel because they insitigated the creation of artwork and incurred the expense of publishing it. Thus it was a Work for Hire – and totally owned by Marvel.
Evidence from Roy Thomas, John Romita & Larry Lieber backed this up.
“He did do work for hire, but, in the 60′s there was no contract with Marvel and paychecks did not contain the disclaimer that cashing/depositing relinquished all rights to the works. Kirby’s suit is valid and deserving to him.”
This is incorrect in multiple ways. A work for hire contract doesn’t need to exist for a work for hire relationship to exist. That is what Kirby had with Marvel. He waited to be assigned artwork, he did corrections and he was paid a flat page rate. As his own son testified “my father didn’t do art work on spec!”.
As regards the pay checks – not one check from period under question (1958-63) was produced so what was on the back of the checks was pure speculation. The earliest check was from 1972 and even then the court ruled the wording DID NOT convey a transfer of rights from artist to company – because there were no rights to transfer.
The actual judgement is a devastating rebuttal of all the Kirby Estate claims & I suggest fans shoudl read it before commenting from ignorance.
For example: Stan Lee was rubbished by Evanier & Morrow for not being the originator of Marvel’s best character. Their ‘evidence’ was thrown out by the judge as ‘hearsay’. Basically they, as Kirby fans, had read all the interviews, articles etc. to form an opinion about what 2 men said & did behind closed doors. What utter Nonsense.
I think all comic fans can agree that Kirby & Ditko were stiffed by the company, ‘hearsay’ suggests this was probably Martin Goomand’s doing rather than Stan Lee’s – but then only Stan knows. One other thing – no one, but no one, was paying artists any shape or form of royalty at the time on anything they produced. The comic book industry just didn’t work that way.
Ditko accepted his fate quietly and was quoted on many occasions saying – ‘I know it was work for hire. I was an adult I knew what I was doing’. (Apologies for paraphrasing)
Kirby however did not. I think Stan’s relentess self-promotion also rubbed him up the wrong way.
It would be nice if Marvel & Disney chucked a few ‘thank you’ bucks at the Kirby Esate; but they can’t do that. To do so would be to admit they had something to make up for:)
July 29th, 2011 at 8:59 am
I think the family were purely working on greed and “Where is mine?” mentality. Good for Marvel.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:22 am
PIEL Says:
July 29th, 2011 at 6:37 am
@Chuck: Stan Lee is a nice guy, Jack Kirby was an asshole his entire life. In this case at least, nice guys finish first.
@PIEL: Where did you get your right to judge Jack as an asshole. He was a hard working, kind man and deserves more respect than that.
His heirs deserve just as many rights as that of heirs of other estates. They are just trying to undo an unjust situation that plagued Jack his entire life…especially in his later post-DC years. Marvel withheld his artwork under the Shooter era until he signed away all rights to Marvel. If he had nothing to do with creating Marvel…why did they need him to sign away his rights.
I’m outta here. Some of the quotes above about greed piss me off way too much…a lot of mouth and nothing to back it up.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:25 am
While the Siegel and Shuster case is a little different, it should also be noted that S&S shot themselves in the foot in the late 1940s, when the two of them sued DC to get copyright back. Never mind that S&S had sold the rights to Superman (regardless of how little they were paid–how was anyone to know the character would be famous?) and were working for DC making six figures a year (dunno if that’s jointly or individually, but either way that was a lot back then)–they wanted a bigger share of the pie. During the course of the lawsuit, DC let them go (would you keep on the payroll an employee who was suing you under those circumstances?), and all the money S&S made was eaten up in legal fees. At this point, I have no sympathy for Siegel and Shuster’s heirs, since a) they had nothing to do with creating the original work, b) their situation is in no small part the fault of S&S themselves, and c) they’re working with a lawyer who’s already made a deal with them to produce movies when they get the rights.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Whoever thinks that DC hasn’t initiated its major storyline arcs in the past over their narcissistic corporate greed is either a crony of the DC company, or a half-brained fool.
DC has been trying to “tweak” the Superman-Superboy concept for years now, all under the covert agenda to make it look like whatever “new” Superman/boy they’ve just created is now different enough from the original, so that they don’t have to pay the Siegel-Schuster family a single frickin dime — because they’d rather put all the money into their own spoiled and conceited frat boy pockets, and possibly certain bodily orifices, in a certain powdery form… just like what goes in within pretty much all major world corporations nowadays, whether the people who run the company “seem like the type” or not.
Goose-steppers amongst you people aside, do any of you who acquired the decency gene at birth happen to know what DC originally did to Siegel over Superboy? Well, after they had originally purchased ALL the rights to Superman for a SONG, he then later went to them with all the particular ideas for a Smallville-Superboy phase of his life that he had lived, BEFORE living in Metropolis.
And do you know what DC said to Siegel. They feigned a yawn and told him that they weren’t interested. And then, when he was later drafted and sent off to Europe during the war, while he was dodging bullets in trenches or whatever over there, the rotten rodents at DC went to his ARTIST partner, Schuster, and got HIM to allow the company to publish Siegel’s Superboy-Smallville idea.
“Not interested”? Not at all — DC was VERY interested. But, like all Old Man Potter (from “It’s a Wonderful Life”) corporations, they are a pack of psychotically-narcissistic BRATS who believe that ONLY THEY are “rightfully” deserving of any real quality of life, and so naturally ALL real quantities of money and royalties should go to THEMSELVES, by and large.
THIS is what comic book companies REALLY are. They are run by two-faced, morality-feigning CROOKS who have no capacity for shame whatsoever about peddling and profiting from the sale of stories and characters that promote MORALITY AND HEROISM, while at the same time these companies are run by gigantic sewer rat villains whose villainy dwarfs ANYTHING you will ever see in their comic books.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:59 am
DC screwed over Siegel with the Superboy incident (the only difference being that Siegel had the idea Superboy would be a “super-brat” instead of heroic), in part because they were cashing in on the kids-as-superheroes (mostly sidekicks) phenomenon six years after Siegel originally pitched the concept.
I find something interesting about the timing. Could it be legitimate that DC presumed that the “Superman as a boy” concept was theirs because they had so recently bought the rights to Superman? Is there any way of knowing?
And how is a for-profit company, whose primary objective is to make money for its owners/shareholders, a bunch of fratboys? Doesn’t it make sense to want to keep profits coming in instead of giving it away? Saying DC’s being greedy is like saying the person who’s making $1,000 off the antique you sold them for $100 is greedy because they aren’t giving you a part of the profits. To put it another way, it’s like saying that if I buy an original oil painting from the artist, and the value of the painting skyrockets when the artist dies, that I owe the artist’s family a piece of the profit I make from selling the painting. That makes no sense at all, runs counter to standard business practices, and is not merely idealistic but naive, to say the least.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Another question: Kirby created the X-Men. A host of other creators have worked on the X-Men since then, adding to the team, developing the characters, etc. Does this mean every artist who worked on the X-Men has a claim to the profits if they had no contracts that specifically granted them royalties?
July 29th, 2011 at 11:33 am
To Piel: You know, I don’t, and didn’t personally know Jack or any of the other Kirby’s. I’ve seen Stan Lee in person exactly twice. Part of the problem with this legal matter and peoples opinions of same is a tendency to “read” their minds.
I just think that the disparity between levels of compensation received over the years by many of Stan’s co-creators and the “Man” himself should be the only yardstick by which this debate is measured. ‘Nuff said!
July 29th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Chuck Wells speaks the truth. The Kirby heirs didn’t really have a good case here, but my fairness meter goes off the charts when I see Stan Lee reaping all the benefits for only doing half of the work (or less). Those who are think the Kirby kids are just trying to get a free ride should consider that aspect of it.
And PIEL, what’s your source for your assertion about Stan and Jack’s personalities? Because I’d be more likely to trust the perspective of someone like Mark Evanier, who, you know, actually KNEW Kirby.
July 29th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one, and here’s mine: I’m sorry I spent time reading most of these replies. Meanness, character assasination, and holier than thou attitudes. Before you start shredding someone’s life, at least do some research.
July 29th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I really wouldn’t mind if the estate had control of all the Jack Kirby characters. The same with Stan Lee and his creations. Everybody has the right to be a Walt Disney. Disney was a great creator, of course he was a stellar buisnessman and generation of generation of his family profited from it and I bet Walt was happy about that.
July 30th, 2011 at 4:56 am
This was not about money — it was about ensuring that Jack got credit for his work and that future generations know Jack co-created these characters. It was about ensuring that Jack’s name was on the masthead of virtually all of marvel’s books. A “created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee” should be automatic.
July 30th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
The grandkids are the ones looking for the money not Jack himself.This will go on for all of eternity.
July 31st, 2011 at 2:07 am
The Grandkids are GREED for MONEY
July 31st, 2011 at 8:45 am
The Kirby lawsuit was initialed in the 80s because of the horrifically insulting treatment Kirby was receiving from Marvel. All he wanted was his original art back so he could sell it and leave an estate for his grandkids. Shooter and the Marvel brass responded by refuising to give him anything un less he signed a series of insulting contracts, including ones printed on every check he got from Marvel.
It was Marvel who thought Kirby was trying to get control of the characters he’d created which, Daredevil aside, was pretty much every bedrock character Marvel had.
That self-serving weasel Stan Lee sat mutely aside and ignored any chance to help the man who really DID create Marvel Comics. Maybe it was fear people would learn how little Stan Lee actually did to grab his co-creator status.
That Stan Lee personally profited from the money brought in by the various movies while the people who actually DID create those comics characters received nothing was further impetus to continue the suit.
Unfortunately further appeals to, say, the Supreme Court don’t look good. The Scalia court always sides with Big Business over the Working Man.
July 31st, 2011 at 9:40 am
If the man himself is trying to win his character back, that’s one thing, but this is just a bunch of spoiled kids trying to get rich quick off something their dad did. There wouldn’t even be a case here in a land that had common sense.
July 31st, 2011 at 4:42 pm
@Andrew Whitworth
Keyword: HIS kids. HIS. AS in “he is no longer with us and THEY need to carry on the fight”. I read most of the comments on here and I have never seen such horrific garbage spewed anywhere, but a Tea Party website. Most of you have no idea what kind of time, blood, sweat and creativity goes into building something from scratch, only to have an alleged “friend” in one STAN LEE stand aside and watch a juggernaut like Marvel basically spit on you for feeding their own fat, greedy, spoiled brats. How dare any of you hurl insults and attacks at Kirbys kids. If it were my dad I would have done the same and gone after his legacy, his artwork and a fair nod from Marvel Comics for acknowledging what a gift he gave them and for paying for the bigwigs cars, homes and kids education. Jack Kirby, Dave Cockrum and many others died nearly dead broke and ITS NOT FAIR. Period.
Drop dead, you nasty bastards. You have no respect. More lemmings that are as heartless as the rest of this country has become.
August 1st, 2011 at 5:55 am
“I hate his look and I also hate Grant Morrison, because he is quite literally the worse comic book writer in the industry today. and has ruined almost all my favorite comic icons.”
I dont know about worst, his JLA years back was totally awesome but some of his recent batman stuff was lackluster although I liked the first few issues of batman and robin, the final crisis stuff was garbage …what a letdown. please don’t let grant do another event ever!
August 1st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Marvel ftw.
August 1st, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Well said Godwell. Kirby and his heirs deserve better and good luck to the Kirby’s on their fight against this evil. Shame on all you ignorant fools who think otherwise. Kirby gave us all great gifts in his universe of characters, and you so called ‘fans’ are as selfish and greedy as Marvel and Disney. If Kirby were still here, he’d still be fighting and in fact, he still is fighting in spirit. You ‘fans’ have no respect for Kirby or his family, and don’t deserve these characters Jack gave us all. Go read Archie instead you bastards.
August 2nd, 2011 at 5:39 pm
@Curt and Godwell. Thank you. Well said. The kids are fighting for Jack’s legacy. A massive Marvel legacy that is rightfully Jack’s.
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:54 pm
@Bob Theissen. No they want money, thats all, if jacks legacy was making 0 money they wouldnt even bother. Funny how a man’s legacy is only important when it makes money. They dont care how important these characters are to people. no they only care how much money it can bring them. shame they would drag the kirby legacy in mud for money. sell outs!
August 11th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Can we please get a grip people. Jack Kirby signed sworn statements in both 1972 and 1987 that explicately stated that the work he did for Marvel was “Work for Hire”, and that he did not want nor did he deserve the rights to the characters. All he ever wanted was the pages that he drew at Marvel back. Any comments on Jack wanting to sell his artwork so that his kids can have an inheritance may also be off key as Roz (his wife) would have stopped him from doing so. Stories from the professional artists who actually knew the Kirbys include tales of Roz preventing Jack from selling (and in some cases giving away) pieces from his own workroom. For those of you who say, “Kirby doesn’t get any credit for creating the characters he’s done over the years.” I say he gets more credit than any of you know. While his heirs aren’t getting any money from it, Jack Kirby has been listed in the “created by” section of the opening and closing credits on nearly every Marvel Movie that has been released thus far. (The exceptions being the “Spiderman” films which list his actual creators – Stan Lee and Steve Ditko) As for the “Stan Lee Haters”, Stan’s actually a nice guy and has always maintained that he co-created many of the Marvel Heroes not solely created them.
August 17th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Regarding some of the remarks I’ve just read about the supposed “greed” of Jack Kirby’s estate: I don’t know when I’ve read such a lot of appalling, vulgar, foul-minded ingratitude. Jack should have been compensated fairly for everything he did and you should all be grateful that he did it. And you should be glad that you have the comics that you enjoy today, which would not have been what they are without Jack Kirby. I hope the Kirby Estate wins its appeal, and I hope the lot of you learn what gratitude and respect mean.
January 20th, 2012 at 3:11 am
I got a DWI in DC it was a .11 I need to get a lawyer but I dont make enough money to pay one lump sum. I need to get a lawyer that I can pay off with monthly payments. Please help me!!!! I dont have anything else on my record. And I dont have any idea where to start..