Irreparably is still putting it mildly. In the event the Kirby’s won, barring some kind of big settlement that allows use to continue Marvel would quite literally have nothing left. Sure, they’d have Spider-Man – because seriously, no matter what they file they’ll never have a strong enough case for that one – and characters that weren’t created by Kirby like Wolverine and Deadpool – Thor might also be an iffy case – but every one of the other tentpoles of their universe would be gone. They’d either have to work out a ridiculous deal with the Kirby’s or somehow hit lightning in a bottle a second time by creating a new Marvel Universe.

Wouldn’t they win only half? Not the entire copy right? That means they can’t do anything without permission of the other half right?

“these people had NOTHING to do with the creation of these characters”

By this logic, the people currently at Marvel also had NOTHING to do with the creation these characters, so why should they profit either?

Skott, have you even READ about the history of the whole Superman situation?

I recommend you pick up “Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book” by Gerard Jones which goes into GREAT detail about the whole situation – from the 1930′s to the present day.

I know that this case hinges on the Contract signed, but I hope the Kirby family receives some compensation. Artists, actors, etc were way underpaid back in the day, for the value they have created. Kirby was a genius and as responsible as Stan Lee for Marvel’s current success. He was paid once, but Marvel keeps getting paid. It would make Marvel less of an evil empire if they settled the case and acknowledged the tremendous talents of Mr. Kirby and his contributions to their success.

What are you on about Jason ?
The family of Kirbys has no right to get F*** all, they did NOT create anything, If the man himself was alive it would be a different matter.
I don’t go to my dads old employer and say my dad created your house, he didn’t get it back before he died, as you agreed, so now I want it back.
It was an agreement between Kirby and Marvel, not Kirby’s children or grand children.
Scrounging low life scum.

An appeal was expected but ‘Bleeding Cool’ website and the full judgement and it makes interesting reading.
Kirby’s estate was trying to prove the work was not created under a ‘work for hire’ agreement. However Marvel had expert evidence from Stan Lee, John Romita Snr & others that was the explicit understanding, they all did the work for hire.
The point of no signed contract between Kirby & Marvel was irrelevant because the work for hire relationship can exist even if there is no contract.
The ‘expert’ evdience form Kirby’s estate consisted of 2 Kirby ass-kissers who had formed opinions about the case based on reading articles, webpages – at no time were these clowns actually present at any of the meetings. The judge rightly threw their testamony out.
The judge made other points which strongly backed Marvel – hence her decision.
There is very little merit in this case and and it should be viewed as an annoyance and possible attempt to screw some nickels out of Disney.
Kirby was ignored and sidelined by Marvel – that is wrong. He (& Steve Ditko) deserve equal credit with Stan Lee for creating Marvel.

Remember, folks, the issue being argued is not whether Jack had a hand in creating the characters – as that’s pretty much a given – but whether Jack created them as work-for-hire.

This has nothing to do with original artwork (though the Kirby family is entitled to any of Kirby’s art that Marvel has), and nothing to do with Joe Quesada’s “f*** you attitude”.

Yes, Kirby (and by extension, his family), should be receiving royalties for the sales of books that Kirby was involved in (eg. reprints of Fantastic Four #1-102) just as any current creator at Marvel or DC is, but beyond that, I don’t think that ownership of the characters is reasonable given the evidence that’s been presented.

The lesson here, and the practice for quite some time now, is that if you have an idea for an original character or concept, take it to a company like Image Comics where you retain ownership. No, it’s not a guaranteed paycheque like Marvel or DC will give you, but if retaining your IP is that important to you, that’s the risk you have to take. If you’re comfortable with a steady page-rate paycheque like Kirby received, then suck it up, and deal with the fact that you don’t own anything but the original artwork that you create (which you can probably sell for exorbitant amounts of cash).

I read the judge’s decision. Sadly for supporters of creator’s rights, all evidence points at Kirby having signed it all away. Fair? Not really. How things work in the business world? Yes.

At this point, I think Toberoff is just hoping to make himself enough of a nuisance that Marvel/Disney settles out of court. But both Marvel and Disney had long histories of being pit bulls in the courtroom even before the merger.

The problem with most of the arguments against Kirby winning (which I hope does happen in the long run) is that those for Disney/Marvel winning continually say: “Kirby should have known he’d be giving up his rights and should have gone elsewhere”. Unfortunately, unlike today where you do have outfits like Image, that wasn’t the case back in Kirby’s day.

No man works exclusively for ‘the company’. Most work for companies to support families. Kirby was taken advantage of during his tenure at both Marvel and DC. and what should be being decided is just how much compensation should be given to him for his contributions to both those companies and the industry his art and ideas made mainstream.

Many of you may not remember a time when comics were considered bird cage liner. Kirby was one of the creators who changed that perception and made if ‘cool’ to read comics for everyone. He didn’t do it alone but his output and power in visuals and concepts forged a different kind of comic book.

Some of you may think it’s just about a families greed. It isn’t. Sure, they’ll benefit from a win, but consider this: if Kirby had been being given renumeration commensurate with what he was co-creating, there’d be no need for this litigation. Consider this being him finally getting what he should have been getting all along. Signing something under duress doesn’t make you an idiot. Sometimes when there’s no choice, you do what you have to do.

Consider this too: in the litigation where Marvel had Kirby sign a document to get his art back, he didn’t even receive twenty five percent of the pages he’d done for them. Taking into account that most of Kirby’s work goes for anywhere from $1k to $20k (k=thousand), they’d owe him big time. Anyway you look at this, Kirby should be compensated to right the two wrongs done to him when the comic book industry was being formed and forged as a legitimate creative form.

If for no other reason than his massive contribution to that formation, he should be honored. An in America, we honor with cold hard cash.

And in America, we honor with cold hard cash.

Re “[I]f Kirby had been being given renumeration commensurate with what he was co-creating, there’d be no need for this litigation.”

This is the big issue I have with all these creator lawsuits by creators’ estates: the assumption that a corporation should “honor with cold hard cash” contributions made under a binding contract that later proved to be massive blockbuster ideas by giving these creators a whole bunch more money than the original contract called for. According to the law–not someone’s perception of the ethics involved, but the actual, codified law as printed and as deemed applicable by the judge (a person elected by society [or appointed by elected officials] to determine the validity of such application)–that isn’t so.

It isn’t about fairness. If it were, then wouldn’t it be fair for comic book companies to deduct from any settlements the amount of time and materials, as translated into cash, that the creators then owe the companies for printing these money-making characters, hiring other people to continue creating stories using the characters in question (thus adding to the potential income of the creator), marketing these characters, etc.? I’ll wager that a lot of people would call such an argument “ridiculous,” perhaps arguing that the creator entered into a de facto contract with the company that actually produced the characters/stories/art/etc. in question. Why? Don’t the other artists, writers, colorists, etc. responsible in the continued success of a character make a contribution, too, and if we’re going to give copyright (which is what this is really about, not money) to the estates of creators, where is the line drawn on where the original creator’s property ends and another’s begins? For example, George Perez redesigned the Scarlet Witch’s costume in Avengers at one point. Let’s say for a minute that the work was done as a work-for-hire and no royalites enter the picture for Perez. Perez dies, and his estate decides to sue to regain the copyright for the work he did that involved using Perez’s design for the Scarlet Witch. Let’s suppose that the Perez estate sues the Kirby estate (supposing, too, that they eventually win the appeal), arguing that Perez’s work contributed to the continued existence, use, and thus generation of income, by the use of the Scarlet Witch character. Why shouldn’t the Perez estate win?

There are loads of arguments and counter-arguments. Where’s the line supposed to be drawn? There’s all this talk about how the corporation stiffed Kirby/Siegel/Shuster/etc., but who’s responsible for the continued success of a creation? The creator alone? I say that isn’t fair, either.

If I’m to understand, it’s not about fairness? Wow, what a statement.

Let’s just cheat, steal, force contracts on you that you have to sign because there’s no where else for you to go to do the work you’ve spent all your life preparing to do and it doesn’t matter anyway because they’ll be lost to time. And it’s all right because since there’s no record of anything kept, I can lie in court and rob you blind.

Is this the way you guys really want to do business? Is this the way you do business now?

@Photonex68 & DikMcPlenty: Please see – what Bob Hughes Says:
August 16th, 2011 at 11:55 am.

Here’s the funny thing: if that’s the way the worlds going to operate, why don’t we just put that in a contract? Americans have always prided itself on being a land of the free and a land of opportunity. I’ve never read that we’re the land of thieves. Of course that doesn’t stop us from being that does it?

The fact that jack has passed doesn’t change that either. Maybe artists from all disciplines will have to wage another fight to eliminate work for hire altogether. Interestingly enough, in 1976 when Graphic Artist Guilds across the nation took up the fight against WFH, comic artist were an art discipline that didn’t get involved. WFH got clarified as to how it had to work to actually be WFH but that was pretty much it. (Until then, companies could just say you were under WFH, after the fact, and it was considered valid. Now there has to be documentation and an exchange where the artist is gaining something other than publication or viewings).

My only thing is ….. if Stan Lee who was the writer/1/2 creator of those characters could go on and make sooooo much money off of them and Marvel and the movies ….. why not the artists who were also half creators ? and since the Artists are no longer around .. the famalies should benefit from it…. seeing as how … It was a Kirby/Lee mix that made those characters to begin with as was the Ditko/Lee Spiderman…. i guess it’s all how u look at it and either way it’s none of our business

You know, if it was not this particular lawyer, who I think is in it to get a piece of the pie long term himself, I’d be a little more understanding with the Kirby estate.

Wow. You can tell I wasn’t thinking clearly when I commented. Not that I gave an opinion on the whole thing, but I still usually avoid discussions like this. What happens when you’re sick, I guess.

Nice to see some of you actually think they deserve this…All it really comes down to Jack Kirby didn’t know how to do business, so now his family is trying scrounge for way to make some money that should been had in the beginning.

I hope Marvel does win. I don’t know about anyone else but I like reading my comics and I don’t like people trying to be greedy. Really, if the family wins all they’re gonna do is sit on the properties, that seems very obvious.

WOW. I’m shocked and disgusted by how far people have shoved their heads up their butts on this one. JACK KIRBY IS DEAD. What he deserved, what recognition he should have gotten, how is contracts SHOULD have been; stopped mattering the day the man died. This is a taint on his legacy. I’m not going to claim to be a big fan or anything. but Jack Kirby, the man himself, didn’t seek more money or more recognition during his lifetime. a lifetime during which Joe Shuster DID fight for his rights and HIS legacy. i don’t agree with the shuster estate’s lawsuit either but he tried and won while he was alive. Jack Kirby lived to be 74 years old. he wasn’t cut down in the prime of his life. this isn’t a michael turned dying from cancer situation. and i didn’t see anything about the turner estate suing over what he ‘owned’.

Secondly Kirby left Marvel. AND CAME BACK. if he was so hard done by and had so many problems with the company. including how much fame he got from it. He wouldn’t have gone back. You don’t work for years building something you hate. and then finally get out and then come back to it. you don’t. you just don’t. There were LOTs of options for him whether you choose to believe it or not He did work at DC. He did work for Archie. and at the end of the day he could have done political pieces in newspapers or tried to get a syndicated comic strip. he had options nobody put a gun to his head to sign a contract with marvel… twice.

thirdly it takes two people to create these characters. A writer and an artist. Joe Simon AND Jack Kirby created captain america, Stan Lee AND jack kirby created the fantastic four, x-men, hulk, larry leiber and jack kirby to create iron man, etc. Unless the writer/artist feels JOINTLY neglected and mistreated this shouldn’t even have legs. Stan Lee is not getting up and talking about how horribly they were all treated, Joe Simon and Steve Ditko aren’t suing for their characters or works. Jack Kirby did not create these characters alone and therefor should DESERVES nothing more than was given to both writer and artist teams at the time.

Shakespeare’s decendants are not given royalties every time a high school does a production of Romeo and Juliet. Elvis’s family is not giving royalties for his music. It’s all given to the record label that owns the content. Same with apple records. John lennon’s family is not given royalties for the beatles, or his own work. Apple records gets it. that doesn’t mean anyone forgets the importance of John Lennon and what he brought to the the beatles EVEN though Paul McCartney is still alive.

fourthly. The just as in the Shuster/DC lawsuit, These characters are not the same characters Kirby created Iron Man is no longer a big bulky suit of armor. Hell as of incredible hulk number one Banner and Hulk are two different entities. Reed Richards and sue storm have two children that didn’t exist before and it wasn’t kirby that created them. what exists today, despite using the same origin stories is NOT what kirby created, or possibly ever envisioned. The Uncanny x-men and avengers and fantastic four have changed rosters hundreds of times. with memebers not even dreamed up yet. Fantastic Four credited Stan Lee and Jack Kirby right up to it’s final issue. The brand new Captain America #1 STILL credits Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. despite not even being MARVEL when he was created. This is the most Bob Kane, and Siegel and Shuster get too. their name in a spot nobody ever really reads.

IF by some drug crazed random happenstance that Kirby Estates greed lasts and they somehow win, comics as a medium will disappear. without the income provided by Marvel’s use of these characters and titles, Brick and Mortar comic stores will belly up across the world. and sure marvel will be able to bounce back eventually they have disney money behind them after all. but at the point that comics stores become a rare commodity sales as a whole will disappear and the damage will be too far done for retailers to bounce back from. Superman is ONE character, But this is nearly every prominent Marvel Character in the air.

Jack Kirby will be remembered forever as long as Stan Lee as long as comics are a medium in any regard. Hundreds of artists out there nowdays still credit him as being their inspiration in wanting to draw comics. Hell. Nobody says i got into writting comics because of Stan Lee. no they say I got into it because of alan moore. NONE of this matters the man is gone. and the managers of his estate ARE trying to cash in on his legacy and it is TARNISHING, that reputation. after the man has been dead for 17 years. that’s almost as long as Barry Allen was gone from comics. Back to Shakespeare if you could tell him his work would still be relevant and important hundreds of years from when he wrote them he’d never believe it never mind want to cash in on it. He did what he loved. I believe Jack Kirby to be the same kind of man. as much as he’d like for his family to be looked after, he wouldn’t want his family not trying to support themselves the way he supported himself and his family the way he did. but this is not right. or fair.

again if he felt he was treated unfair or improperly HE should have fixed it during his life. or at least tried. HE doesn’t gain anything from it now. He’s dead.

One last analogy. When sublime lead Bradley Nowell died from a herion overdose, his parents became the executors to his estate. All of sublime’s content was copyrited to Bradley Nowell despite there being 2 other band members. So Bradley Nowell’s parents in charge of his estate decided that if the other two members continued performing under the name Sublime it would tarnish everything their son had created. after 13 years of notices of termination and court proceedings the two other band members are STILL going to call themselves sublime play all their old material, and all that’s changed is that fans HATE how much crap those two guys had to go through because of Bradley Nowells parents in the name of his “legacy”.

Leave Jack Kirby his legacy. Leave this alone. Let the man rest in peace. especially because he’s not here to speak for himself.

@Darrell: I’d buy your argument about being “forced” if comic books didn’t have a long history of independent publishers, and if Image hadn’t experienced initial success.

To frame it in the context of your analogy: You’re a great fabric designer and both companies want you to be “exclusive” to their lines. You still have the option of starting your own line. If it’s your work that’s the sign of quality and not the brand name attached to it, people will follow you. In fact, young designers tend to do just that: break off from an established design house to make names for themselves.

I agree with you about contracts being “only as good as the integrity of the signers,” but even when the loser delays payments and another lawsuit ensues, the law still did what the law was supposed to do.

Re what Bob Hughes has to say: In the absence of a physical contract, exactly who is the judge supposed to believe? That’s what testimony is about. The judge chose to believe Stan Lee’s testimony, most likely because Lee was present while the Kirby estate’s testimony involved people who knew the story secondhand. We may not agree with the judge’s decision, but it does logically follow to go with Lee’s testimony if it can’t be directly disproven. Sure, it’s easy to say that Lee’s testimony is biased, but then again, how could you argue that the testimony of people who weren’t there is any less biased if there are no physical records to back any of them up?

As far as whether or not it’s a work-for-hire situation, I ask again: Did Kirby invent the FF or X-Men out of whole cloth and peddle them to Marvel, or did he work with Stan Lee to create these works at the publisher’s directive?

Let’s look at another example of a creator’s intellectual property for a minute. Alice and Martin Provensen are the couple who created Tony the Tiger for Kellogg’s in 1952. When they created Tony, they earned revenue for themselves, for Kellogg’s, and for the agency they worked for–plus it raised their visibility and improved their reputations as children’s lit illustrators (see http://todaysinspiration.blogspot.com/2009/06/provensens-tony-tiger.html). Suppose their heirs decide that Kellogg’s, the Kapes studio, and Leo Burnett’s ad agency didn’t pay the Provensons enough for creating Tony because the character has made a lot of money in advertising, merchandising, etc. But isn’t Tony a work for hire because it was created for the ad agency to pitch to Kellogg’s? Most people would say yes. So how is it any less of a work for hire for Kirby to have worked with Lee to create all these characters for Marvel because Marvel asked them to?

For any character Kirby created on his own initiative and pitched to Marvel, I can see where that isn’t a work for hire. Independently created works are, IMO, a different animal (although things also get messy when the works you pitch get integrated into a shared universe). But works created for and submitted to a client at the client’s request, and then used by the client, strike me as a work-for-hire situation.

Check out full movie films absolutely free