What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
50 Comments
- shadowman99, on 09/21/2009, -1/+88Mixed feelings. Comics today rest on the shoulders of abused giants, but none more so than Jack Kirby. As a creator's rights believer, I think as many others do that Jack got screwed over and over.
Jack Kirby is the Beatles of comics; he didn't invent them, but he understood the medium better than anyone before him. Superman issue #1 is not a great read (and I say this as a Superman fan). Jack wrote great comics. He even wrote not so great comics that are almost always fun to read, glorious in their failure. But when Jack was successful he built whole mythologies.
Jack Kirby loved comics. He didn't secretly wish he was making movies instead. Every time he created a comic book that's where his head was at, in his love for this medium.
Jack had repeated success at creating characters. Siegal and Shuster created Superman. It became iconic, but they never did it again. Nobody before or since has created such a memorable stable of ongoing characters as Jack. And Marvel has spent decades trying to keep anybody from noticing.
Despite what Stan Lee would say, Jack practically created Marvel. 90% of what you read in Marvel has it's origin in something Jack did. Even in the unlikely event that DC might be tempted to walk away from Superman if the price is too high to buy the character from the Siegals and Shusters - There is no such option for Marvel. Jack built it. Everything. It's easier to build a short list of what Jack didn't do at Marvel than build a huge inventory of what he did create.
Jack wanted to leave something to his kids. I firmly believe Jack's family deserves this.
But I also fear for what comes next. The floodgates will open and every other family with a claim to a DC or Marvel character is thinking about attorneys. Can comics survive the "Attack of the Ambulance Chaser"? I love comics and I fear this will be a loss for us fans. - ganymede2010, on 09/21/2009, -1/+59Ever wonder why Stan Lee hasn't created anything great in decades? That's because Jack Kirby is dead.
- subtheorist, on 09/21/2009, -1/+30DUN DUN DUN... The plot thickens...
- rpgguy1o1, on 09/21/2009, -1/+23Jack Kirby: still the ***** man, from beyond the grave.
- inactive, on 09/21/2009, -1/+21*To find out what happened previously between Kirby and Marvel, Refer to court case #39
- Wreckage, on 09/21/2009, -0/+15BAM!, SMACK!, POW!
- janinekahn, on 09/21/2009, -0/+13Oof. We knew it couldn't have been so simple...
- vonbroner, on 09/21/2009, -0/+13The Kirby family must have tapped their inheritance. I'm all for creator rights, but this is the ESTATE of Kirby. I feel they just want money.
- mbraynard, on 09/21/2009, -0/+8You've won me over.
I'm mailing my X-Men DVDs back to the Kirby estate tomorrow. - inactive, on 09/21/2009, -1/+8The only property that Kirby's estate could reasonably expect to prevail on is Captain America, because Cap was created pre-Marvel, at Timely Comics. Marvel already licenses Cap from Timely. All other characters are the sole property of Marvel, as are ALL work-for-hire fictional characters. There's a reason Rob Leifeld doesn't sue over Deadpool, and Todd McFarlane doesn't sue over Venom. There's a reason people keep making movies based on Alan Moore's work, despite the fact that he's almost violently opposed to the idea.
Personally though, I find the entire situation to be a bit ironic. Disney has spent the better part of the last two decades trying to subvert, manipulate, and destroy the American copyright/public domain system, so that they can maintain a deathgrip on the character of Mickey Mouse. Keep in mind that Disney isn't being ran by Walt's grandkids- it's being ran by a bunch of random Suits who are interested only in money. They have no more right to the exclusive use of Mickey Mouse than I do. The only difference is that they have a lot more cash and a lot more lawyers than me. So it's pretty hard to feel sorry for them if Kirby's estate actually does end up throwing a wrench into their plans to buy Marvel.
Marvel isn't exactly ran by Saints, though. My guess is that Stan Lee is seeing next to nothing from the profits Marvel is currently making. - HouseofEl, on 09/21/2009, -1/+8Congratulations on not understanding the issue. Without Kirby, Marvel would not exist. Like shadowman99's post above, Stan Lee created some of these characters, but Kirby's hands are on just about every single piece of history within the Marvel Universe. Kirby along with others were screwed over so many times at a time when artists and writers made very little money and these companies have profited billions off these talents. It's time to pay up and give credit where credit is do. These creators were treated with little respect yet they still worked their asses off because it was what they loved to do. Some of them had no idea that their work would be anything more than a simple comic strip, while Marvel and DC both got filthy rich in the long run. The entire reason Image comics was created in the 90s was because of the lack of creative control on characters that were the writers and artists ideas in the first place. The house of ideas, as Marvel is called, should really be called The house that Kirby built.
- anonymousmedic, on 09/21/2009, -0/+5The mouse must be pissed right now.
- SteveMTyler, on 09/21/2009, -0/+5so how does marvel have it? was jack kirby a marvel employee or did they buy it from him?
- ZWarren69, on 09/21/2009, -1/+5I'm interested to see if corporate money prevails.
- rocro, on 09/21/2009, -1/+5They should go after Nintendo as well. <('.'-<) <(-'.'-)> (>-'.')>
- bnorman, on 09/21/2009, -4/+8Damn you Mickey!
- ShoggothDreams, on 09/21/2009, -1/+5OMG, that really is a great comment. I have always loathed the whore that is Stan Lee. And it really is made crystal clear by your statement. Jack King Kirby, and Steve Ditko, were Marvel. Stan Lee was it's bookkeeping.
- ShoggothDreams, on 09/21/2009, -0/+4. . . what debt did Kirby create? He never made the financial decisions for Marvel, certainly not in the 90's. He was mostly involved, creatively, with the Indies in the 90's. Your comment makes no sense.
- inactive, on 09/21/2009, -4/+7Same thing with Paul McCartney, boom, Beatles are over, John is dead, whore out radio-friendly pop songs.
- inactive, on 09/21/2009, -1/+4Well, sure. But who doesn't? Disney isn't exactly a charity. Furthermore, they flat-out BRIBED then-Congressman Sonny Bono to pass what the people of California refer to as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", effectively giving the finger to existing copyright law so that Disney could maintain sole ownership of Mickey, Donald and company. Keep in mind that Disney has no more "right" to those characters than you do. They're not Walt's heirs, they're a bunch of corporate raiders. The copyright laws they subverted were put in place to prevent EXACTLY what they ended up doing. Copyright was never meant to be established by "whoever has the most bribe money handy".
- BrokenCircle, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3Kevin Smith is that you?
- inactive, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3There's a reason you'll never see a naked woman.
- AladinSane, on 09/22/2009, -0/+2Evanman69, you're an idiot. I was AT Marvel back in '97 as an intern when they had to re-license from Timely. Kurt Busiek nearly had to write Captain America out of the Avengers. But hey, keep quoting Wikipedia, since the Prestigious Internet is never wrong.
- shadowman99, on 09/22/2009, -0/+2I guess maybe you could characterize the difference between what Jack did at DC and Marvel as such: He made the DC Universe into a bigger more interesting place and added to the supporting cast of heroes and villains, but at Marvel he created most of the first string players. You can tell a Batman story without boom tubes and Motherboxes, but if you remove Kirby's characters from Marvel it will start to feel like the Spiderman and Wolverine universe. You would notice the difference more quickly at Marvel than DC if Kirby's children win control of his copyrights.
I also think that with a new Iron Man film next year and Marvel's plan for an Avengers movie they have more incentive to settle with Jacks kids and put this to rest. I hope Marvel does the right thing and serves as an example to DC.
$4B is changing hands in the Disney/Marvel deal. Jack's kids are right to ask for some of it. And Jack would have wanted them to have something. I am on Team Kirby, even if it means a legal mess that makes Miracleman's ownership look simple. - Mujokan, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Justice for Dan Pussey next!
- shadowman99, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2@KarlH - Speakith not of that which ye have no ***** idea.
- punkcat, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2i hope the Fantastic Four notice sticks.
- BetaUser, on 09/22/2009, -0/+2I just love the irony here. Someone coming after the studios about copyright. Sweet justice
- throwdini, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1Paul's last couple of albums have been pretty good starting from the late 90's. And starting from his solo career, there is usually at least one great song on each of his albums. Most artist would love to have his greatest hits collections.
Not to mention, the majority of side 2 of Abbey Road. - falconear, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1shadowman: I don't know about that. Where would Final Crisis have been without Kirby's Fourth World? Now, the Doom Patrol or Challengers of the Unknown...yeah, not so much.
- willwork4ammo, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1For the first time in a long time, I read every single comment on this page. All interesting and to the point.
- graemee, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1It did when they got copyrights extended to the insane lengths they are now. Epic irony and payback.
- Glich, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1Hate to say it but it had to be done.. Stan had to fight for his rights for his cut of the spiderman movies. JK family is sending the message that kind of funny business with NOT happen with them..
- inactive, on 09/21/2009, -1/+2Hahahahahahahaaha.
Yeah right. - CaptCarrot, on 09/23/2009, -0/+1It's considered "Work for Hire." You endorse the check, you effectively sign over the work to the company. Sort of like working for a software company and writing a bang-up genius piece of code while you're there. You may not have been assigned to write it, but if you did it at the company, it ain't yours and the company thanks you for the millions they'll rake in for your efforts.
- sierrabravo, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1so in other words, his lawyers noticed a trend of making movies about comics, and now they want in on the profit since comic book profit has gotten pretty low lately.
- apothekari, on 10/05/2009, -0/+1agreed.
I make exception for those such as Shuster & Seigel, who never got anything from Superman until very recently . Their families deserved a settlement, As does Kirby's. - Dweed, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1Or, simply, The House That Jack Built.
- shadowman99, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1Kirby created a ton of DC stuff, but his contributions to the Marvel universe are all monthly cornerstones. DC could avoid using any of the fourth world stuff, but Marvel without it's leading heroes isn't Marvel anymore. You are also correct saying DC needs to make right by the Kirby family too.
I can also imagine Kane and Finger's kids are paying close attention.
" ...and place creator rights protocols to make sure this stuff doesn't happen anymore."
This is why the independents like Image sprung up in the 90's. Most creators will not take their personal projects to Marvel. - apothekari, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1It's not just Marvel, Kirby created a massive amount of characters for DC and other comics companies.
They SHOULD pay his heirs some restitution and place creator rights protocols to make sure this stuff doesn't happen anymore. - falconear, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1So is the Stan Lee fantasy finally going to collapse? Stan has been falsifying this legend of the creation of Marvel's icons for far too long. Jack "King" Kirby and Steve Ditko deserve at least as much credit, if not more. Stan Lee was only good for vague concepts.
- esc27, on 09/22/2009, -0/+1His kids yes, but not his grand kids, great grand kids, great (x50) grand kids, etc. While I fully support author/creator rights and the idea of leaving something to the next generation there have to be limits. Never ending copyrights are a bad idea.
- CaptCarrot, on 09/23/2009, -0/+1It would seem that Marvel would likewise have to license Sub-Mariner and the Human Torch, as they also were pre-Marvel characters (albeit it was a different Human Torch).
- CJDarkhaven, on 09/21/2009, -1/+1...right in the kisser!
- KarlH, on 09/21/2009, -5/+5OK, but where was this "estate" back in 1996 when Marvel filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection? Banging on the door, eager to shoulder some of the huge debt that Kirby helped create?
Or are they -- heaven forbid -- only interested in Kirby's legacy when it makes a ton of money? - mojorising79, on 09/23/2009, -0/+0I'm Spiderman B!tch!
- acroyear2, on 09/21/2009, -1/+1hell yes.
- MikeCI, on 09/21/2009, -1/+1This sounded scary at first, but I suppose it's cool if the wealth can be spread from the surge of income that this intellectual property will soon generate.
- evanman69, on 09/21/2009, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Comics
The comic-book arm of the company started in 1939 as Timely Publications, and by the 1950s had generally become known as Atlas Comics. Marvel's modern
Marvel is Timely and Atlas.
No licensing involved.
Get your facts right.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is