moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Andrew Sigel, posting via Moriarty) (01/27/86)
After Marvel has gone on record in print saying that they are leaders or
pioneers (or whatever it was, precisely, that they did say) in the field
of creators rights, I think it only right that they be hoist on their own
petard when the truth comes out. Feeling rather vindictive this week
(must be the start of the spring semester), I hope Kirby takes them to
the cleaners.
Copyright is one of those very messy topics. And one of the messier parts
of the law is copyright renewal; who gets the rights to the character.
Fairly often, all rights revert at renewal time, and that is what Marvel
is worried about; that Kirby will prove a claim to the creation of at
least some part of the Marvel Universe, and they will have to pay through
the nose to keep rights they have come to think of as theirs.
If Kirby never signed any permanent rights over to Marvel, they could be
in severe trouble. If they're smart, they'll do what they should have
done years ago, and give him some kind of royalties, and the artwork
they owe him. DC finally bowed under to pressure years ago, and started
paying some (rather token, compared to the revenues generated) royalties
to Siegel and Schuster, creators of Superman. I'm assuming that Kirby
was not working under a "work for hire" contract while at Marvel; in
small companies (as Timely was), they may not have thought of it. I have
seen books originally copyrighted to a publishing company be renewed in the
name of the author.
One major factor, of course, is that Marvel has far more money than Kirby
to spend on litigation, should it come to this. Of course, it only takes
one ruling restraining Marvel from using the characters until the trial
is over to create havoc. If it turns out Kirby's claims are without
merit (and I have no idea what the original copyrights looked like, or
Kirby's contracts), then Marvel can continue getting away with treating
their founders and creators like dirt, while claiming that they are
treating them like gold. If Kirby's claims have any kind of merit, the
dirt they are using for creators could turn out to be their own graves.
It'll be an interesting next few years....
Andrew Sigelronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (01/31/86)
>One major factor, of course, is that Marvel has far more money than Kirby >to spend on litigation, should it come to this. **** I respectfully submit we start a Kirby defense (offense?) fund. Anyone else interested? Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/03/86)
> DC finally bowed under to pressure years ago, and started > paying some (rather token, compared to the revenues generated) royalties > to Siegel and Schuster, creators of Superman. I just want to point out one thing that isn't quite clear from this article: DC was not in danger of losing the rights to Superman, they had already won all the legal battles. They gave Siegel and Schuster pensions (not royalties) because of the incredible amount of bad publicity they were getting over the matter. The bad press also resulted in the firing of Carmine Infantino as DC publisher. > I'm assuming that Kirby > was not working under a "work for hire" contract while at Marvel; in > small companies (as Timely was), they may not have thought of it. It is my understanding that "work for hire" did not exist back then. I believe that the revision of the copyright laws a few years back established the concept of "work for hire". This should probably be cross-posted to net.legal. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Hideously disfigured by Indian curse? We can help! Call (511) 338-0959 for an appointment."
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (02/03/86)
In article <78@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >I respectfully submit we start a Kirby defense (offense?) fund. Anyone else >interested? Instead, and until Marvel tries to pull something really funny, I suggest that y'all go to your local comics shop and sign the petition sponsered by either The Comic Buyer's Guide or The Comics Journal -- I can't remember which. Basically, it says that you deplore the fact that Marvel is witholding Kirby's artwork unless he gives up his rights to the characters. Frankly, I'd say it somewhat more strongly-put terms if given the chance, but this is a good start. Most Comics shops should have one -- if they don't, suggest they start one. As people who support the comics industry, we have a responsibility to speak out against companies we do business with who practice unethical business practices. As people who enjoy comics, we should realize that the greater the outrage against organizations who screw comics creators, the better the conditions will be for these creators, and (usually) the greater the opportunity for high-quality work to be produced. And FINALLY, as comics fans, we should realize the debt we owe to the imagination of Jack Kirby. Hell, we shouldn't have to *realize* it; I may not be crazy about much of his writing, but I remember the 10-year-old Moriarty reading Fantastic Four and Thor reprints, and the vistas they portrayed. The man has been a supporter and role model for many creators, and its time to repay some of the enjoyment we got out of his work. Hot Damn! I really worked myself up over that speech! In this frame of mind, God Only Knows WHAT I might pull off against Marvel! Anybody know what Jim Shooter's Social Security Number is? "This looks like a job for BICYCLE REPAIRMAN!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
gdavis@noscvax.UUCP (Gary L. Davis) (02/04/86)
For those of you who are interested in the ongoing Kirby-Marvel war, the current issue of Comics Journal (#105) has several articles devoted to it, including an interview with Kirby himself. Predictably, Marvel has no comment. An important issue, in the making.