http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-usa-marvel-kirby-idUSKCN0HL2EZ20140926
Wonder how much the "go away" check was for?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kirby family settles with Marvel over character rights
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
Manmademan
Member
probably less than we're thinking. I don't care who the kirby family hired- Going up against Disney's army of lawyers makes me think of that old batman vs. captain america fight:
No one wants to spend decades and millions of dollars in court over contract minutiae if they don't have to.
probably less than we're thinking. I don't care who the kirby family hired- Going up against Disney's army of lawyers makes me think of that old batman vs. captain america fight:
No one wants to spend decades and millions of dollars in court over contract minutiae if they don't have to.
Especially since the Kirbys have lost pretty much every legal battle beforehand. And that was with Marvel's phonebook lawyers. Disney has Cabal level lawyers.
Are you saying you have as much to do with the characters as Jack Kirby!?!? The money isn't for his family. it is for Jack Kirby. Royalties and the like just don't go away when you die.
So when does Jack get them?
All of Kirby's work for Marvel was work-for-hire, and I don't believe there was any expectation of royalties.
Well he is getting something. They wouldn't have settled if Marvel didn't pay up to some extent. They have been fighting Marvel on this for decades.
There was a settlement. It may have just been the case was dismissed without the Kirbys having to pay Marvel/Disney's substantial legal fees.
But it's painfully obvious Marvel (and indeed the industry) was taking advantage of people in an unfair way.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Next up: Nintendo.
Well, yes and no.
Creator-owned characters and royalties for creators is a relatively new thing in the comic industry. Work for hire was not the preferred method, but rather the only method by which comics were produced for a very long time.
Are Kirby/Siegel/Schuster/Kane/Simon legally owed money? No.
Should the comic industry retroactively recognize the contributions of these men by sharing a tiny bit of the millions/billions generated by the characters they created? Even if the intention is to promote goodwill as compared to, say, acknowledging and righting a wrong, I would say yes.
Well given how Marvel and DC have used legal loopholes over the years, I think the laws re: comics are completely broken. So I have absolutely no problem with them being sued over their manipulations.
I agree it was the standard arraignment, but my counter-argument is that since comic book companies were in such a greater position of power that the contractual arrangement was unconscionable. If it was unconscionable the contracts would be void, and if void copyright would rest with the creator.
The fact that these types of cases go so far imply that courts may agree with this analysis. Or at a minimum, they recognize that creators have a moral right (copyright is one of the few aspects if US law to incorporate moral rights) to see returns on the success of their creations.
slightconfuse
Banned
Probably because DC does pay royalties on that stuff. Len Wien was payed a lot of money for Lucius Fox appearance in the Nolan movies
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Yeah, DC has had a compensation deals for decades now and recently updated it.
The contracts are perfectly enforceable. They've been upheld time and time again.
I support creators' rights. And I believe the corporations managing the comic companies should do the right thing. But they are not obligated to.
How is this any different than work for hire in tech or research fields?
The US system does not usually make the losing side pay, especially not for a case like this.
If he got something, it goes to his estate. He presumably had a will that explained how his estate should be divided up.
Tons of documents have become available due to the Superman lawsuit and anyone thinking Siegle and Shuster were naive or taken advantage of doesn't know the facts. They were in their twenties, had sold a number of characters to DC, and even after Superman was proven profitable, continued to sell DC characters under the exact same contract.
Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero Explores the discovery.
Holding Kryptonite Based on direct correspondence between S&S and DC as held by their lawyer in the 1947 lawsuit.
Just for some perspective on depression-era compensation:
1938 - National Avg. Salary $1,730 - S&S $04,530
1939 - National Avg. Salary $1,788 - S&S $08,612
1940 - National Avg. Salary $1,740 - S&S $38,080
1941 - National Avg. Salary $1,750 - S&S $56,573
1942 - National Avg. Salary $1,880 - S&S $63,776
1943 - National Avg. Salary $2,000 - S&S $61,490
1944 - National Avg. Salary $2,400 - S&S $57,638
1945 - National Avg. Salary $2,400 - S&S $48,795
1946 - National Avg. Salary $2,500 - S&S $49,938
In the first decade, they made a total of $401,194.85 in depression-era money, with DC under no obligation to compensate them that well.
From 1941, most of the stories were ghost written and Shuster drew only the heads- if that- of Superman. S&S remained in Cleveland, collecting checks, while DC didn't simply go around them and pay the actual talent considerably less (and DC was fully aware of who they were) as a courtesy. This also doesn't include the pensions (exceeding $200,000 a year) and settlement payments in the tens of millions of dollars.
Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero Explores the discovery.
Holding Kryptonite Based on direct correspondence between S&S and DC as held by their lawyer in the 1947 lawsuit.
Just for some perspective on depression-era compensation:
1938 - National Avg. Salary $1,730 - S&S $04,530
1939 - National Avg. Salary $1,788 - S&S $08,612
1940 - National Avg. Salary $1,740 - S&S $38,080
1941 - National Avg. Salary $1,750 - S&S $56,573
1942 - National Avg. Salary $1,880 - S&S $63,776
1943 - National Avg. Salary $2,000 - S&S $61,490
1944 - National Avg. Salary $2,400 - S&S $57,638
1945 - National Avg. Salary $2,400 - S&S $48,795
1946 - National Avg. Salary $2,500 - S&S $49,938
In the first decade, they made a total of $401,194.85 in depression-era money, with DC under no obligation to compensate them that well.
From 1941, most of the stories were ghost written and Shuster drew only the heads- if that- of Superman. S&S remained in Cleveland, collecting checks, while DC didn't simply go around them and pay the actual talent considerably less (and DC was fully aware of who they were) as a courtesy. This also doesn't include the pensions (exceeding $200,000 a year) and settlement payments in the tens of millions of dollars.
There was no court ruling and thus there was no loser. This was a settlement between the parties.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
When an artist dies, their work should become public domain.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
That was sort of the point though, that inheritance means these people also had nothing to do with the characters but will get paid. I have somewhat radical views on inheritance though.
I could get behind this.
Could you imagine how different this media landscape would be. It would be like if every videogame had the same freedome as those MUGEN games.
That's roughly what happens already, the only difference is that work-for-hire acknowledges the risk and investment of a corporation and therefore its role as the artist (then copyright terms take the next step by recognizing the immortality of corporations and putting a time limit on the term). It would be absurd to issue ownership and creator rights to contracted parties.
Imagine developing a videogame franchise worth billions because the development studio and publisher risked millions to make and distribute the game. There's no guarantee the game will be a success, but the gamble pays off.
Then imagine someone who you already compensated with a wage who drew the face of the main character dies unexpectedly. Should that individual's estate now be able to hold the entire billion dollar franchise hostage with termination rights? Meanwhile, the estate jacks up the entire property hurting all those other artists and contributors who worked to make the game what it was.
That's nuts.
Okay. But you are saying it may have just been the case was dismissed without the Kirbys having to pay Marvel/Disney's substantial legal fees. But even if cases are dismissed with a formal court ruling, they usually won't be paying the legal fees of the other side.
I'm not sure what we're arguing here. This is all speculation and is likely to remain thus. And all I meant was that the settlement between the two parties may not have included any payments.
The Kirbys may have agreed to settle in exchange for Disney not pursuing reimbursement for its legal fees.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
What? Why would the estate be able to stop the game being made if by definition it was now public domain?
I'm saying that is not a viable settlement point because any pursuit for reimbursement of its legal fees would be summarily dismissed.
In the absence of any concrete proof, I'm likely to disbelieve your statement.
But anyway, you continue to press. And again I will reiterate: The settlement between the two parties may not have included any payments.
Well I am a lawyer and I have been involved with high profile copyright cases against big corporations, so I think I can make educated guesses about settlement terms. I've also published articles on fee-shifting in the American system (the limited times that the loser can be asked to pay, such as in violations of civil rights and employment law terminations).
I can agree that it may not include any payments. I disagree that they settled so that Disney would not pursue legal fees against them.
You don't understand.
For the rights to default to the public domain someone has to exercise termination rights against the corporation. The corporation is, rightly, presumed the owner of the art they paid to have produced. No one would know otherwise.
If you are the public, if you start using that art without knowing that it's defaulted to the public domain, you are still liable to be sued. So the only way to know that it has entered the public domain early is for the estate to expensively prove- under this cockamany, idiotic, hair-brained scheme- in court that the deceased was solely responsible for the piece of work they wish to claim a right to terminate on.
Now, if you're a normal self-interested estate, do you exercise the termination rights and give that product to the public for free... or do you extort the company who now has borne all the risk on the venture but now has some profits, and threaten to assert termination rights and boot their once exclusive, branded, marketed, and valuable intellectual property into the commons? Of course, you extort. You drain the company for their money to keep your lawsuit silent.
The only thing that such a half-baked "solar highways" level plan would do is force corporations to make all artists forego their creative credits and to put loyal artists on everything so no artist could claim exclusive rights (to further anonymize and obfuscate who has the right to assert termination) and to contract around termination rights.
Copyright, currently, is tied to publication date- generally a public fact- tying it to something like creator credit, something internal is idiotic and a great way to clog up our already over burdened IP courts. Imagine an intern spending 2 months in a game development company, dying, then the estate claiming the decedent was responsible for creating the most iconic part of the- let's say- unpublished game. Are you now going to allow for discovery into top secret development just to ferret out whether there is any merit to the claim?
If you could win a windfall from this terrible idea, can you imagine the in-fighting, politics, and jockeying within a company in order to produce a single piece of art? Instead of all being a team working towards a single goal under one patron, suddenly, everyone has their own creator rights at stake and potential payday at risk if they collaborate or share or do anything that might allow someone else to take credit.
The rule makes NO sense.
An educated guess doesn't preclude a settlement like the one I suggested.
Anyway, I'm glad you finally recognized my point.
Yes of course, but then you also wouldn't preclude that they settled in favor of free movie tickets to the next Disney movie. That's what I'm getting at: the idea is ridiculous even if it is 0.0001% possibility.
MisterHero
Super Member
Stan Lee also sued Marvel because of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Legal rulings in the companies' favor shouldn't stop them from celebrating their creators. That's all the term "work for hire" means in these stories.
Manmademan
Member
Was that Stan Lee? Or Stan Lee media? Because the two are not the same thing
MisterHero
Super Member
Stan Lee Media is trying to claim Spider-Man as a character. This was about Spider-Man 1. Lee supposedly won 10% of the movie's income and also became a "Marvel ambassador".
http://www.out-law.com/page-5238 (don't know what happened to Marvel's appeal)
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll