

Specifically, the estate of Jack Kirby, co-creator of Captain America, The Fantastic Four, The X-Men, The Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, The Silver Surfer and Thor, has sent notices terminating copyright to publishers Marvel and Disney,
as well as film studios that have made movies and TV shows based on characters he created or co-created, including Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures. That’s the news from the website bleedingcool.com, which covers all things comic book. Normally these kinds of lawsuits are run of the mill for Hollywood. But not when they’re litigated by Marc Toberoff, who is the bane of Big Media. He’s had so many victories they’re hard to count, especially in he comic book arena on behalf of Superman creator Jerry Seigel against DC Comics and Warner Bros.
Like that case, Kirby’s estate is looking to regain his share of copyright in the characters and their use in comics and other media. “Such claims, if found valid, would begin from 2014 and, as always, it’s worth noting that Marvel/Disney will still own the trademarks of the characters in comics, and the studios in movies. The likelihood is that, if successful, the Kirby estate would enter into negotiation over terms to continue publishing comics based on his work,” the website wrote. Other recent cases which Toberoff has won or settled lawsuits on Lassie, Get Smart, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Wild Wild West, and Smallville. On the Superman case, Warner Bros could have been draped in black mourning the loss of a shitload of Superman dollars because of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson’s ruling: “After 70 years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman.” Think about it: Siegel sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, and his heirs got back ownership of the character in 1999 and could possibly lay claim to $50+ million of Warner Bros’ and/or its DC Comics’ cash. Can that happen in the Kirby case? The iron is that Disney CEO Bob Iger’s ties to Marvel go back two generations to Kirby himself. That’s because Iger’s late great-uncle (his grandfather’s brother) was illustrator/cartoonist Jerry Iger, who partnered with illustrator/cartoonist Will Eisner back in the 1930s to create the comic book packager Eisner & Iger Studios. And their first hire was Jack Kirby, who as you know later became the co-creator of many of Marvel’s best known characters with then Marvel editor-in-chief Stan Lee. Lee, meanwhile, has been supportive of the Disney/Marvel deal (though he is fighting lawsuits of his own on other fronts.)
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Comic book writer/editor Nat Gertler has an excellent post at his blog that might clear up some of the misconceptions people have about the Kirby/Disney-Marvel issue.
http://www.gertler.com/nat/tv/?p=1425
It should be noted that Jack Kirby did NOT sign the 4-page agreement offered by Marvel. Also note that some reports say it was a 5-page agreement.
>> The contents of the document that Kirby signed were pretty well detailed in The Comics Journal. It was a special four-page document in which Kirby’s work was in-case-there-were-any-doubts retroactively declared work-for-hire.>>
Did you go look? They “pretty well detailed” the case, but not in the way you claim.
Here’s the link: http://www.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html
As you’ll see, they report that he didn’t sign the document you claim he signed (though it’s there to be read, i all its onerous glory), and didn’t even sign the one-paragraph release that other artists signed. He signed something, but what it says has never been made public.
In addition, work-for-hire law does not allow for things to be retroactively declared work-for-hire. They’re either work-for-hire, agreed upon and documented as such, before work commences, or they’re not work-for-hire. Things can’t be made work-for-hire after the fact, because work-for-hire is not a transfer of rights, it’s a deal that depends on the idea that the artist/craftsman never had any rights to begin with, that the corporation is the legal author of the work.
If something isn’t work-for-hire at inception, the best one can do is an all-rights sale, and in that case, the reversion procedures being used here apply. In fact, it’s what they were created for.
So your assurance that the Kirbys have no leg to stand on and Toberoff doesn’t understand the law involved as well as you do are based on a misunderstanding of the facts and a further misunderstanding of the way the laws covering work-for-hire work.
>> ’m a very big comic fan, and I think Kirby is a great figure in the history of comics but I hate the estates law suits.>>
This is not a lawsuit. It’s a coptright filing.
>> If the creator doesn’t himself challange the copyright in his lifetime I have no sympathy for the family and a lawyer trying to cash in now.>>
The law allowing this is very clear — there’s a specific window of time in which such a claim can be filed, and Kirby died before that window commenced. However, the law also specifically allows the children of a creator to file such a reversion, and was designed and written to allow them to do so.
>> I hope they lose and lose quickly for the sake of the medium.>>
Whereas I hope the parties involved reach an amicable and equitable settlement that will see a fairer share of the profits generated by Kirby’s co-creations go to his family, and that more creators from the pre-royalty era get fairer deals for themselves and their family by using laws that were created specifically for them to do so.
I think that’d be better for the medium, rather than deciding that it’s somehow good for the medium to see all that money go to Disney.
lol at “good for the medium”…the medium is like a sick dog and the best thing for it would be a bullet through the brain…comics are so far off their glory years, so pitiably reduced to nerd fan fiction, that even you are famous for doing them (and nothing else)
back when I grew up, normal kids read comics…walk into a comic book store or convention today and it is the geekiest, fattest, creepiest segment of humanity on display…these guys are just waiting for chris hanson to step around the corner and ask them to take a seat
>> Kirby was an employee of Marvel when those comics were created.>>
Much like the assurance that Kirby signed a contract he never signed, this is not true.
Kirby was not an employee when the Marvel Universe was created. He was a freelancer.
The number of people who want to rush to declare that the Kirby Estate has no leg to stand on is — well, not exactly surprising, but depressing. Is it really so threatening to imagine that Disney and Marvel might have to share a little of the take? They share on stuff created more recently, and it doesn’t seem to have bankrupted them.
Interesting choice of words, considering Marvel filed for bankruptcy protection in the 90s.
(Although it should be noted that the main factors leading to this were only tangentially related to copyright/creator issues)
Marvel’s bankruptcy filings had NOTHING to do with their business model or freelancer payments or copyrights at all, and everything to do with the fact that Ron Pearlman piled the company sky-high with crap debt from his other companies and then sold it off to rid himself of his debt load. Insinuating that being kind to their freelancers had anything to do with their near-bankruptcy is completely disingenuous.
They weren’t related to copyright/creator issues at all. Marvel Comics’ publishing division was profitable throughout the bankruptcy — it was their corporate owners overleveraging the company into unsustainable debt that bankrupted them.