EXCLUSIVE: Intellectual property lawyer Marc Toberoff has a winning track record when he goes after Hollywood studios on behalf of rightsholders. But not today. I’ve just learned that he lost big in Federal Court for the Southern District Of New York after suing Disney/Marvel for the Jack Kirby Estate. The federal judge not only granted the studio motions for summary judgment but also denied the Toberoff/Kirby’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The ruling revolved around the fact that Kirby was a freelance writer and did work-for-hire and so didn’t retain the copyright. Well, you win some and you lose some. But all the Hollywood studios are chortling because they now see Toberoff as vulnerable and not invincible. “This is just the beginning,” Toberoff just told me, noting that, after the Kirby Estate exercised their termination rights under the Copyright Act, Marvel (backed by Disney) was in the middle of settlement negotiations in December 2009 and sued the Kirbys on January 8, 2010 in NY to benefit from that state’s more favorable work-for-hire case law. UPDATE: The
Walt Disney Companyissued this statement regarding the Marvel Worldwide Inc. v. Kirby ruling: “We are pleased that in this case, the judge has confirmed Marvel’s ownership rights.”
Specifically, the estate of comic book superhero legend Jack Kirby, co-creator of Captain America, The Fantastic Four, The X-Men, The Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, The Silver Surfer and Thor, 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. Normally these kinds of lawsuits are run of the mill for Hollywood. But not when they’re litigated by Toberoff, who is the bane of Big Media.
He’s had so many victories they’re hard to count, and Toberoff has won or settled lawsuits on Lassie, Get Smart, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Wild Wild West, and Smallville. In the comic book arena on behalf of Superman creator Jerry Seigel against DC Comics against Warner Bros, the U.S. District Court Judge ruled that “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.”
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. Think about it: like Siegel who sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, the Kirby estate could have received a big wad of Marvel characters cash. The irony 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.


This is completely unfair. Jack “King” Kirby deserves just as much credit for the creation of so many characters not to mention the Mighty Marvel style. Give his family his due!!!!!!!
Fair has got nothing to do with it. The judge is looking at the law
I think the commenter was talking about those greedy Marval bastards, not the judge.
Nostalgia and sentiment towards a tremendous and deeply influential talent doesn’t magically mean that a “for hire” work suddenly becomes something else.
Exactly right. The entity taking the original risk is the company. Back then $130 was a pretty substantial amount of money for an unknown. He could have chosen to try to publish his ideas on his own, but didn’t. And what about all of the ideas that the company(ies) paid for and lost their investment? Who reimburses them for that?
Amen to that.
Unless you’re in a country that respects moral rights of artists, like Japan or France.
At least break the Kirby family off $100k a year in an emeritus role or something. Greedy SOB’s
Perhaps anticipating reactions like wrtprod7′s, the Court made it very clear in its opinion that the issue before it was NOT about who is entitled to credit for the creation of the characters:
“At the outset, it is important to state what this motion is not about. Contrary to recent press accounts and editorials …, this case is not about whether Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is the real ‘creator’ of Marvel characters, or whether Kirby (and other freelance artists who created culturally iconic comic book characters for Marvel and other publishers) were treated ‘fairly’ by companies that grew rich off the fruit of their labor. It is about whether Kirby’s work qualifies as work-for-hire under the Copyright Act of 1909…. If it does, then Marvel owns the copyright in the Kirby Works, whether that is ‘fair’ or not.”
There is the law…and then there is the right thing to do. Kirby did not just help create the characters. He defined the STYLE, the ethos of Marvel comics. Its a broader influence than the heartless legal eagles on here care to imagine. Stan Lee hogs all the attention and is given respect but Kirby was a true equal.
This was a good ruling. Just because one’s family members achieved success and were talented, do not mean that these other members of the family should be able to reap in the rewards for something that they did not contribute to. Jack Kirby is well recognized of all the the work he did over the years, and his kids need to learn papa’s works are not theirs when they at no point helped create them.
Lets hope this might get the Superman debacle reexamined.
If we follow Whynpt’s logic, then no heir can benefit from the works of their forefathers. As for Kirby getting due credit, please, this ruling was Marvel’s way of wiping their feet on his memory. It’s all about greed.
Let’s get something straight. The 1909 Copyright Act didn’t distinguish between employees and independent contractors. Works created by both were automatically owned by the employer or hiring parties unless agreed otherwise. Other artists and writers who worked for Marvel at this time before 1976 even testified to that. Kirby’s heir’s do not have a leg to stand on because Jack Kirby did not own what he had a part in creating.
Well theres a lesson to be learned from this. Don’t fuck with “Disney” hahahaha
Regardless of Kirby’s creative or legal entitlement to many of these characters, Toberoff went way over the line and claimed ownership for the estate of characters Kirby wasn’t even close to 1/3 responsible for creating. It’s going to be a lot harder going into these lawsuits to argue ownership if the goal post is completely unrealistic and nearly insulting in it’s overreaching magnitude.
ha, you think lawyers only ask for what’s reasonable?.that’s the judges decision.nothing to loose by aiming high.
While I certainly agree that the Kirbys and Toberoff went over the line in trying to claim characters that Kirby already signed away all his rights to beforehand (Captain America) or flat out did not create (Spider-Man), but I think when the comic book creators like Larry Lieber, Stan Lee, and John Romita being called to testify is what doomed the Kirbys.
They pretty much all said that it was the understanding that what they did for Marvel was work for hire. So in the end, the Kirbys just had no case because their defense pretty much relied on either:
A. Jack Kirby was ignorant to the understanding that everyone understood. Which doesn’t fly because ignorance is not a valid excuse.
B. It’s Jack “King” Kirby and he deserves special treatment over everyone else. Which also doesn’t fly.
or
C. The Kirby Estate and Marc Toberoff got greedy. Which considering that it’s Marc Toberoff, is no surprise if this is the case.
To the idiot that said this
(At least break the Kirby family off $100k a year in an emeritus role or something. Greedy SOB’s)
The Kirby family already gets paid royalties from Marvel and Disney idiot. The Kirby family did this in order to get more money. So they are the ones being greedy.
I don’t think you had to call that guy “an idiot” twice.
Also, it should have been “To the idiot who said this” and a comma after “Marvel and Disney.”
Moron.
I’ve read that Marvel pays royalties to heirs only up to five years after the creator’s death. If that is the case, Kirby’s family hasn’t received anything since 1999. And even if they have, Kirby and his family haven’t received even a portion of what he’s due.
Exactly.
Mean Kirby family picking on poor widdle Disney and Marvel. Bad Bad!
See, that’s the meotional response. I get it, I really do. They should in a moral sense get some benefit from the work. absolutely and if Marvel and Disney came to some arrnagement with the fmaily, it would be great. but it doesn’t change the legal facts that an old pro like Kirby must have known what work-for-hire meant and that he was doing work-for-hire. if there were promises made that weren;t kept then he needed that in writing. By the time in question Kirby must have known the score with Siegal and Shuster should have known better.
Yeah Kirby’s kids need to go create their own shit and leave Marvel/WDC alone. Too busy clogging up the courts to take a drawing lesson, probably.
No, what we need to see is Marvel and DC crap out of the theatres.
You keep dreaming because it’s never going to happen, as long as movie goers want escapism they will be popular, as long as movies like Capitan America, Thor, Iron Man can make back what it costs, Disney will keep licensing all those toys
source?.how much are these supposed “royalties”?.
So if you create something…
Your kids shouldn’t reap the benifits of the IP
after you are dead?
you are either a complete a$$h0le or just retarded.
When you create something that is work-for-hire and give up all copyright of your creation to the company, then yes, you children do not deserve to reap the benefits after you die.
Correct. Jack Kirby was a contracted employee who was given assignments to come up with character designs after Stan Lee, the editor-in-chief at Marvel Comics, came up with concepts for these characters. Kirby and his estate are no more entitled to copyright on these characters than you are for whatever you create at the request of your employer. The situation is fundamentally different in the Superman case, as Superman’s creators created the character then approached the comic book company with the idea. Kirby knew the circumstances under which he worked, and he was not compelled against his will to perform these duties for Marvel Comics. It is true that this is about greed, but it is not “corporate greed”; it is the greed of individuals from the Kirby estate who think they can strike. Copyright law protects creators who sign away their rights and are later given a legal opportunity to claim them. As an employee performing work for hire, fulfilling an assignment, Kirby never at any moment had copyright over the work he was paid to perform. Anybody in the publishing industry who creates assigned content for his publisher knows this, whether that person is a journalist, a graphic designer, or a comic book artist.
In my opinion, the Kirbys do deserve a bit more for everything Jack Kirby has given us. The problem is that Toberoff and the Kirbys overreached and had a very weak case to begin with. They deserve more, but they don’t deserve the damn copyright, especially to characters that Jack had already signed away (Captain America) and characters that Jack had very little input with (Iron Man and Spider-Man).
And even though Kirby is the King, he doesn’t deserve special treatment over other great contributors like John Romita, Sr., Larry Lieber, Gene Colan, Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, etc.
It’s like this. Let’s say I build a car. I sell it to you. Do my kids have the right to drive it or rent it out to other people? No. That’s why it is called “Work for Hire”. You have no rights beyond negotiated compensation when someone hires you to make something for them.
The core problem is the evil of the “work for hire” concept itself. It runs completely counter to the spirit of the copyright provision in the U.S. Constitution.
I agree with this comment. The core issue here is not whether or not Kirby deserves more money, but it’s about the concept of “Work for Hire” which basically mean that the corporations and the big companies gets all the rights and the money.
How is an artist supposed to make any money? By self-publishing/printing?
How is an inventor going to make money? By starting their own company?
There needs to be more protection for original thinkers. The whole work for hire concept kills innovation and creativity because it doesn’t give enough incentive to move past the norm.
Yes, a creator/inventor gets rich by self-publishing/producing their product. Basically, by assuming the financial risk of failure.
If your creation is a failure and loses money in a work-for-hire, you do not take the loss, the company that hired you does. You still earn your paycheck.
Likewise, if your creation is a success and makes money in a work-for-hire situation, you are not suddenly entited to benefit from the finacial risk the company took on the idea. You still earn your paycheck.
I love comics and am indebted to Mr. Kirby. I hold his family no ill will. But the deserve nothing from this, rightfully so.
Am I the first to notice the “Eisner-Iger” irony?
No, but it is surprising that there weren’t more comments.
History repeats.
The Kirby family does NOT get royalties for work that Jack Kirby created. Marvel’s royalty system was instituted in the 80s, after Kirby had stopped working for them.
Marvel does not pay foreign royalties to creators, either, unlike DC.
Personally, I blame Sonny Bono.
Personally, I blame the tree.
Without Jack Kirby, Marvel would have gone out of business in 1960.
Martin Goodman was preparing to close up shop and Stan Lee was looking into alternative careers.
The perception was that Stan Lee created everything and Jack was a monkey grinding out pages, while the reality was the Marvel method of comics was Stan giving a verbal outline to Jack, Jack going off and drawing up the story, and Stan getting pages from Jack with new characters (the prime example: the Galactus story, in which Stan asked him who the hell the guy on the surfboard was…Jack’s response: “I figured a guy who eats planets would have a lackey who finds the planets for him”).
The Silver Surfer, Galactus (Stan’s outline to Jack consisted of four words: Have them fight God), The Inhumans, Doctor Doom, The Pupper Master, all popped out of the pages of the Fantastic Four, but he also had a major hand in the Hulk, Thor, X-Men, Ant-Man/Giant-Man, the Wasp and, before that, Captain America.
No amount of money is enough to compensate what he did for that company. Hell, Marvel didn’t want to return his original art for decades, either.
A little bit of comic history -
it seems to me the many of the characters like Fantastic Four ,Hulk X Men were part of the Marvel Method where who created what might be in dispute . However Captain America was brought complete to Marvel (Timely Comics ) by Simon and Kirby. We promised a cut of the profits and staff positions at Timely – Hardly a work for hire situation . Seems like there would be an argument that in case of Captain America Kirby (and Simon) would have a good case to get copyright back.
This piece is so wrong in so many ways.
The Kirby situation is significantly the opposite of Siegel and Shuster. All his Marvel work during the period at issue was done at Marvel’s request. The sole exception a) didn’t come up, b) may have had no contribution from Kirby, and c) if published as delivered would have been blatant plagiarism of another company’s published character. And this character was still brought to Marvel at Marvel’s request. And, unlike Superman, in no way ran as delivered.
As for Toberoff’s successes: Nearly all were successful shakedowns, not successful litigation. The sole exception is the Siegel and Shuster victory — now on appeal. As a lawyer, I’m underwhelmed by his track record. And part of the loss was due to incompetent handling of one of his witnesses at a deposition.
Me, I hope the Siegel and Shuster estates keep what they won, I’m hopeful for some success for the Kirby estate. But their case, legally (not morally), is utter crap.
So Marvel and Disney corporate executives (and their families)deserve income from characters Kirby created?
This is such bs and a pr disaster for them. Marvel is Jack Kirby.
I’m walking the docks and flick a cigarette into the warf. The fog rolls in as I cinch up my trenchcoat. I turn a corner padding myself ever forward. It’s all night and cold. More fog rolls in and I turn up my collar. Suddenly there’s a CRASH! behind me like rotten timbers giving way. I swing around and there before me, through the mist … It’s Steve Ditko!!
I understand the legalities involved here are about work for hire and not really about creative rights et al….Personally I wish we knew how much Money The Kirby Estate has gotten from Marvel/Disney in the last 20 years. I bet it is not much and possibly nothing…
I find it appalling that the co creator of most of the Marvel Universe and Captain America gets no BIG CREDITS on any of the movies only little created by statements buried in the end credits with the thank yous etc….For the Captain America movie his name shoulda been on the title with Joe Simons….
On top of that….Movies making these companies BILLIONS—Kirby had a hand in creating most of the original characters…Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Thor, upcoming Avengers, etc… Hell Even last seasons SMALLVILLE tv show had Darkseid as the villain another KIRBY KREATION…..no acknowledgement or royalties….Yes I realize his estate doesnt own characters copyrights..thats not the issue–They do deserve MILLIONS at the very least for his creating ALL THESE CHARACTERS they make billions off of….Just as a manner of honor….I think if they did pay the families something fair they would stop trying to sue….also the created by acknowledgments should be up front on the titles all the time….Remember Disney owed Peggy Lee millions for her work in The Lady and the Tramp and she had to sue to get it…Too late in her life she probably died before she could spend it..Not Fair Lee who has admitted that Kirby was the most creative person he has ever known…now that is saying something….gets all kind of credit, cameos in the movies, etc just cuz he is still alive and Poor Jack Kirby died…probably working at his art table….I can only imagine what kirby could have done in animation making his own movie if someone gave him a million bucks to make a movie..it would have been cosmically awesome….I hope Jack rests in peace and he knows that his creations are top of the movie charts….15 years before he died, he said Hollywood was going to beat a path to Marvels door and he was sooo right about that….way ahead of his time..even now…genius….pure genius…
In the ideal world, of course, giving Jack Kirby his equal billing as the co-creator of a number of the characters from Marvel would have been a no-brainer. Regardless of the monetary settlements (or NON-settlement, in this case), the acknowledgement of THAT much would’ve been the right thing to do. Of course, in the ideal world, we’d all also have jet-packs….
Jack Kirby gets all this credit — which he of course deserves. But Steve Ditko, on the Spider-man covers: There all great. Even #14, which compositionwise I can hear people “Oh, that’s clumsey!” Even that. There was this interesting “woodcut” look about his work. Also, an alternative dynamism is you will.
Jack Kirby’s best work? It just may be his romance books. And nobody says a word about it.