General Category > Comic Related Discussion

Jack Kirby's copyrights and Steve Ditko's departure from Marvel Comics

<< < (8/17) > >>

Roygbiv666:

--- Quote from: josemas on March 31, 2011, 05:15:45 AM ---I noticed that Adams mentioned that he used to cross out the "work for hire" clause on the back of his checks before he cashed them.  I wonder if this sort of action on his part has any affect on the whole subject.

Best

Joe

--- End quote ---

Yeah, but for that to mean anything, wouldn't he have to send it back to DC/Marvel and have them accept it first? It's part of the whole contractual "offer-consideration-acceptance" thing isn't it?

josemas:

--- Quote from: Roygbiv666 on March 31, 2011, 06:47:34 AM ---
Yeah, but for that to mean anything, wouldn't he have to send it back to DC/Marvel and have them accept it first? It's part of the whole contractual "offer-consideration-acceptance" thing isn't it?

--- End quote ---

You got me. 

Adams makes it sound as if there were no contracts from the comic publishers of any sorts for him back in the Silver Age other than that statement printed on the backs of the checks.

My brother is a business professor with a law degree.  Maybe I should ask him his two cents on this.

Best

Joe

John C:
From what little I understand of contract law, cashing the check is considered acceptance of the client's terms (whatever they were understood to be at the time), and alterations to terms can only be managed by mutual acceptance, usually by both parties initialing the change.

So, at best, it was a micro-protest.

What is (again) interesting is that people in the case keep saying that the TERM "work for hire" was never used, when it obviously wasn't, since it wasn't a legal term in this country until 1976.  So Adams may be embellishing or misremembering when he says that it was on the check and that he crossed it out, unless he means much later.

(Imagine a movie star from the '60s insisting that he should get extra royalties, because nobody at the time of filming ever mentioned selling it "on DVD"...)

Yoc:
I can see that happening very easily John.

Drusilla lives!:
IMO Kirby was ripped off... period.  He should have sued for a piece of the merchandise and cartoon licensing profits when he left Marvel.  And so what if he never worked in comics again, he would have been better off financially.  

But from all accounts he wasn't like that.  I think he liked the work too much... the creative process... more than the money.  Nevertheless, perhaps the family is entitled to some sort of compensation.  After all, the work he did back then is indeed the foundation on which Marvel's current success is built... and although it might have been legal at the time, he clearly wasn't adequately compensated for his contribution to that future success, since it (his early Marvel intellectual contributions) is indeed directly related to the current use of those properties that he had such a great influence over.  

In other words, IMO it's the right thing to do, even though there may not be a legal obligation on the part of Marvel to do so.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page