General Category > Comic Related Discussion

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

<< < (2/17) > >>

narfstar:
Treating employees right keeps experienced people on the job which reduces training expense. As you point out short sightedness takes money out of the pockets of the greedy.

John C:
But to follow up on Narfstar's original response, I'm guessing that it was just a verbal "if we can, we'd like to do this."  I mean, even a verbal contract stands up in court, and Ditko and Kirby were no dummies.  So if they didn't sue, then there probably wasn't a contract of any sort.

So the question I'd ask would be why a company should bankrupt itself trying to make its employees happy?  Neither Marvel nor DC has ever struck me as rolling in cash.  Better to keep the company open and the employees employed than make them happy and unemployed, I would think.

Sure, it'd be great if every writer or artist who was responsible for something that's known outside the usual obsessive collectors, but it'd also be great if construction workers got residuals from the buildings they helped construct and scientists got something more cash of the processes they invent and discover when they're used decades later.  But those aren't the contracts you sign when you get a job, generally.

bminor:
I am extremely curious and interested in what is going to happen in court (if it gets that far) with the heirs of Kirby.
I hope that ultimately Jack does indeed in the end some sort of equitable reward and vindication for all the years of creativity he poured into Marvel comics. We all know, including Stan Lee and he has admitted this, that Jack did create the Silver Surfer, one amongst hundreds of his creations.

I hope for once the little guy comes out on top.

B.

John C:
But...why isn't his "equitable reward" the paycheck he received?

This is actually a topic near and dear to my heart, working in software.  Should my employer (or former employer) give me more money and part ownership if work I contributed to gets popular?  I certainly don't think so.  If I did, I'd do all my work for my own company, where I do own everything.  How much does Microsoft owe the thousands of programmers who have contributed to Windows and Office?  Or do they not count because we can't name any of them or we see them as being better paid...?

And I've brought this up before, but why doesn't the company's contribution matter?  For both Kirby and Ditko, their work for other publishers (including their own) have been...less popular.  It seems to me that, without Marvel or DC, Jack Kirby would be as remembered as...oh, let's say Silver Star or maybe Captain Victory.  Ditko would be "known" for...Mr. A, presumably.

Talking about Siegel and Shuster, who were essentially cheated out of their existing ownership, yes, they and their families deserve a lot.  But Kirby and Ditko created "on the clock," got a paycheck, and ended up with legions of fans who believe that's not enough and will vilify Stan Lee on their say so.  I'd call that a pretty good deal, given the low-budget nature of their chosen career.

bminor:
How about the ownership of the original artwork that Marvel held on to for all those years, and then years later only returned a piddly amount of pages to him? Artwork now worth tens of thousands of dollars?
He wanted it back, they would not give it to him.
It was his.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page