General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Jack Kirby's copyrights and Steve Ditko's departure from Marvel Comics
JVJ (RIP):
One thing you must admit, bc,
is that while municipal workers may have unionized over the years (primarily because society places a value on pot-holes being filled), comic book artists did not (primarily because there was no premium on the creation of comic books and the supply of artists available generally exceeded the demand for their services). You can't change the past. So, while I agree that a unionized, common front would have benefited Kirby and Ditko, it didn't happen that way. I would have been a "better choice", but it was one that was not made.
The "real" differences between artists and laborers are legion and "unionization" is only one of them. Another is the value placed on individuality among artists and the very different temperaments and personality types attracted to each. Nothing is a simple as anyone here has tried to portray it.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
bcholmes:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 03, 2011, 10:46:03 AM ---The "real" differences between artists and laborers are legion and "unionization" is only one of them. Another is the value placed on individuality among artists and the very different temperaments and personality types attracted to each. Nothing is a simple as anyone here has tried to portray it.
--- End quote ---
Sure, I buy that. But if you look at the way that unionization played out in Hollywood, I think that's a much closer model to how one might want to see it in the comics industry. No one disputes that actors (and directors, writers, etc.) are very different temperaments and personality types, and yet they're all part of the Actor's Guild, which works to iron out issues like actor (and writer/director/etc) compensation when new forms of media and/or distribution emerge.
BCing you
Yoc:
The idea of an artists union has been floating around in comics since Eisner was a teen. Read his 'Dreamer' GN. He and Kane went to meeting. Adams tried to do it as well IIRC.
I think Jim is correct. There's more artists than demand and it's a 'dream job' to do for so many that the field is totally controlled by the publisher. Only those that self-publish have much a chance and with only one distributor calling the shots on 'minimum' numbers are needed for a book to be carried... It's a closed shop.
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 03, 2011, 06:06:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: Drusilla lives! on April 02, 2011, 04:48:47 PM ---I'll just add one last thing.
I was considering this the other day... when Kirby and Ditko joined up with Atlas in those waning days of the 1950s, Atlas was indeed on the rocks. Basically, it was a completely renewed company by the time Kirby, Ditko and Lee hit their stride with the new superhero titles. And IMO if one is to draw a correct analogy with the workings of the computer software industry, the conditions of Atlas-Marvel at that time was more akin to a modern day software startup. If Atlas was a software company today and it brought in two high profile creative talents like Kirby and Ditko, I'm sure they would be offered not only a salary, but stock options as well. Why? Well, it's obvious. The stock options work as a method of recapturing "a cut" of future profits for these creative efforts.
--- End quote ---
The analogy falls down, DL, when you consider that Kirby and Ditko were not working full time for pre-Marvel. They weren't "brought in" to create a company, they were two guys looking to earn a paycheck and taking work where ever they could get it. Kirby was at Classics Illustrated and Archie, while Ditko was still active at Charlton and even Dell. Without a full/total commitment to a company, I don't believe that anyone today would be offered stock options.
--- End quote ---
I was just thinking along the lines of that Microsoft Windows comment that John C made earlier. To me (in retrospect) Kirby seems to have been to Marvel (and Lee) what perhaps Paul Allan or many others were to Bill Gates and the early Microsoft. That's the only reason really why I suggested that perhaps Kirby should have been given a small interest in Marvel at the time... but that wasn't the culture of the comics biz at that time. In fact, who knows if Kirby would have accepted such an offer from Goodman anyway. Looking back at the situation, with Atlas in such bad shape and all those shell companies on Goodman's books, perhaps Kirby would have declined the offer anyway... what's the use in having a percentage of a dying company, gaining even 1% of something that might not be around in a year is still nothing... and besides, working for Goodman was one thing, being a business partner probably would be quite another.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Did Kirby get such a deal? No, not at all. So by this loose modern analogy I'd say yes, Kirby's family deserves to be compensated for loss of income/profits.
--- End quote ---
I am a firm believer in Jack Kirby's contribution to the Marvel Universe and would argue until the day I die that he deserved more than he got. BUT, I simply reject the notion that his family is owed anything. Families aren't the creators of the work and their contributions are non-existent. The copyright of a work is a tangible asset that can be willed to an heir or heirs, so if there is a legitimate copyright that Kirby can be shown to have owned, then they deserve to inherit that asset. The convoluted and insubstantial nature of the "rights" defined by the new copyright laws makes this both debatable and difficult to prove.
Personally, I think all the rights to anything done over 58 years ago should be PD and the notion that Marvel or Kirby's family should be fighting over them is sad. It seems possible that nothing will ever again fall into the Public Domain.
--- End quote ---
I'm not that big a fan of distant relatives cashing in on an artists legacy either, particularly if they intend to do so into perpetuity. But I'm no longer sure about Kirby's case. It seems such an egregious example of what was going on in the industry back then that I think the immediate family deserves at least a lump sum settlement... but then again, I also feel (as I presume you do) that it was primarily up to Kirby to have pursued legal action in this regard when he was still with us... that he didn't when he was, is just really sad. He could have not only cleared up this rights issue for himself and his family, he could have made the comics industry a better place for all artists (past, present and future).
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Of course I'm not even sure stock options as a form of compensation for key people was even a concept back then, and besides Atlas was privately held at the time. But Kirby could have at least been offered a small percentage of the comic book business... in other words, he could have been made a silent partner in the company... which IMO would have amounted to about the same thing as a stock options offering. But neither he nor Ditko (or Lee for that matter, as far as I know) were... yet they did pretty much rebuild Goodman's comic book business for him (IMO).
--- End quote ---
I also agree that Kirby rebuilt Goodman's business for him. But he did it with his eyes opened and he did it probably MORE for Jack Kirby than for Martin Goodman. He needed a steady job and he effectively created one for himself. It wasn't altruism on Kirby's part any more than it was manipulation on Goodman's. It was one more example of Capital and Labor joining forces to satisfy their own needs. We don't know exactly who said what to whom, but I think it's extremely unlikely that Kirby was concerned with the long-term returns on his creative investments until long after he had made them. As has been proved more than once in his career, he wasn't the world's greatest contract negotiator. And that doesn't make Martin Goodman an ogre (though he still may have been one).
Peace, Jim (|:{>
--- End quote ---
Ya know, if Goodman wasn't the man he was, there might never have been Timely, Atlas or Marvel. So I think it's time I stop bashing him, he was what he was... whatever that was... basically (from briefly considering his wikipedia bio) he was a survivor. An industrious man who was shaped by his early life experiences surviving the depression. Could he have done better as far as his dealings with those that worked for him? Perhaps... but considering where he started from, and all that he did accomplish despite himself, I guess we should cut him some slack as well... in other words, ogre or not, there still wouldn't have been a Spider-Man or Fantastic Four without him.
Yoc:
Next to some publishers like Victor Fox, Goodman was nearly a saint. Heck, he actually Paid his artists for completed work. Fox would duck out the back door and had to be physically threatened by some artists. Profit sharing was promised to S&K at Prize and they had to take them to court there as well.
Simon and Kirby DID do their own 'Mainline' venture. It was a case of bad timing though and that was that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version