General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Jack Kirby's copyrights and Steve Ditko's departure from Marvel Comics
Roygbiv666:
I find it interesting that the companies didn't (couldn't?) make it part of the arrangement with their freelancers for the company to not only get all the rights (copyright), but also get sole eternal posesseion of the physical piece of paper the stuff was drawn on. Anybody know why, other than that nobody viewed it as valuable at the time?
narfstar:
I think that was the only reason Roy. They saw no real value in it. The artists would surely have asked for their work back as "art" if they had thought of it as such like we now do. If they had thought it valuable I believe more of them would have gotten it back than the company wanting to keep since most threw it away :'(
Roygbiv666:
--- Quote from: narfstar on April 05, 2011, 06:42:49 PM ---I think that was the only reason Roy. They saw no real value in it. The artists would surely have asked for their work back as "art" if they had thought of it as such like we now do. If they had thought it valuable I believe more of them would have gotten it back than the company wanting to keep since most threw it away :'(
--- End quote ---
The Lesson: Today's worthless crap is tomorrow's treasure.
The Harder Lesson: That doesn't apply to everything.
THe Hardest Lesson: Knowing which is which.
Oh, those Mego mint in box action figures. If I had them and had kids, they could go to university with the sales.
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: Yoc on April 05, 2011, 03:25:30 PM ---Ok,
I'm posting this link with Some Reticence.
I do NOT want to see this turn into a typical flame war regarding Marvel vs Kirby.
I found this blog entry that does bare some possible significance to the topic of the copyright.
It is one man's opinion (who was on the inside and seems to be universally vilified for the event among other things) and he's made comments without being under oath.
Please, let's keep this topic civil. It's fascinating to read but remember nobody needs to take anything said here as a personal attack on them. Thanks!
Here is the link in question and the part that might be more significant to the current case is in a paragraph that starts with 'The Kirby case ended when...' about three paragraphs into the post.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE BLOG ENTRY.
---
Equally interesting to me see the 'Friday, June 4, 2010' entry - "Gary Friedrich loses Ghost Rider lawsuit"
--- End quote ---
Great link Yoc... but I don't recall reading anything about what Shooter's talking about regarding profit sharing offers (to Kirby) in the 70s... but nevertheless, if that's the case today for newer artists then I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Was Shooter really that instrumental with regard to this issue when he was EIC at Marvel? I always thought it was through the efforts of artists like Neal Adams that real change was brought about in the industry. I mean, I actually was still reading some of the Marvel books in the late 70s and to be honest, I never even noticed (or cared) who was EIC then... although it's also about 1980 or so that I stopped reading them... so go figure.
Yoc:
Well DL, the blog does contest some of the statements Shooter makes and even he back tracks on some earlier comments. Shooter has always claimed 'I was only following orders' and 'legal advice' while feeling bitter about his legacy at Marvel.
My main reason for posting the link was his suggestion that Kirby had already signed away all his rights for cash before the early 80s. What makes me wonder though, if such a document exists wouldn't it quickly end the entire proceedings? This is where the law gets complicated and I turn to JohnC to explain it.
;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version