Change.org Petition: Give Jack Kirby Credit & Royalties in Masterworks Message Board Forum

RSS
Email

Change.org Petition: Give Jack Kirby Credit & Royalties

Author	Comment
psykomyko		#61	[-]
Posts: 2341 Feb 8 12 11:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fin Fang Foom wrote: A boycott threat did help in the Siegel/Shuster case, though. Maybe history will kinda repeat itself? Was there really ever the effective threat of a boycott in that instance? I don't recall ever hearing that the effort was that well organized outside of comics -- what really got this issue moving back in the day (at least, from what I remember reading) were well-placed and well-informed people actually taking the story to the media and to DC and Warner Bros. (Honestly, even with the very best of intentions and the loudest of protests, comic book readers just don't strike me as an effective force when the threat is a boycott.) Well, Jerry Siegel sure advocated a boycott: he wrote (in his press release to the media that kicked it all off), "I hope loyal SUPERMAN fans stay away from it in droves. I hope the whole world, becoming aware of the stench that surrounds SUPERMAN, will avoid the movie like a plague." This led to Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson creating an international movement to publicly shame Warners into doing the right thing. PDF here: http://archives.tcj.com/275/siegel1975.pdf Could something kinda/sorta similar happen regarding Kirby and the Avengers movie? Marvel just needs to follow DC's example and do the right thing... From Wikipedia: In 1975 after news reports of their pauper-like existences, Warner Communications gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year and health care benefits. Jay Emmett, then executive vice president of Warner Bros., was quoted in the New York Times as stating, "There is no legal obligation, but I sure feel there is a moral obligation on our part." Will a boycott by fans and pros make a difference? Will more comics professionals publicly protest Kirby's treatment, like Steve Bissette and James Sturm? Neal Adams did issue a veiled threat recently, so: maybe? It couldn't hurt to try. Mike Hansen All Day Comics alldaycomics.com
	Remove this ad
DavidTai		#62	[-]
Posts: 16571 Feb 8 12 11:07 PM Forum Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think FFF is suggesting that, instead of organizing it among comics blogs and comics readers and such, to take it to a much broader, much more public audience. In this case, instead of spreading it among comic websites, spread it among news sites, and spread it higher up to such a point that Disney has to notice. Comic book readers as a group is relatively small. News media spreading it rather than Bleeding Cool and other comic book media would probably be more impactful. -------------- Brother Eye is watching. --------------
richard63		#63	[-]
Posts: 12687 Feb 8 12 11:23 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, Jerry Siegel sure advocated a boycott: he wrote (in his press release to the media that kicked it all off), "I hope loyal SUPERMAN fans stay away from it in droves. I hope the whole world, becoming aware of the stench that surrounds SUPERMAN, will avoid the movie like a plague." I doubt very much that it was any actual boycott that resulted in those pensions being granted, but the publicity that was generated about Siegel and Shuster's plight by Adams and Robinson's campaign. Your wikipedia quote states that the pensions were won in 1975. The movie didn't come out until 1978. Now, when they got that financial support from Warner, those gentlemen were in bad financial straights, Shuster in particular (if I recall correctly he had gone or was going blind). The problem in this instance is that it's a lot harder to generate sympathy in a case where the creator in question has been dead for 18 years. He's faster than a bullet, stronger than a train He's the one who got lucky, got his cape around miss Lois Lane I can't believe my dilemma is real I'm competing with the Man of Steel - "Jimmy Olsen's Blues" by the Spin Doctors Last Edited By: richard63 Feb 8 12 11:30 PM. Edited 1 times.
Fin Fang Foom		#64	[-]
Posts: 9368 Feb 9 12 1:12 AM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Doesn't sound like there was much threat of a boycott -- that just sounds like Jerry Siegel speaking in anger. I think FFF is suggesting that, instead of organizing it among comics blogs and comics readers and such, to take it to a much broader, much more public audience. In this case, instead of spreading it among comic websites, spread it among news sites, and spread it higher up to such a point that Disney has to notice. Ultimately, yeah, if you really want to accomplish something. I still find the idea of these petitions to be a weak, passive response -- you could get a zillion signatures, but if there's nobody to bring them to the attention of someone who can make a difference (didn't seem to be any provision for doing so on the petition, not that I could find), and nobody to act as an advocate on behalf (that seems to be what made the difference for Siegel and Shuster), I think there's a limit to the kind of difference that can make. If you want to fight this, at least take the fight to Marvel. I don't think an organized boycott is a bad idea (and the tools to organize are available to us all to do so in ways that were almost unimaginable in the mid-1970s) -- but having spent more than 30 years in comics fandom, I just don't have that much faith in comic book fans that most of 'em will do better than chase after their own self-interests. A Week Ago Tuesday: My blog, where I never, ever write about comics (though I think I did, once or twice).
psykomyko		#65	[-]
Posts: 2341 Feb 9 12 1:19 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Comics Ticker has linked to the petition: http://thecomicsticker.bl...royalty-petition-at.html Mike Hansen All Day Comics alldaycomics.com
Phonics Monkey Vol 2		#66	[-]
Posts: 6173 Feb 9 12 7:44 AM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	DavidTai wrote: I think FFF is suggesting that, instead of organizing it among comics blogs and comics readers and such, to take it to a much broader, much more public audience. In this case, instead of spreading it among comic websites, spread it among news sites, and spread it higher up to such a point that Disney has to notice. Comic book readers as a group is relatively small. News media spreading it rather than Bleeding Cool and other comic book media would probably be more impactful. Would real news outlets even care about this, though? I have a hard time believing that CNN would pay any mind to this, and Fox News would be on the side of the multinational conglomerate squashing the "bottom feeders". Junk Food For Thought- The Consumer Reports of collected editions.Turning OCD into a lifestyle choice. DC Collected Editions Fans Who Want Sewn Bindings and Books That Lay Flat- a watchdog organization dedicated to superior book production. Join us.
DavidSpofforth		#67	[-]
Posts: 3203 Feb 9 12 10:47 AM Golden Age Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fin Fang Foom wrote: I still find the idea of these petitions to be a weak, passive response -- you could get a zillion signatures, but if there's nobody to bring them to the attention of someone who can make a difference (didn't seem to be any provision for doing so on the petition, not that I could find), and nobody to act as an advocate on behalf (that seems to be what made the difference for Siegel and Shuster), I think there's a limit to the kind of difference that can make. If you want to fight this, at least take the fight to Marvel. I don't think an organized boycott is a bad idea (and the tools to organize are available to us all to do so in ways that were almost unimaginable in the mid-1970s) -- but having spent more than 30 years in comics fandom, I just don't have that much faith in comic book fans that most of 'em will do better than chase after their own self-interests. Why should Marvel or the Mouse even care about a petition? The only thing that interests a big corporation is the bottom line. Everybody who signs the petition should be boycotting all Marvel/Disney products and writing to the suits to tell them why if they feel that strongly and want any of the suits to notice.
theinternetsucks		#68	[-]
Posts: 496 Feb 9 12 1:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I am pretty sure conventions and such will continue. This seems to send a message of "Don't sue or we will SCREW."
psykomyko		#69	[-]
Posts: 2341 Feb 9 12 2:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Could the mods consider spinning off the Gary Friedrich discussion into a separate thread? It's an important topic, too, that I think deserves its own place on the board. Comics Alliance has discussed the Kirby case: http://www.comicsalliance...ngers-movie-over-marvel/ Mike Hansen All Day Comics alldaycomics.com
Matthew McCallum		#70	[-]
Posts: 3052 Feb 9 12 6:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	psykomyko wrote: Matthew McCallum wrote: Mike, I wish the petition in question was those four bolded sentences. Me, too. Despite how it looks, I'm not at all a fan of boycotts. A boycott threat did help in the Siegel/Shuster case, though. Maybe history will kinda repeat itself? Actually, it's the boycott portion that bothers me least, or more accurately, to which I pay little mind. It's the editorial such as "paid a few dollars a page" which makes it sound like Kirby was conscripted against his will into something akin to a press gang. And the lines like "created or co-created" followed by a list of chracters that Kirby co-created and "acknowledge Jack Kirby's authorship and primary role in the creation" which suggests Stan Lee and company had little to nothing to do with the process. I'm a huge Kirby booster, but I do not believe you cure historical injustice by denying or slighting the contributions of others.
	Remove this ad
DavidTai		#71	[-]
Posts: 16571 Feb 9 12 10:06 PM Forum Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ghost Rider thread has been spun off. As you were. -mod -------------- Brother Eye is watching. -------------- Last Edited By: DavidTai Feb 9 12 10:26 PM. Edited 2 times.
DavidTai		#72	[-]
Posts: 16571 Feb 9 12 10:57 PM Forum Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It would probably help if I remembered to unlock this thread, yes. Sorry, I went to grab food! -mod -------------- Brother Eye is watching. --------------
BillyBatson4360		#73	[-]
Posts: 2524 Feb 10 12 8:42 AM Golden Age Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Matthew McCallum wrote: It's the editorial such as "paid a few dollars a page" which makes it sound like Kirby was conscripted against his will into something akin to a press gang. And the lines like "created or co-created" followed by a list of chracters that Kirby co-created and "acknowledge Jack Kirby's authorship and primary role in the creation" which suggests Stan Lee and company had little to nothing to do with the process. I'm a huge Kirby booster, but I do not believe you cure historical injustice by denying or slighting the contributions of others. I agree with you, Matthew. The "editorial" seems so woefully lacking in reality. It made it seem like Jack Kirby has NEVER been acknowledged. The irony is that Stan Lee in the early Silver Age led the way in acknowledging the talent in the Marvel Bullpen. He was the first since Bill Gaines at EC to loudly trumpet the names of the people who put the comics together. He was the one who gave Kirby the "King" nickname. Over at DC, some of the books carried creator credits, but only some. And even those didn't go out of their way to hype the talent the way Lee did. Think of how many people had to toil beneath the bogus "Bob Kane" credit on the Batman books! As I pointed out in a previous post here, Kirby, Ditko, etc. HAVE received creator credits in the Marvel movies and have frequently received creator credits in various Marvel Comics. And what is the entire Masterworks line? Does it not prominently display Jack Kirby's name on any volume to which he contributed? Are his creative efforts not effusively praised in the introduction to those books? And the same when it comes to royalties. The "editorial" makes it sound like zero royalties have ever been paid to Jack. That is simply not true. If you want to argue that Jack deserves MORE credit or that his heirs deserve MORE royalties, I probably would have no argument with that. As for being a huge Kirby fan, I am right there with you and have defended his primary role on those threads where others argue that Lee alone was responsible for Marvel's success.
kirbyfanatic		#74	[-]
Posts: 1816 Feb 10 12 11:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You say that royalties were paid to Kirby. Source? Allen Smith
psykomyko		#75	[-]
Posts: 2341 Feb 10 12 10:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kurt Busiek posted on Facebook today: Sometimes it seems that certain comics fans would stand outside soup kitchens to let people know why the needy don't actually deserve soup. I'd hope it's not really that crucial to wave the "No Sympathy From Me, Sucker" flag. Mike Hansen All Day Comics alldaycomics.com
Fin Fang Foom		#76	[-]
Posts: 9368 Feb 10 12 11:36 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I hope that's not meant to imply that honest, thoughtful discussion of dissenting opinions about this amounts to "No sympathy." A Week Ago Tuesday: My blog, where I never, ever write about comics (though I think I did, once or twice).
videofarmer		#77	[-]
Posts: 1213 Feb 11 12 10:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fin Fang Foom wrote: I hope that's not meant to imply that honest, thoughtful discussion of dissenting opinions about this amounts to "No sympathy." I believe on some boards (not ours!) there are lots of posters with Asperger's or some other condition that leaves them without the ability to empathize. I'm sure Busiek can tell the difference between the posters that are looking at things from various viewpoints and those that are just jerks. Is this about the Kirbys or Freidrich though? The Kirbys aren't "needy" are they? I hope not!
hixon23		#78	[-]
Posts: 2428 Feb 11 12 1:00 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If they were truly "needy" and not wanting, I'd feel differently. All I see is people looking for the $$$$$$$$$$$. Sorry your dad was a lousy businessman- live with it. No sympathy here.
kirbyfanatic		#79	[-]
Posts: 1816 Feb 11 12 3:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sympathy doesn't have a thing to do with it. Did Kirby, and Friedrich for that matter, have a hand in the creation of characters that are still, after years, producing profit for the corporation? Yes, they did. So, from a moral viewpoint, I have no problem with giving Kirby and Friedrich just a piece of it. It makes more sense than giving all of it to someone who happened to buy some stock. Allen Smith
richard63		#80	[-]
Posts: 12687 Feb 11 12 3:40 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Has anyone here owned a piece of original artwork and then later sold it for a significant profit? How about a well sought after back issue? If so, did you feel a moral obligation to give the original creators or their descendants a cut? If I sell Amazing Fantasy #15 for $100,000, should I send Ditko a check for $10,000? He's faster than a bullet, stronger than a train He's the one who got lucky, got his cape around miss Lois Lane I can't believe my dilemma is real I'm competing with the Man of Steel - "Jimmy Olsen's Blues" by the Spin Doctors Last Edited By: richard63 Feb 11 12 3:43 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Change.org Petition: Give Jack Kirby Credit & Royalties