I was reading this thread with a familiar feeling of deja vu (how many times have swords been drawn over this issue?) and a strange growing fascination.
"Why are (some) people on opposite sides of the issue so fierce about it?" I wondered. It's not like they have a personal stake in it.
Not wanting to be contentious but perhaps this particular discussion can be given a different twist if people explain why they are so vociferous about it.
Do they have a personal stake in it?
For instance - just at random - EPT seems (to me) to take the whole matter as a personal affront. Why begrudge the Kirby's a (small) piece of the pie?
Is their admiration of their particular hero so strong that they can not stand any perceived sleight against him?
Or are they so principled that they can not abide any (perceived) miscarriage of justice?

My view is: I admire both Stan & Jack and I really appreciate their creation of the Marvel Universe. I do think Jack was more instrumental in the creation department but if Stan hadn't been such a great front man, Marvel probably never would've been such a huge success. I seems obvious that in terms of remuneration throughout the years and recognition that Stan got the lion's share, which I feel is unfair.
Without diminishing Stan's contribution or impugning his reputation, I think Kirby and his estate deserve much more.
I don't care about the legal issues - leave that to the lawyers - Kirby should've received more recompensation during his lifetime and I think it is perfectly legitimate that his heirs - who he worked all his life to provide for - should profit. Marvel/Disney should show some common decency and largesse and give the Kirby's a lump sum settlement. As far as I'm concerned, they don't even have to concede the legitimacy of their claims but just settle out of court. Who else have they got to fear? Who else could make similar claims?

My particular (leftist) bias is against corporations (I work for one so I know whereof I speak) so when it comes to Kirby vs Marvel/Disney, my sympathies squarely lie with the former. This reflects in no way on my admiration for Stan.

Furthermore, I have been involved in the creation of certain properties (on a very modest scale) and I certainly hope and expect my sons to profit from any money they generate after my death (which is unlikely but it's the principle). Yes, the contracts I have signed provide for that. Strangely, I am relatively savvy concerning retaining rights because I followed the comics rights controversy very closely during the 80s, which made me very leery about signing away any rights, no matter how worthless they seemed at the time.
To me it is bitterly ironic, that today's creators profit from the rights afforded to them by the likes of Neal Adams and Frank Miller who fought to get a fair deal for Kirby.
Even average talents today get a much better deal than Kirby in his heyday.
That's not right. No way.

Last Edited By: deejayway Mar 18 10 5:54 AM. Edited 1 times.