deejayway wrote:
You're right of course but there's still no denying that Kirby made a significant contribution to what turned out to be a valuable property. Yes Thomas & Adams and Claremont & Byrne produced considerably better work on the X-Men than Stan & Jack but the fact is that if they hadn't created the original premise, there never would've been an X-Men.

It just seems bogus to me for the Kirby estate to allege "ownership" of the X-Men as a concept or of some of the characters (if that's indeed what they're alleging - I honestly haven't been following things all that closely) when it's plainly evident that the contribution of Kirby (and even Lee) to the concept that went on to become wildly popular was relatively minor, and it was actually the work of many people over many years that led to the eventual popularity of the concept.

It's kind of like if I pay somebody to pour a foundation for my house (and he does a serviceable job at it, nothing outstanding), and then 40+ years later that guy's heirs come to me and demand partial ownership of the house because their dad poured the foundation, nevermind that without the subsequent work of a bunch of carpenters and electricians and plumbers and roofers, the "house" would just be an abandoned slab of concrete.

JRjr