sfcityduck wrote:
...this case is based on changes in the law that occurred in the mid-70s and the rights at issue have nothing to do with alleged oral promises...
Yeah, I think that's the crux of this case, as well as most of the other pre-1976 copyright cases (including the Siegel's).  The bottom line is that the modern understanding of "work-for-hire" wasn't codified until the 1976 copyright act, so it's a false assumption to assume that Kirby was somehow operating under black-and-white legal guidelines during the time he co-created most of the Marvel Universe, which is why these cases have merit and should be decided by a court of law instead of a court of opinion.  Given Kirby's long-standing beliefs towards creator ownership, I think that it's safe to say that if he were alive today that he'd like to see the lawsuit go forward, so I think the Kirby Estate is acting in accord with his interests.  Whether they win or settle is another story, but I don't see any reason why the case shouldn't be heard.