ElectricPeterTork wrote:
fubarthepanda wrote:
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.

Well then, I musk ask (without taking things too personally), was Jack Kirby completely stupid? Did he not realize that what he created would belong to Marvel? If he was ignorant going in, I could understand the case for saying these characters belong with his descendants, but I'd wager he knew that his material would belong to Marvel. Isn't that why he allegedly "held back" on the last couple years of Fantastic Four?

I mean, the creators at that time knew that their creations would belong to the companies. Roy Thomas has been quoted many times saying that he would rather rework an existing character than create something new to give to Marvel or DC, because one day, he might see that character on a movie screen, and not see a dime out of it.

If "Houseroy" knew this, I find it hard to believe the *ahem* King didn't.

You have to keep in mind that comics creators weren't racking in a lot of money at the time, so given the choice of putting food on the table and signing a bad contract versus the alternative, most of them probably went with the bad contract, especially since no could predict that Marvel would be a 1/10th of successful as they've ultimately become.  If you were betting smart money in 1961, you'd probably think they'd go the way of Atlas or, later, the ThunderAgents or Charleton, and take whatever money you could get at the time.  So, I don't think he was dumb, per se, but probably thinking about his short-term security and figuring that Goodman or someone  else would reward him separately if things ever took off.  This is a common mistake that most commercial artists make during their lifetime in a variety of entertainment fields.