I'm not surprised at all that Marvel won, but I am surprised that it was summary judgement. Mark Evanier must be feeling blue. This is the second case (Wolfman was the first) in which the judge threw out his testimony. I guess not everybody is as into hearsay as comics fans.

I think some posters are missing the crux of the case. Siegel + Shuster won because there is no doubt that Superman existed before they worked for DC. The only Marvel characters that there has even been an argument (as far as I know) that Kirby created before his Marvel employment are Sgt. Fury and Spiderman. I've heard that John Severin said that he saw Kirby drawings of Fury and the Howlers back in the 50s. Since Severin is still alive and wasn't called to testify I guess one of three things happened 1) The Kirby legal team blew this one 2) The Severin story is the usual comics rumor/hearsay/BS 3) Severin is no shape to testify.

The Spiderman claim is a real mess. I don't think Kirby had any significant role in the creation of Spiderman, but a court accepted his claims and decided it pre-existed it would set up endless litigation. Kirby basically was pitching a character that Joe Simon created either for/or with CC Beck called the Silver Spider. The character was then adapted by Simon and Kirby as the Flyf or Archie and is now owned by DC. So basically if Kirby won, either Joe Simon and CC Beck's heirs would own Spiderman or DC Comics would.

All the other Marvel characters, even if Kirby made them and pitched them while he was working for Marvel would fall under work for hire.


Re Susan Kirby and the Invisible Girl pitch. Susan Kirby was 16 years old at the time. It was 60 years ago. She stood to make millions if she won this case. This is your idea of a good witness? I really doubt that she could at that age and this distance in time, remember if it was Kirby's concept that he was pitching or just a visual design that he was taking in for approval.