BillyBatson4360 wrote:
Which means, legally, the heirs of Kirby weren't owed anything.

BTW Please. What I posted wasn't remotely intended to provoke tears - even sarcastic ones. That response seems wholly disconnected from what I wrote.

I have already posted multiple times that I wish Jack Kirby had received more compensation for his contributions to Marvel. However, I think any attempt to punish the Disney Corporation for the sins (real or imagined) of Martin Goodman by having them fork over cash to people who were not involved in the creation is bordering on "two wrongs make a right" kind of thinking.


Obviously, judging by the box office from Captain America: The First Avenger, Steve Bissette's "boycott" is not exactly catching on like wildfire.

The sarcasm was due to the fact that the Kirby heirs were just trying to do what Disney and Marvel have done all these years: use the law to their advantage.  For money, as Disney/Marvel take legal action for money.  So there's no unfairness involved re: the legal actions taken, although of course it would have been nice had Marvel decided to settle as a matter of good public relations.  And, that Kirby is dead doesn't matter.  No one is howling at Disney/Marvel for protecting assets purchased or created by Disney or Goodman from years and years back,, but somehow it's bad if the Kirby heirs do the same thing?

     Allen Smith
  

Last Edited By: kirbyfanatic Aug 8 11 9:28 AM. Edited 1 times.