ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 11116
Mar 19 10 2:40 AM
Registered Member
BTW - Red, I paraphrase that quote a lot. It is my favorite (and arguably, the best) line from my all time favorite picture!
Posts: 7802
Mar 19 10 4:54 AM
Posts: 14425
Mar 19 10 6:12 AM
Golden Age
Posts: 632
Mar 19 10 7:02 AM
deejayway wrote: That's like defending slavery because it was legal at the time. Exploitation is exploitation and there are morals that transcend legalities. The way Kirby was treated by Marvel was indefenisble and the way Marvel/Disney still dodge the issue behind a wall of lawyers is a disgrace.
Posts: 444
Mar 19 10 10:30 AM
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote:1) when we come to a point that some of us feel we are Entitled to what others have, because we don't like them, and we feel they don't deserve to have more than we do.
2) BTW - Red, I paraphrase that quote a lot. It is my favorite (and arguably, the best) line from my all time favorite picture!Which was? My favorite movie line remains "...and here's one for Sherlock Holmes, there was enough formic acid in him to kill twenty men."
1) Hey - I'm untitled to a late night typo every once in awhile.2) It's from some obscure 1941 art film. Think that the English title translation was "White House."
Posts: 1816
Mar 19 10 11:35 AM
Posts: 3259
Mar 19 10 1:39 PM
Mar 19 10 2:19 PM
I'm not sure that I really care about the Marvel characters anymore, it's the writer or artist that I follow. As long as a story is good, it doesn't matter too much who the hero is. Allen Smith
Posts: 969
Mar 19 10 4:30 PM
Bronze Age
Posts: 527
Mar 19 10 4:46 PM
ewburnham wrote:Kirby was paid by the page. Marvel sold the books at 12 cents a pop and made their bucks. This was pretty all that anyone expected to make at the time by producing comics in them thar' days. Anything else later is gravy. So ok, so pass the gravy.
Posts: 1753
Mar 19 10 4:56 PM
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: Kirby maintains that Goodman made promises that were not kept - so maybe he was not compensated in the manner he was lead to believe. Possibly, maybe; given Goodman's reputation, even likely. But Jack was an adult, a former publisher himself, and had to know that "promises" not committed to paper in the proper legal form are worthless. Get a lawyer, get the "promises" in writing, and don't complain about it later if you don't and the other guy doesn't live up to what you thought he promised.
Kirby maintains that Goodman made promises that were not kept - so maybe he was not compensated in the manner he was lead to believe.
Posts: 1897
Mar 19 10 5:00 PM
sfcityduck wrote:ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: Kirby maintains that Goodman made promises that were not kept - so maybe he was not compensated in the manner he was lead to believe. Possibly, maybe; given Goodman's reputation, even likely. But Jack was an adult, a former publisher himself, and had to know that "promises" not committed to paper in the proper legal form are worthless. Get a lawyer, get the "promises" in writing, and don't complain about it later if you don't and the other guy doesn't live up to what you thought he promised. Oral promises are legally enforceable and far from worthless. When you make an oral promise and then break it, you are liable for breach of contract or, if you never intended to live up to the promise, fraud.Marvel's problem is that they are the ones who should have documented their agreements with Kirby on paper dotting the last "i." Marvel needed to protect itself better. Because they did not, it appears that the Kirby Estate may have the upper hand in the present legal battles.
Posts: 14376
Mar 19 10 5:55 PM
Oral promises are legally enforceable and far from worthless. When you make an oral promise and then break it, you are liable for breach of contract or, if you never intended to live up to the promise, fraud. Marvel's problem is that they are the ones who should have documented their agreements with Kirby on paper dotting the last "i." Marvel needed to protect itself better. Because they did not, it appears that the Kirby Estate may have the upper hand in the present legal battles
Posts: 928
Mar 19 10 6:30 PM
Mar 19 10 11:06 PM
Oral promises are legally enforceable and far from worthless. When you make an oral promise and then break it, you are liable for breach of contract or, if you never intended to live up to the promise, fraud.
Mar 19 10 11:48 PM
So basically if a corporation takes advantage of a situation by having someone over a barrel, it's fair to exploit them and there should never be any chance of redress?
How anyone can defend such a notion is beyond me.
That's like defending slavery because it was legal at the time.
Mar 20 10 2:01 AM
Mar 20 10 5:32 AM
I'm a practical person and all for practical solutions, the most elegant solution is settlement out of court. Heck Disney/Marvel can spin it in such away that they could probably defray the costs as public relations.I don't know how principled the Kirbys are but going for copyrights just seems like a waste of time. If they receive sufficient remuneration, they will effectively receive the financial support AND opportunities Jack worked so hard to give them in life. That has a nice sense of poetic justice to them.If subsequently fumble the ball and squander the settlement, then that is their responsibility.Now, the question is what would be a fair and feasible settlement?Stan received a million bucks a year plus a hefty settlement recently so I figure Stan was paid at least 30 million bucks in the past 3 decades.I would consider that fair for the Kirbys but I don't think Marvel/Disney would go for it.Now if we look at Marvel's most significant, money-generating properties, I think it safe to say that almost everyone would agree that Jack made a significant contribution to:
The FF (including the supporting cast of important ancillary characters like; Silver Surfer, Black Panther, Dr. Doom, the Inhunmans, Galactus)The X-Men (ditto; Magneto, the Sentinels) Thor (ditto; Odin, Baldur, Hela, Heimdall, Mangog, Loki)Captain America (ditto; Red Skull, Batroc (okay, okay)The HulkOf course strong arguments could be made about other properties but the above seem unassailable. The Avengers for instance was merely a collection of already established properties so I wouldn't describe Jack's contribution to the title as "significant".
I think a million bucks per property is a fair so five millions dollars for the Kirby's seems to me to be a nice sum. Not large enough for Disney/Marvel to sweet it but big enough to be seen as a moral victory and more significantly, big enough to give the Kirby estate financial security now and - if they play their cards right - in the future.
Mar 20 10 5:51 AM
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: So basically if a corporation takes advantage of a situation by having someone over a barrel, it's fair to exploit them and there should never be any chance of redress? First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties. And, yes, it is fair to exploit people who don't know their own worth. That's the American way. Well, its also the Chinese way, the Vietnamese way, etc. If Kirby is gullible enough to think Martin Goodman is going to honor something NOT on paper, then he shouldn't have been surprised at the result. Maybe Kirby, when a publisher himself, should have supported an artists' union? ME: Great company to keep and fine examples to cite in support of the morality of your argument.I'm not arguing whether or not Kirby had the courage of his convictions (he obviously left the real fighting to others) but that's irrelevant. He deserved more than he got, whether he was willing to fight for it or not. If a local gang is extorting kick-backs, should the level of justice meted out upon them be contingent on how much resistance the victim offered? That's like defending slavery because it was legal at the time. Slavery was legal (and considered moral, see "gods" words for that) for most of mankind's history. Even Sparticus did not oppose slavery, no matter what Hollywood might have said in the movie. The alternatives when you captured people in war was to either enslave them, or kill them. The former is more civilized per 1000 BC thinking. Usually they compromised and did both. Killed the men and enslaved the women...The slaves imported into the Western Hemisphere (after the American Indians proved to be too sickly to serve as labor) were ALREADY slaves sold by their (black) masters to Arabs, Europeans, and Indians in exchange for goods. There was no serious questioning of slavery until late in the 18th Century. Slavery still exists in parts of Africa, and if you consider the way women are treated in most societies, in nearly all the other continents as well.ME: Besides the historical inaccuracies, that is considered an argument in favour of slavery? I think you're working too hard on your idiosyncratic, irascible image.We cannot impose our morality on those who came before us and thus condemn them. We can merely attempt to act in a more enlightened way now.ME: And were you thinking of making an attempt any time soon?There's no evidence so far at least.
Posts: 3099
Mar 20 10 10:23 AM
deejayway wrote: ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: So basically if a corporation takes advantage of a situation by having someone over a barrel, it's fair to exploit them and there should never be any chance of redress? First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties. And, yes, it is fair to exploit people who don't know their own worth. That's the American way. Well, its also the Chinese way, the Vietnamese way, etc. If Kirby is gullible enough to think Martin Goodman is going to honor something NOT on paper, then he shouldn't have been surprised at the result. Maybe Kirby, when a publisher himself, should have supported an artists' union? ME: Great company to keep and fine examples to cite in support of the morality of your argument.I'm not arguing whether or not Kirby had the courage of his convictions (he obviously left the real fighting to others) but that's irrelevant. He deserved more than he got, whether he was willing to fight for it or not. If a local gang is extorting kick-backs, should the level of justice meted out upon them be contingent on how much resistance the victim offered?
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: So basically if a corporation takes advantage of a situation by having someone over a barrel, it's fair to exploit them and there should never be any chance of redress? First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties. And, yes, it is fair to exploit people who don't know their own worth. That's the American way. Well, its also the Chinese way, the Vietnamese way, etc. If Kirby is gullible enough to think Martin Goodman is going to honor something NOT on paper, then he shouldn't have been surprised at the result. Maybe Kirby, when a publisher himself, should have supported an artists' union? ME: Great company to keep and fine examples to cite in support of the morality of your argument.I'm not arguing whether or not Kirby had the courage of his convictions (he obviously left the real fighting to others) but that's irrelevant. He deserved more than he got, whether he was willing to fight for it or not. If a local gang is extorting kick-backs, should the level of justice meted out upon them be contingent on how much resistance the victim offered?
Share This