ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 632
Mar 20 10 11:05 AM
Registered Member
deejayway wrote: 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 X-Men (ditto; Magneto, the Sentinels)
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 X-Men (ditto; Magneto, the Sentinels)
Posts: 14376
Mar 20 10 11:22 AM
Posts: 10379
Mar 20 10 12:23 PM
I think the Kirby family was motivated more by the copyrights becoming due in a few years rather than Disney's entry into the picture...
Posts: 1897
Mar 20 10 12:27 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:I think the Kirby family was motivated more by the copyrights becoming due in a few years rather than Disney's entry into the picture... I suspect this is the case, as well. There's a specific window built into the changes to Copyright Law that has made this possible -- and of course, since the copyrights will eventually expire (snop snickering, whoever is doing that), it's in the best interests of the creators to act sooner rather than later. What Marvel's aquisition helps to demonstrate, though, is how valuable many of these properties have turned out to be.
Posts: 7802
Mar 20 10 12:57 PM
vapspwi wrote: deejayway wrote: 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 X-Men (ditto; Magneto, the Sentinels)Surely Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne should get more credit than Stan and Jack for making the X-Men a success. The book was a low-to-mid-level title under Stan and Jack, and eventually got cancelled in its original form despite solid work from Thomas and Adams. It's the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne (with an initial assist from Wein) X-Men that became a mega-success at the movies, on TV, and in toy stores and such. Stan and Jack's work contributed about as much to the success of the X-Men as did the guy that invented the staple - should he get a cut, as well?
Mar 20 10 3:42 PM
deejayway wrote: You're right of course but there's still no denying that Kirby made a significant contribution to what turned out to be a valuable property. Yes Thomas & Adams and Claremont & Byrne produced considerably better work on the X-Men than Stan & Jack but the fact is that if they hadn't created the original premise, there never would've been an X-Men.
Posts: 25865
Mar 20 10 6:37 PM
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 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.I agree!Deejayway wrote (Post #65):You're right of course but there's still no denying that Kirby made a significant contribution to what turned out to be a valuable property. Yes Thomas & Adams and Claremont & Byrne produced considerably better work on the X-Men than Stan & Jack but the fact is that if they hadn't created the original premise, there never would've been an X-Men.Probably legally the Kirby's don't have a leg to stand on but that's not the point AFAIC. It's a matter of decency. And people can cite as many examples as they like of the working Joe getting shafted, that doesn't diminish one iota the injustice done to Kirby and his heirs. It's almost as if people who have been subjected to similar injustice to Kirby, begrudge him getting a fair shake.If injustice is endemic, do we all just throw up our hands in the air and say "well it happens to everyone so we just have to accept it"?No. If we did, there would never be any progress. I agree!Well stated, Deej!
My name is Oedi and I soar amidst the stars far from the planet of my birth. I guess this starship is the closest thing I've got to a home now, for I am a refugee and an outlaw. Vanth Dreadstar, Syzygy Darklock, Willow 327, Rainbow and Skeevo are my family. We are revolutionaries. Our goal? To bring an end to the 200 year old war between the Instrumentality and the Monarchy!
Mar 20 10 6:48 PM
It's almost as if people who have been subjected to similar injustice to Kirby, begrudge him getting a fair shake.
Mar 20 10 6:50 PM
richard63 wrote: In the end, I suspect that the Kirbys will not get a dime. While you can make a "moral" case for Kirby deserving a bigger piece of the pie than what he got, the legal grounds just aren't there, in my opinion.
Mar 20 10 6:55 PM
Mar 20 10 7:10 PM
Posts: 3826
Mar 20 10 8:27 PM
Mar 20 10 8:35 PM
Mar 20 10 8:37 PM
Or, if the Kirby estate does win something from all of this, will Stan follow suit and will he get as much crap for it?
Posts: 1816
Mar 20 10 9:18 PM
Mar 20 10 9:22 PM
Mar 20 10 9:30 PM
I think that Stan could probably sue if he wanted to, as the copyright law seems to allow creators to sue regardless of prior agreements.
Mar 20 10 9:32 PM
Posts: 457
Mar 21 10 12:08 AM
Posts: 11116
Mar 21 10 3:00 AM
"First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties."
Share This