ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 11116
Mar 21 10 3:49 AM
Registered Member
Posts: 7802
Mar 21 10 6:42 AM
Posts: 10379
Mar 21 10 1:13 PM
At over six feet, a former semi-jock, and weight lifter...
Posts: 7172
Mar 21 10 2:39 PM
deejayway wrote:That's your problem Red, nobody takes you seriously because you never give a serious answer.
Posts: 1753
Mar 21 10 3:40 PM
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: 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.Uh-huh. Yeah, I've spent my years in law school too. Getting it in writing is preferred for a reason. They're HARD to enforce.Try to prove what was said in court -- especially an alleged 50 year old oral promise...You can claim anything in an oral promise complaint. But you'd better have a boat load of witnesses who were there and heard every word exactly as the plaintiff says it was said. Waiting some 50 years before filing tends to reduce the number of witnesses (if there were any -- I doubt Goodman would ever say something like the Kirby estate claims in front of others).This case will be settled if and only if Disney decides its not worth the expense/publicity of defending it. It can toss a million at the Kirby's -- much of which will go to their lawyers -- or fight until all the Kirby family has died of old age. Corporations are immortal.One question, why not sue the Goodman estate, if any? If Jack was telling the truth, then Goodman's to blame, not which ever companies bought up Marvel since. Oh, right, there may not be a Goodman estate left and the despised Disney goliath is freaking rich. This is American greed at its "best." Sue for a settlement to make you go away.Kirby could have had the testicles to fight while he and most potential witnesses were still alive. He might have had a case then and I'd love to have seen him on the stand. Granted he did pretty poorly in the other legal case he was involved in, when he was found liable for not paying then DC editor Jack Schiff monies due him by Kirby. Apparently Jack was not the best witness when he testified.
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.
21. In the period relevant to this action, Marvel’s Predecessors had a tiny office, very few employees, and fed the printing presses of related entities with comic book material purchased for publication from “freelancers” to which they had little or no obligation. 22. During this period, Kirby was not an employee of any of Marvel’s Predecessors and was not paid a fixed salary or wage by any of them. Marvel’s Predecessors were not financially obligated to Kirby, kept their options open, and thus never committed to any written agreement pursuant to which Kirby was to create his works. Like many others during this difficult economic time, Kirby worked solely on a freelance basis out of his own home, with his own instruments and materials and thereby bore the financial risk of creating his copyrighted
23. The Kirby Works were not created as “works-made-for-hire” for Marvel’s Predecessors. Fourth, the Central District of California is not "Bleak House." Just as the Superman case has progressed, so too will the Kirby lawsuit. Disney cannot "stall" the case indefinitely. That is not how the Federal Courts, and more specifically, this District Court, works.Fifth, it's very obvious why the Goodman Estate wasn't sued. They don't claim the copyrights. Again, this is a suit about copyrights, not about fraud or oral contracts. RRR's opinions about why Kirby did this or didn't do that or what kind of witness he would have made all ignores that 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. Instead, this case is all about employment status. And it will be Marvel's burden to prove that they had the proper contracts with Kirby which made his art work made for hire. If Marvel can't prove that, then they have a problem.
Mar 21 10 3:56 PM
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: "First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties."... a part from the fact they still get money from those 60s productsThe current owners are not responsible legally or morally for fantasies that Martin MIGHT have told Jack Kirby way back when. They're certainly not responsible if Jack, who RAN HIS OWN COMPANY as co-owner in the fifties and had twenty years of experience in the industry was gullible enough to believe Goodman. This suit is greed, pure and simple. And, being an American, if I was in the Kirby family's situation and could get a law firm to represent me in this on a contingency basis, I'd sue too. I'd be wrong morally, but what the heck, money is money and embarrassing an "evil" corporation into settling has worked many times before.
"First, the corporation the Kirby's are suing had nothing to do with Marvel Comics in the sixties."
Mar 21 10 4:21 PM
Posts: 13497
Mar 21 10 5:09 PM
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...
Mar 21 10 5:16 PM
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.
Mar 21 10 5:26 PM
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.
Posts: 3826
Mar 21 10 7:00 PM
Mar 21 10 8:29 PM
KirbyFan4ever wrote:I think the reason Jack "held back" was because he was tired of seeing his creations bastardized, like Stan did with the Surfer. He was under no obligation to contribute new ideas/create new characters; he was there to illustrate Stan's "stories" - so if there's anyone to be criticize about a perceived lack of originality, I think that should be Stan.
Mar 21 10 8:46 PM
KirbyFan4ever wrote: I do not think it's "greedy" of his estate to want a part of the income Jack's creations are generating, if they are entitled to it - and I guess that's for the courts to decide.
Mar 21 10 10:25 PM
Mar 22 10 4:32 AM
Well then, I musk ask (without taking things too personally), was Jack Kirby completely stupid in the ways of the business at that time? 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.
Posts: 14425
Mar 22 10 7:01 AM
Golden Age
Posts: 11308
Mar 22 10 7:44 AM
Mar 22 10 7:52 AM
Mar 22 10 10:26 AM
It sure would be nice if I could go back to my former employer and say: "You know those 25 years that I agreed to work for you for 'X' dollars? Well upon further reflection, I've decided that my efforts on your behalf were actually worth 'X+Y' dollars.
I repeat, it's an unjustified lawsuit to gain a settlement by embarrassiing the "evil" Disney monster.
Mar 22 10 11:48 AM
droid714 wrote: It sure would be nice if I could go back to my former employer and say: "You know those 25 years that I agreed to work for you for 'X' dollars? Well upon further reflection, I've decided that my efforts on your behalf were actually worth 'X+Y' dollars. Please send me a check for the difference at your earliest convenience. And if I die before you cut the check, just make it payable to my heirs."
Share This