ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 10379
Aug 2 11 9:11 PM
Registered Member
I think that Disney could offer a settlement now without any negative ramifications.
Posts: 899
Aug 2 11 9:45 PM
Posts: 1289
Aug 2 11 10:58 PM
I think that Disney could offer a settlement now without any negative ramifications. It would be easy to say: "we wouldn't normally do this but Jack Kirby's contribution to Marvel was special".It would be a nice gesture and would buy them a lot good will. I hope they do it.
Posts: 8667
Aug 2 11 11:35 PM
czeskleba wrote:I doubt Wein or Wrightson get any character creation royalties for Swamp Thing. Neither Marvel nor DC started doing that until the 80's. DC grandfathered Kirby's New Gods characters in, but that was an exception.
I'm always thrilled for anyone to read or watch my work, but this particular release makes me especially happy. Unlike any and all of my Marvel stories and characters, I see royalties when any of my DC characters appear in other media. So, should you decide to buy this collection, a few cents of your purchase will ultimately see their way to me.
Aug 3 11 2:42 AM
KidColt wrote: That's my understanding, and some of you may be able to explain it better, but I thought it was a wonderful gesture by Marvel.
Aug 3 11 2:46 AM
leveret1 wrote:It may have been before the new contracts, but Wein definitely gets royalties for Swamp Thing. When talking about the Swamp Thing TV DVD set, he said:
Posts: 5920
Aug 3 11 7:33 AM
czeskleba wrote:leveret1 wrote:It may have been before the new contracts, but Wein definitely gets royalties for Swamp Thing. When talking about the Swamp Thing TV DVD set, he said:Huh, they clearly must have grandfathered Wein in also. I wonder if DC grandfathered in all the 70's characters/creators, or did Wein just negotiate himself a special deal?
Posts: 1816
Aug 3 11 8:11 AM
KidColt wrote: KidColt wrote: I agree that Bissette's heart is in the right place, but a boycott would have to extend to DC Comics and reprints of so many other companies. Isn't Steve Bissette the guy who made his reputation working on Len Wein and Berni Wrightson's Swamp Thing?? Give me a break. Your point being? That unless someone worked on something you think was important, that their opinions aren't important? Allen SmithActually, my point is who would a boycott hurt? The CEO of Disney? Unlikely.If sales on say, Thor, were to plummet due to a boycott, you know who would get hurt? The creative team. They would be unemployed. You know, the guys, who like a young Steve Bissette, back in the early 1980's, are trying to make a living and feed their families on working on company owned creations (and maybe just trying to become famous enough to do their own creations someday, like Bisette eventually did). Others have said the boycott idea is misguided, and I agree. It's the same as when the oil spill happened and people wanted to boycott BP. The execs at BP never felt a thing, but my friend down the street lost his job when the BP closed. Boycotting is a nice idea, but, in practice, rarely hurts who it is supposed to hurt.
KidColt wrote: I agree that Bissette's heart is in the right place, but a boycott would have to extend to DC Comics and reprints of so many other companies. Isn't Steve Bissette the guy who made his reputation working on Len Wein and Berni Wrightson's Swamp Thing?? Give me a break.
I agree that Bissette's heart is in the right place, but a boycott would have to extend to DC Comics and reprints of so many other companies.
Your point being? That unless someone worked on something you think was important, that their opinions aren't important? Allen Smith
Aug 3 11 8:55 AM
kirbyfanatic wrote:That's true. The difference is that the oil companies aren't going to go out of business anytime soon, while the comics companies are always in a bit of a struggle to stay afloat. So, I see your point. Disney doesn't really need the Marvel comics, anyway, all they really want are the characters, for the movies and related merchandising. So if sales dip, the company that Walt built probably wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug on most of the comics.
Aug 3 11 6:32 PM
Huh, they clearly must have grandfathered Wein in also. I wonder if DC grandfathered in all the 70's characters/creators, or did Wein just negotiate himself a special deal?
Posts: 1897
Aug 3 11 6:51 PM
Aug 3 11 6:58 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:DC has made a great effort to treat creators of older properties more or less the same as if they had signed current contracts. Granted, that doesn't always amount to big money (not every character has a clearly defined "creator," and not every character appears in media outside of comics), but DC also pays royalties on everything that's reprinted -- even when not contractually obligated. Marvel hasn't even seen fit to do that little.
Aug 3 11 7:14 PM
Torgo wrote:Does no one receive any compensation from the Masterworks reprints?
Aug 3 11 7:24 PM
I wonder how much of that has to do with Levitz and his role as publisher.
Posts: 471
Aug 3 11 9:09 PM
BillyBatson4360 wrote:The Jack Kirby estate may indeed appeal, but because this was a "Summary Judgment," it is going to make their appeal extremely difficult.In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. It means one side's case was so weak, the judge summarily decided to spare the state the cost in money and resources of actually going to trial.It is also crystal clear in the judge's ruling that this case does NOT revolve around the question of who created what. It is simply a question of what were the working conditions under which the creator operated.Thus the case does not hinge on Stan Lee. It hinges on Martin Goodman and the arrangements he had with his creative personnel.As I stated in the old "Marvel Method" thread, this is simply a case of Jack Kirby being a poor negotiator. Stan, in his role as co-plotter & dialog writer, was also performing work for hire. Yet Stan was able to negotiate better and better deals for himself until today he has become rich off of properties that he certainly had a hand in developing and promoting (regardless of how much or little he contributed to their initial genesis).If Jack had attempted to leverage his offer from DC Comics with Goodman, perhaps he could have gotten a better deal from Marvel. Stan is on record as saying he thinks such an outcome was likely. But Jack didn't do that. Jack simply accepted the DC offer and walked out of Marvel without giving them the chance to counter offer.Did Jack sue Marvel at that time claiming ownership of the FF, Thor, Silver Surfer, Spider-Man, and others? No, he did not.He knew that he did not own the characters he had a hand in creating. Just as he did not own the Boy Commandos, the Newsboy Legion, and countless others created under work for hire for other publishers.
Posts: 2776
Aug 4 11 8:27 AM
Golden Age
leveret1 wrote:I think Marvel believes the wording in their original contracts gives them carte blanche to do anything they want and precludes them from having to pay royalties for further reprints...
Posts: 5411
Aug 4 11 9:21 AM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:I think it has everything to do with Paul and Jenette Kahn. I don't think any of this will change with the change in management, but I think it's all for the best that these practices are now very well established at DC.
Posts: 8154
Aug 4 11 10:31 AM
Aug 4 11 10:39 AM
sterlling wrote:Would it be fair to say that Disney has a much better (and larger) legal team than the WB and others have? The Kirby case is a lot weaker than the Superman one over at WB but Disney's legal teams have had a strong rep for decades now.
Aug 4 11 11:43 AM
Share This