ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4692
Aug 4 11 12:04 PM
Binecon wrote: BillyBatson4360 wrote: 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.While it's a somewhat sad situation, this post gets it right.
BillyBatson4360 wrote: 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: 5920
Aug 4 11 12:52 PM
Posts: 4703
Aug 5 11 5:53 AM
Golden Age
profh0011 wrote: Yep. Marvel has always been a "class act". He said, sarcastically. Ever since Martin Goodman played around with the book-keeping in order to HIDE the profits on CAPTAIN AMERICA, so he wouldn't have to pay Joe Simon & Jack Kirby one red cent of the CONTRACTUALLY-AGREED ROYALTIES he owed them. No surprise they signed with DC for double the page rates and none of the editorial duties. Maybe it's a shame Simon didn't SUE Goodman back then. You know... like STAN had to, when they tried to avoid paying HIM contractually-agreed royalties from movie profits.
Posts: 5411
Aug 5 11 8:16 AM
Posts: 2776
Aug 5 11 9:40 AM
profh0011 wrote: Stan, on finding out, decided to tell Goodman, and Goodman, PISSED that the guys he was robbing blind were leaving him (WHO the hell did they think they were?), tried to FIRE them, FIRST.
Aug 5 11 12:00 PM
Posts: 1455
Aug 5 11 12:43 PM
profh0011 wrote:It's just typical that when I post one of my best posts (and one told in an entertaining, and even funny, manner) that someone has to waste 3 whole paragraphs needlessly focusing on ONE small point, and trying to defend a man who is INDEFENSIBLE. Stan clearly hired Jack Kirby so Jack could do his writing for him, which Stan then took BOTH CREDIT AND PAY for. Stan's a crook, and he learned from the best.
Posts: 14376
Aug 5 11 1:14 PM
Registered Member
Aug 5 11 2:18 PM
richard63 wrote: profh0011 wrote: It's just typical that when I post one of my best posts (and one told in an entertaining, and even funny, manner) that someone has to waste 3 whole paragraphs needlessly focusing on ONE small point, and trying to defend a man who is INDEFENSIBLE....Stan clearly hired Jack Kirby so Jack could do his writing for him, which Stan then took BOTH CREDIT AND PAY for. Stan's a crook, and he learned from the best.I find it odd that someone who helped maintain a Silver Age Marvel Comics Index site could despise Marvel so much.
profh0011 wrote: It's just typical that when I post one of my best posts (and one told in an entertaining, and even funny, manner) that someone has to waste 3 whole paragraphs needlessly focusing on ONE small point, and trying to defend a man who is INDEFENSIBLE....Stan clearly hired Jack Kirby so Jack could do his writing for him, which Stan then took BOTH CREDIT AND PAY for. Stan's a crook, and he learned from the best.
Aug 5 11 2:22 PM
profh0011 wrote: It's just typical that when I post one of my best posts (and one told in an entertaining, and even funny, manner) that someone has to waste 3 whole paragraphs needlessly focusing on ONE small point, and trying to defend a man who is INDEFENSIBLE.Stan clearly hired Jack Kirby so Jack could do his writing for him, which Stan then took BOTH CREDIT AND PAY for. Stan's a crook, and he learned from the best.
Posts: 1816
Aug 5 11 2:26 PM
BillyBatson4360 wrote: profh0011 wrote: Stan, on finding out, decided to tell Goodman, and Goodman, PISSED that the guys he was robbing blind were leaving him (WHO the hell did they think they were?), tried to FIRE them, FIRST.One: the notion that it was Stan that ratted them out is something that Stan vehemently denies. There is also no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It was simply an opinion offered (I can't remember if it was Jack, Joe or both of them who felt that way, but I do know whoever it was had nothing to back up that assertion). Of course, to those who have already decided that Stan is a villain, proof is hardly required. (And the point is moot as S&K had already agreed to DC's deal and were busy creating work for that company at night while still working for Goodman during the day.)This, of course, is the same vile, heartless Stan Lee who hired people like Jack Kirby and many others (Bill Everett, Wayne Boring, Carmine Infantino, etc.) when they were down on their luck and who tirelessly promoted Jack Kirby. Nobody - even Kirby himself - did more to promote Kirby's name and reputation. He certainly wasn't getting that kind of build-up at DC when he was drawing Green Arrow & Challengers of the Unknown. And who was the guy who named Kirby "King?"Two: Goodman, while unethical, is hardly an anomaly for business in general and the comic book field in particular.
Aug 5 11 2:40 PM
Aug 5 11 2:43 PM
richard63 wrote: It's also ironic that you complain about credit, when you've been signing your name to the work of others with your alleged "restorations".Look for the HRK below the comics code symbol.
Aug 5 11 3:02 PM
Matthew McCallum wrote:richard63 wrote: It's also ironic that you complain about credit, when you've been signing your name to the work of others with your alleged "restorations".Look for the HRK below the comics code symbol.Is this a work product done for a DC collection of some sort?
Aug 5 11 3:40 PM
kirbyfanatic wrote: True, Stan Lee promoted Jack and the other artists, by putting their names in the credits. So, he gets some deserved praise for that. But I'm not under any illusions that that was part of the job at Marvel, to sell books. Allen Smith
Posts: 1754
Aug 5 11 5:30 PM
Binecon wrote: 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.While it's a somewhat sad situation, this post gets it right.SFDuck's appraisal of the situation is weak, muddled and incorrect, and this decision (whatever we may think in terms of "wouldn't it be nice if") will be upheld on appeal.Like Billy, I've worked extensively in work for hire situations, and that's clearly what Kirby was doing throughout his career with Marvel.This suit was without merit from the beginning, though I share in some of Prof's outrage.Jack was an incredibly sweet and decent man, and I wish things had gone differently for him.
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.
Aug 5 11 5:36 PM
BillyBatson4360 wrote: kirbyfanatic wrote: True, Stan Lee promoted Jack and the other artists, by putting their names in the credits. So, he gets some deserved praise for that. But I'm not under any illusions that that was part of the job at Marvel, to sell books. Allen SmithStan did more than simply give the artists, inkers and even letterers credit. He also promoted them in his responses on the letters page and in the later Bullpen Bulliten pages. Stan was always tremendously effusive in his praise for Kirby's work. When you understand that most of the folks over at DC initially thought Jack wasn't very good (they were mystified that Kirby's books at Marvel were producing a higher sell-through rate [% of copies printed against actual copies sold] than the DC stuff).I also have heard and read many, many interviews where Stan went out of his way to praise Jack Kirby in particular for Marvel's success. It is a matter of record that he gave incoming artists copies of Jack's books and told them that was what he (Stan) considered the proper way to tell a story at Marvel. I have read relatively recent interviews where he still refers to Kirby as the greatest in the field of super-hero comics.[deleted.]As has been said many time before Jack & Steve were very shy and not willing to do publicity for Marvel back in the day. Stan is an admitted ham. And he probably did more to promote the comic book field in general than any other single individual. That he took some credit for himself is understandable.But the notion of promoting the artists as personalities and that such promotion would help sales was Stan's idea.
Aug 5 11 8:15 PM
Posts: 11308
Aug 6 11 8:42 AM
kirbyfanatic wrote:I've read accounts from Mark Evanier, either in his book or in The Jack Kirby Collector, where Evanier says that Kirby tried and tried to negotiate with Marvel prior to his leaving the company in 1970. So it's plainly incorrect for anyone to say that Kirby simply left Marvel in a huff without so much as a goodbye. Evanier is on this board, he can correct me if I'm wrong. Allen Smith
Posts: 1239
Aug 6 11 10:59 AM
Modern Age
http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/
Share This