ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4692
Aug 7 11 1:50 PM
BillyBatson4360 wrote:Jack Kirby is dead. His wife is dead. Martin Goodmen, the actual guy who employed Jack Kirby when he co-created these characters is dead. The company that owns Marvel now had nothing to do with what happened to Jack, but by all means let's pile on them and make them our scarificial scapegoat!!!
Posts: 10379
Aug 7 11 1:57 PM
Registered Member
Which means, legally, the heirs of Kirby weren't owed anything.
Posts: 5920
Aug 7 11 2:23 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:My feeling about this -- and I acknowledge that it might be interpreted as somewhat contradictory -- is that if there is a legal mechanism for heirs to reclaim all or part of the copyright, I take no issue with that. (That isn't how or why the law was devised --that's just how it works out, at least under certain circumstances.)
Aug 7 11 2:58 PM
Aug 7 11 3:05 PM
Aug 7 11 3:18 PM
Posts: 14376
Aug 7 11 6:04 PM
Aug 7 11 6:16 PM
Posts: 71
Aug 7 11 6:32 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:When I said "That isn't how or why the law was devised," I meant that it wasn't specifically devised for the benefit of a copyright holder's decendents (as though they were some sort of special class), just that it sometimes works out that way.
Aug 7 11 7:21 PM
DNAlien wrote:In most cases reversion starts 56 years after the work was created, and lasts until 70 years after the death of the author.
Aug 7 11 7:47 PM
Medieval Guy wrote:DNAlien wrote:In most cases reversion starts 56 years after the work was created, and lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. I don't think that's true. I think there's a pretty narrow window (a few years) when you can file for reversion. I think you're confusing the term of the copyright with the window during which they can reclaim it.
Aug 7 11 9:21 PM
Posts: 1816
Aug 8 11 9:26 AM
BillyBatson4360 wrote: Which means, legally, the heirs of Kirby weren't owed anything.BTW Please. What I posted wasn't remotely intended to provoke tears - even sarcastic ones. That response seems wholly disconnected from what I wrote.I have already posted multiple times that I wish Jack Kirby had received more compensation for his contributions to Marvel. However, I think any attempt to punish the Disney Corporation for the sins (real or imagined) of Martin Goodman by having them fork over cash to people who were not involved in the creation is bordering on "two wrongs make a right" kind of thinking.Obviously, judging by the box office from Captain America: The First Avenger, Steve Bissette's "boycott" is not exactly catching on like wildfire.
Aug 8 11 9:56 AM
kirbyfanatic wrote:No one is howling at Disney/Marvel for protecting assets purchased or created by Disney or Goodman from years and years back
Posts: 2776
Aug 8 11 10:08 AM
Golden Age
Aug 8 11 10:15 AM
Medieval Guy wrote: Actually, plenty of people think the endless extension of copyright for the sole purpose of keeping corporate copyrights in perpetuity is a travesty. That's why the copyright extensions are called "Mickey Mouse laws"; not only for the negative connotation of the term, but because they are literally designed to keep Mickey Mouse's first appearance under copyright (which is why there's a new copyright law extension every time Mickey Mouse threatens to go into the public domain). Wikipedia: "This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act..."
Aug 8 11 12:43 PM
Does anybody seriously think Marvel or the Kirby heirs cares who owns "Groot, the Monster from Planet X?"
Posts: 873
Aug 8 11 1:02 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote:Does anybody seriously think Marvel or the Kirby heirs cares who owns "Groot, the Monster from Planet X?" Sure, you say that now -- but then, an Iron Man film franchise seemed unlikely for 40-odd years!
Aug 8 11 3:01 PM
BillyBatson4360 wrote: Don't misunderstand. I have no quarrel with the Kirby heirs filing a lawsuit, That is their right. As I have said, if we are simply talking "fair" or "moral" Jack should have gotten more money.But if we are talking "legal" (which was the purported intent of this thread), then I side with the court and Dave Sim in thinking their case was weak to begin with. I believe that Jack Kirby always understood the nature of his employment with Martin Goodman. That he may have been unhappy with it is immaterial. Many people are unhappy with the terms of their employment. Yet they show up for work every day and they cash those paychecks.The thrust of the current lawsuit seems to be "hey, these properties became a lot more valuable than Jack could ever have dreamed back in 1963, so let's revisit the financial arrangments."And if this is just work he did for Goodman from 1958 to 1963, then it really all comes down to the Fantastic Four. Does anybody seriously think Marvel or the Kirby heirs cares who owns "Groot, the Monster from Planet X?"
Share This