ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1238
Jul 29 11 2:34 PM
sfcityduck wrote:No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work? I think this is disingenuous. Marvel wasn't hiring Kirby to draw three pages in the middle of a story. They hired artists to draw stories, and those artists were paid on a per-page basis. This isn't any different than paying someone an hour rate with the expectation that they are working the full day.
No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work?
Posts: 851
Jul 29 11 2:39 PM
Medieval Guy wrote:OK. But "routinely" means "This is what normally happens."
Posts: 1897
Jul 29 11 2:59 PM
Posts: 4881
Jul 29 11 3:05 PM
Golden Age
Posts: 1455
Jul 29 11 3:06 PM
Medieval Guy wrote:Leocomix wrote:What's the sense in Kirby signing anyway in 1972 after he got out? None.So he's a poor negotiator. Even when someone tells you "sign this or get out" there is room for negotiation. To start with, since he was a freelancer and not an employee, "get out" had no meaning. Sure it did...Kirby was making his entire living from Marvel (albeit on a freelance basis). They were saying "Sign this or find another company to make a living from."
Leocomix wrote:What's the sense in Kirby signing anyway in 1972 after he got out? None.So he's a poor negotiator. Even when someone tells you "sign this or get out" there is room for negotiation. To start with, since he was a freelancer and not an employee, "get out" had no meaning.
Posts: 1754
Jul 29 11 3:24 PM
Registered Member
Snappleshacks wrote: sfcityduck wrote: No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work?I think this is disingenuous. Marvel wasn't hiring Kirby to draw three pages in the middle of a story. They hired artists to draw stories, and those artists were paid on a per-page basis. This isn't any different than paying someone an hour rate with the expectation that they are working the full day.
sfcityduck wrote: No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work?I think this is disingenuous. Marvel wasn't hiring Kirby to draw three pages in the middle of a story. They hired artists to draw stories, and those artists were paid on a per-page basis. This isn't any different than paying someone an hour rate with the expectation that they are working the full day.
Posts: 218
Jul 29 11 4:27 PM
sfcityduck wrote: Snappleshacks wrote: sfcityduck wrote: No. Marvel didn't pay for stories. They paid for pages. Jack Kirby was paid a page rate not a story rate. But, when he presented a page to Marvel, Marvel wasn't obligated to pay for it. This begs the question: Who bore the risk for the work?I think this is disingenuous. Marvel wasn't hiring Kirby to draw three pages in the middle of a story. They hired artists to draw stories, and those artists were paid on a per-page basis. This isn't any different than paying someone an hour rate with the expectation that they are working the full day.Except Marvel did hire artists to do three pages in the middle of a story, or to fill in backgrounds, or make corrections, etc., when circumstances warranted it. And when that happened, they paid a page rate. Three pages of redrawing netted the artist three pages of payment. Marvel always paid a page rate, never a story rate. An example, DD 1 was inked by Everett, Ditko and Brodsky, because Everett was late in turning it in.
Posts: 673
Jul 29 11 5:22 PM
Posts: 2776
Jul 29 11 5:42 PM
justinfairfax wrote:Does anyone think that credit would exist without Joe Simon's (successful) lawsuits against the company?
Posts: 1816
Jul 29 11 6:07 PM
justinfairfax wrote: I'm sad that Kirby's heirs don't get something for his monumental contribution to comics...But I AM glad to see in the CAPTAIN AMERICA credits: "Based on the Marvel comic book by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby"...Does anyone think that credit would exist without Joe Simon's (successful) lawsuits against the company?
Jul 29 11 6:24 PM
sfcityduck wrote:Except Marvel did hire artists to do three pages in the middle of a story, or to fill in backgrounds, or make corrections, etc., when circumstances warranted it. And when that happened, they paid a page rate. Yes, and on the rare occasion an hourly worker gets called in to pinch hit for an hour, they still get paid by the hour. But the expectation is that the hourly worker is going to be assigned blocks of time. A page rate is no different. The vast majority of comics of the time (and indeed today) were full installments, and that's what the expectation would have been. Draw the story, get paid in page increments. Work the day, get paid in hourly increments. It was a job.
Except Marvel did hire artists to do three pages in the middle of a story, or to fill in backgrounds, or make corrections, etc., when circumstances warranted it. And when that happened, they paid a page rate.
Posts: 899
Jul 29 11 7:00 PM
mistergoodman wrote:Furthermore, the lawsuit isn't about art- it was about character creation. Jack co-wrote the stories. He was assigned to work on an issue, he co-plotted it and drew it, the art may have been tweaked but if Stan didn't like the story or characters he fixed it in dialog. There was no question about whether Jack was going to be able to pay the rent that month. Jack wrote what he was assigned to write and collected his checks.
Posts: 1838
Jul 29 11 7:01 PM
Jul 29 11 7:15 PM
famac wrote:On the question of risk: Marvel is taking the most risk because what if Jack came in with 20 blank pages? From the business standpoint, Marvel has scheduled an entire product on those pages being delivered, and has the most to lose if they are not delivered. Kirby loses his page rate, but Marvel's scheduled product is disrupted and all sort of related production costs are incurred -- plus huge franchise risk.
Jul 29 11 7:35 PM
Posts: 1095
Jul 29 11 7:48 PM
Bronze Age
famac wrote:On the question of risk: Marvel is taking the most risk because what if Jack came in with 20 blank pages? From the business standpoint, Marvel has scheduled an entire product on those pages being delivered, and has the most to lose if they are not delivered. Kirby loses his page rate, but Marvel's scheduled product is disrupted and all sort of related production costs are incurred -- plus huge franchise risk. Let's say Jack made $100/page in 1968. So a book would cost Marvel $2,000 in Kirby wages. But say they sold 500,000 copies at a net proft of 5 cents: that's $25 grand profit they are out. Of course that never happened because they could run a reprint or an inventory story - but if they had to skip a month - that was the cost - and it's far higher. The math may be fuzzy, but publishing something is far more expensive than drawing something when all of the other commitments are factored in. ***************************************************************** But I'll go back to something I argued before which wasn't actually part of the case, but should be: If Kirby was ripped off by the 60's Marvel deal and he really owns all of those characters - why would he return to Marvel in the 70's and create a huge roster of new characters under the very same arangement? (Arnim Zola is in the Cap movie for all you Bronze Age Kirby haters) If that was the case, Kirby would have returned to Marvel only under the condition he work on existing properties, right? But he pointedly did exactly the opposite. Can anything say "Case Closed" more than that?
Jul 29 11 8:42 PM
Jul 29 11 8:55 PM
Jul 29 11 9:03 PM
famac wrote: But it does. If he had a grievance, wouldn't it be addressed in his new employment contract? He accepted the very same employment contract - when we know they wanted him to take Fantastic Four - he refused and gave them new characters instead!! (I think the Cap run was agreed to as a condition of employment - he didn't want to do it - he fancied himself the idea man - as work for hire).And on another point; was Kirby's contract different with DC? He certainly created many characters there, though far less sucessful. I think he was work-for-hire at DC, but I guess the pot of gold wasn't deep enough for the Kirby's.**********************************Finally, and I've made this point before: what did Kirby really create in Marvel's franchise? The FF are all existing characters: Human Torch (Bill Everett), Mister Fantasic (Plastic Man), Invisible Girl (movies) and the Thing (multiple Marvel Horror entries). No lawsuits have focused on the Thing, probably Kirby's most meaninful contribution to Marvel before the Surfer.Hulk: (Frankenstien/Mr Hyde) - failed as a stand-alone.Spider-Man - no connection - but really Marvel's pure original success, so the Kirby lawsuit had to include it.What else is there? A huge assortment of great character designs - primarily in the villians like Dr Doom and Hela. This is where Kirby shined. And if you look at his DC run - he's struggled to come up with his own great characters; OMAC and Kamandi are probably the most original things he came up with. New Gods are fine - but none of the characters -- Lightray or Orion are very memorable - and the Highfather is just Odin. Mr Miracle is just the Stuntman with a different outfit, and metron was Mr Spock - by admission.
Posts: 5411
Jul 29 11 9:16 PM
Share This