Kirby Lawsuit

[wizardmickey]

Jack Kirby Estate Seeking Copyright from Marvel/Disney
The Kirby estate is taking a page from the Siegels.
by Joey Esposito
Sep 21, 2009 It seems the estate of comics legend Jack Kirby is set to take a page out of the on-going Siegel lawsuit, as it was revealed today that 45 notices of copyright termination have been sent from the estate to Marvel/Disney, declaring their intent to regain the copyrights to many of the Marvel mainstays that the deceased legend, who passed in 1994, co-created. Kirby is credited with the co-creation of many of Marvel's top talents, including Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. Most of these characters have new films in the works, just in case things weren't interesting enough.

According to the New York Times, the notices that were sent to the publisher stated the estate would be seeking to regain their copyrights as soon as 2014. The Kirby estate has even gone so far as to hire the same legal firm that the Siegels used in their successful bid to regain partial copyright of Superman, the Los Angeles based Toberoff & Associates. Surely their experience with a similar case may prove to be beneficial to the Kirby's cause.

However, the real complications lie in Marvel's never-ending maze of copyright agreements. Certain properties are owned by specific studios for their film versions, while other studios simply hold distribution agreements, as well as toy licensing and theme park agreements with other companies. It's too early to tell what such a lawsuit would entitle the Kirby's as far as income from the various agreements goes, but it will surely be a nice, complicated document that the lawyers of both parties will have to sift through.

Copyright is one of the most important and complex issues that comes with the territory, and as these characters age into their twilight years, I expect we'll be seeing many more similar cases with the estates of legendary creators looking to keep the creations in the family. That, or just trying to cash in.

Just when ya thought things might be looking up - - - Someone else wants a piece of the pie!

[Ian]

You know, one of two things better be the case ... either Disney's lawyers better have known about this before the sale went through and evaluated it as a minimal risk or else someone needs to be fired.

You do not spend billions to aquire a brand like Marvel when there's pending litigation out there that has the potential to cost you a fortune in lost revenue.

[SBETigg]

Disney's legal team is top notch and all over everything. I'm confident that they were aware of all potential situations like this and ready to deal with them when they acquired Marvel in the first place. I'm sure it will be comparatively minimal loss for them.

And I can't blame the Kirby estate and others like them for wanting some part of what might happen to the characters created by Jack Kirby. As an author, I imagine it would be hard to lose control of a character or world I created, even if I did sign them over for financial reasons, and I imagine my family would fight for what I would have wanted, too. The creator or creator's heirs should benefit from what happens to their intellectual property, provided they still have any legal claim, not sure what the case is here. If I had legally signed over full claim once, I probably wouldn't expect to have any say over future developments.

[Scar]

... before the sale went through ...

Is the sale final? I thought it was still pending.

[TheRustyScupper]

Is the sale final? I thought it was still pending.

The sales agreement is done, but the deal has not closed.

[wire0monkey]

If I had legally signed over full claim once, I probably wouldn't expect to have any say over future developments.

Kirby never signed over "full claim" to those characters. He retained the copyright, but licensed them to Marvel.

It's a bit like a lease vs. a sale of a home. You can rent your home (or license your copyright) to someone without giving away the ultimate ownership of the house. The person leasing it (or licensing a copyright) has the right to use it, but not the right to keep it forever. You can kick them out under some circumstances. If they try to give or sell their rights to someone else, you can ask for the property back.

[SBETigg]

Thanks, Dawn. I understand the difference, I just didn't know how the Marvel deals were worded or worked out, which is why I used the conditional if. Good to know. I understand the Kirby estate's motivation better now.

[TheRustyScupper]

Just when ya thought things might be looking up - - - Someone else wants a piece of the pie!

1) Whoa !
2) Hold on a minute.
3) Disney has been SUCCESSFULLY sued several times.
4) For millions of dollars.
5) Disney has developed a ruthless corporate structure.
6) They have been found guilty several times of
. . . patent infringement
. . . copyright infringement
. . . stealing ideas and concepts
7) Let's not infer this is "wanting a piece of the pie".
8) I remember that being said before three lawsuits mentioned here were lost by WDW.

[Supercali]

Disney has said in a statement that they were well aware of the case before the acquisition. What I don't understand is the terms of Kirby's contract. When artists create original characters for Disney - like Lilo and Stitch or Hannah Montana, I believe it is stated in the contract that those characters now belong to Disney. I thought that this has always been the case with Marvel. I thought that this is why many artists went to independent labels that allowed them to keep the rights to their characters. I know that Stan Lee had a suit against Marvel that has already been taken care of, with both parties supposedly happy. I just hope that this doesn't turn into another Winnie the Pooh case, which Disney has finally won.

[wizardmickey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizardmickey
Just when ya thought things might be looking up - - - Someone else wants a piece of the pie!

TheRustyScupper
1) Whoa !
2) Hold on a minute.
3) Disney has been SUCCESSFULLY sued several times.
4) For millions of dollars.
5) Disney has developed a ruthless corporate structure.
6) They have been found guilty several times of
. . . patent infringement
. . . copyright infringement
. . . stealing ideas and concepts
7) Let's not infer this is "wanting a piece of the pie".
8) I remember that being said before three lawsuits mentioned here were lost by WDW.

Um, I was actually kinda being sarcastic with the whole "piece of the pie" comment. I know Disney has top notch legal representation that can and has ripped many a claim apart before it even gets to court. I also know that the precedent has been set in the whole Seigel vs. DC situation, so I really would think that between Disney, Marvel, and the Kirby heirs that some sort of similiar & amicable resolution could be reached to benefit ALL parties.
Just saw the news online and thought I'd share that someone else was taking action against Disney (seems to happen a lot - or at least it seems to be reported here that it happens a lot.)

[wire0monkey]

When artists create original characters for Disney - like Lilo and Stitch or Hannah Montana, I believe it is stated in the contract that those characters now belong to Disney. I thought that this has always been the case with Marvel. I thought that this is why many artists went to independent labels that allowed them to keep the rights to their characters.

*snort* Back in the day, Marvel was a bunch of artists and writers running a small comic company. Their business practices weren't the most professional and they often had a "We don't need no steeenkin' contracts" mentality.

It's not clear who has rights to a lot of Marvel's older characters, especially since the current "Marvel" is a company that used to be called ToyBiz, Inc. that bought the Marvel intellectual property at a bankruptcy sale. Some licenses can be sold through bankruptcy and some can't.

It will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis for many of the older characters, with careful attention paid to the facts for each one. Disney has killer copyright lawyers, and I'm sure they'll soon be busy cleaning up their rights to all of the characters.

BTW, I love Disney and I like Pooh, but what Disney did to the "Pooh" heirs was revolting -- a very large company litigated a small family into the ground on very thin legal reasoning. It was a case of one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.

[lockedoutlogic]

I think that instead of closing the marvel deal...they should spend $250 million on improvements to MGM, $250 million on improvements to Animal Kingdom....check that...$500 million on each

and save the other 3 billion and put it into a six month CD....

...then just sit back and let the interest roll in

but hey...i'm a pretty pragmatic person

[Ian]

I think that instead of closing the marvel deal...they should spend $250 million on improvements to MGM, $250 million on improvements to Animal Kingdom....check that...$500 million on each

and save the other 3 billion and put it into a six month CD....

...then just sit back and let the interest roll in

but hey...i'm a pretty pragmatic person

I agree ... personally, I see this entire deal as a vanity/ego purchase.

I don't really get what Iger's got going on lately. He's made some seriously odd decisions in recent months, culminating in this Dick Cook ouster and replacing him with the guy who created High School Musical??

And the creation of that whole Disney Double Dare You brand??? I don't get that either.

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree ... personally, I see this entire deal as a vanity/ego purchase.

I don't really get what Iger's got going on lately. He's made some seriously odd decisions in recent months, culminating in this Dick Cook ouster and replacing him with the guy who created High School Musical??

And the creation of that whole Disney Double Dare You brand??? I don't get that either.

it must be the office....

because he's starting to show some really weird...and familiar...signs

Hollywood execs are egomaniacs...almost out of necessity...but in ways that's dangerous at disney

evil Mikey lost site of this....and now maybe Bobby is losing it too:

It's not their creative and executive genius that is responsible for Disney's success....it's the mystique and the characters - much more than any other factor

The CEO of Disney is best performed as a "custodian"...a regent of the empire...the steward

When they start thinking that they are really the driving force, things get dangerous