Of big law suits and debates over the ownership rights of comic book characters, this might be one of the biggest. Earlier today it was announced that the Kirby Estate had officially lost the law suit against Marvel/Disney for the rights of many characters originally created and worked on by Jack Kirby during his time as a freelancer for Marvel Comics.

According to the U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon who ruled on the case, the characters and content that Kirby created during the time in question (between 1958 and 1963) was done "for hire."

...Meaning that they are exempt from a provision of copyright law that allows authors and artists to obtain rights to their original creations after a certain passage of time.

What this means is that characters like Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and the Avengers get to stay at Marvel -- which is not only great news for the publisher, but also for Disney who spent a lot of money on that Marvel buyout in order to acquire (and exploit) Marvel's massive character library.

While we can't say that this result was totally unexpected, it still serves as a reminder to all comic book creators (and creators in general) that the most important thing to consider when you're preparing to publish your project is to ensure you hold ownership rights over the content you created. What do you think about this law suit? Would you have liked to see the Kirby Estate win this case even though Jack Kirby has been deceased since 1994?

Source: Variety

There was a lawsuit? Where have I been? The only one I know of is the Superman one.

The thing is, what would the Kirby Estate do with those characters anyway? Like Sara said, its not surprising that Disvel won this.

I don't think that any heirs deserve rights to the characters that their parents created, especially when those characters were either sold or, as in the article, "done for hire." I think they are generally just being greedy and trying ride the coattails of their parents.
 
Sadly, the law says otherwise.

Spider-Man? Jack didn't create Spider-Man...why would they sue Marvel for the rights to him? 
 
The Fantastic Four, Machine Man, the Eternals and subsequent characters that appeared in those stories like Black Panther and the Inhumans I would understand. But the Spider-Man that came to be at Marvel had little to do with Kirby's vision.

I forgot all about this..

Actually that's not entirely true. It's the same principle as the Bob Kane/Bill Finger situation. Stan Lee turns round and says "I have an Idea for a character called spider-man" it evolves from there. Jack Kirby got Jipped and had to live in Stan Lee's shadow his whole life, and even afer his death is still being short changed.
 
I'm not surprised by the result, and I think while it's technically correct in a literal way, it's important to bear in mind the way the legal system worked back then and that ownership of a character could be waved in the correct circumstance

I don't think they should have gotten the rights to them but I think some sort of royalty would have been nice...they don't deserve to own the characters but a little bit of money from them wouldn't hurt anyone...

DC could've learned a thing or two from this. Oh, wait that's right, Superman's being rebooted. That's why they dun goofed.

Makes sense to me!

Unless I am missing something with this story, if I pay someone to do work for me, I damn well better hold and keep the rights to it!

hmm...I feel sorry for the Kirby estate, but I guess if you're agianst a mouse with some money anyone would lose!

There was a lawsuit? Where have I been? The only one I know of is the Superman one.

I am glad that Marvel won the case. I don't know why the Kirby estate would want the rights for the characters unless they were just going to sell them on again.

I honestly did not know about this but in all truth its sad taht the ruling came down to this...but lets be honest...comic creators of the day were alot....and I do mean ALOT more naieve about the world than they are now I dare say. So its not really surprising.  From another angle though..one wonders if this may be a litmus test for what is going to happen in 2013 with the Siegel/Shuster estates regarding Superman, even though DC kinda has sidetracked it now with the revamp...

I didn't even know this was happening lol

@RedheadedAtrocitus: This seems to be the case. It is a hard to say one is in favor of the comic book companies concerning such issues but what it boils down to is the "work for hire" issue. I am tempted to go into a whole diatribe regarding this but now that this lawsuit concerning Jack Kirby's work has been resolved, I think the case speaks for itself.

DC and Marvel, during that time period, had people running said companies who probably weren't interested in the welfare of their employees, just the bottom line. Now, though, it seems some of the same companies are indeed looking out for their employees and the creations, so at least there's been a positive step in the right direction. Note I said some companies.

While we can't say that this result was totally unexpected, it still serves as a reminder to all comic book creators (and creators in general) that the most important thing to consider when you're preparing to publish your project is to ensure you hold ownership rights over the content you created. What do you think about this law suit? Would you have liked to see the Kirby Estate win this case even though Jack Kirby has been deceased since 1994? 
 
Choke on it Marvel. There is no Justice for Jack "King" Kirby, I'm sick to my stomach that this went down so quick, Stan Lee got up on the stand and caught amnesia, no wonder he and Jack barely spoke in later years. Stan Lee, Stan Lee, Stan Lee, may you suffer as you have made the Kirby's suffer, Roz and Jack Kirby were the best thing to ever happen to the comics Industry and now they will never see justice. I am glad they have passed and no longer have to suffer the sight of Jack's creations making billions at the box office while they struggle to live. I condemn Marvel Comics for it's role in perpetuating this injustice. This should have ended like the Superman case, and I suspect the only difference here is that the Kirby's could not prove Jack created plenty of the Marvel's on his own, It is well documented that he created Silver Surfer on a whim, and created the New Gods while still at Marvel. Disney has Money, and Money=Justice in the U.S.A. Time/Warner only lost Superman because the Siegel&Shuster Heirs were able to prove Action #1 was created before Siegel & Shuster even came to DC. "American Justice" the burden of proof is always on the victim, and the system is the biggest victimizer. DC and Marvel epitomize greed and unethical business practices and are a prime example of the worthy and gifted serving the unworthy and wealthy. I will never stop telling Kirby's story to fans who will listen, Jack deserves to be remembered and recognized as the giant among men he was not as the creative partner of the credit absorbing hack Stan Lee. The King is Dead. Long live the King.

this isn't really anything new - wasn't stuff like this the reason why Image was started up?   everyone thinks that private ownership of iconic characters would destroy them, but that isn't necessarily the case.   however, this can sometimes be a very bad thing - take Superman, for instance.   some may not like his origin story, but it's an essential part of his character - but now it has to be shot out of the nearest cannon, because Superman is back in the hands of the Siegel/Shuster name, but Jerry and Joe have been deceased for quite some time, and the members of the estate (as far as I can tell, anyway), have absolutely no plans of doing anything constructive with the character's origin.   in this case, these people have taken all of the symbolism of a character and made it a matter of possession.   of course, then you have to remember that while you may love your latest monthly titles, there's a good chance that sometime long ago, somebody probably got screwed out of their hard-earned pride and joy by these companies.   then again, that's business for you - but it looks like the industry's catching up. 
 
@CrimsonTempest said:

DC could've learned a thing or two from this. Oh, wait that's right, Superman's being rebooted. That's why they dun goofed.

this isn't really anything new - wasn't stuff like this the reason why Image was started up?   everyone thinks that private ownership of iconic characters would destroy them, but that isn't necessarily the case.   however, this can sometimes be a very bad thing - take Superman, for instance.   some may not like his origin story, but it's an essential part of his character - but now it has to be shot out of the nearest cannon, because Superman is back in the hands of the Siegel/Shuster name, but Jerry and Joe have been deceased for quite some time, and the members of the estate (as far as I can tell, anyway), have absolutely no plans of doing anything constructive with the character's origin.   in this case, these people have taken all of the symbolism of a character and made it a matter of possession.   of course, then you have to remember that while you may love your latest monthly titles, there's a good chance that sometime long ago, somebody probably got screwed out of their hard-earned pride and joy by these companies.   then again, that's business for you - but it looks like the industry's catching up. 
 
@CrimsonTempest said:

DC could've learned a thing or two from this. Oh, wait that's right, Superman's being rebooted. That's why they dun goofed.

that's not really a fair assessment.   the only difference between Marvel and DC here is that Marvel got luckier with the lawyers.

thats what happens when you sue disney.  

Walt Disney was a Nazi, Just Sayin' 
   

Jack Kirby is a real American.

Disney doesn't ever lose rights.

Forgot about this, not surprised with the outcome though. Things rarely win against goliaths like Disney 

I would like to think that the Kirby estate gets some sort of compensation, even a token gesture, for Kirby's contribution to the industry.

The estate didn't create anything....Marvel paid Kirby and Lee "for hire" for the creation of the characters...greed is a two way street...the Kirby Estate still has plenty of characters that their father created with the licenses and copyrights to. They only want to cash in on the most popular ones after Marvel has not only spent the first half of the characters lives marketing and promoting the books...Fantastic Four, Hulk, X-Men, etc, didn't just ship selling a million copies; the company had to promote and advertise... 
 
 
S/N: not a conservative, or business first type (actually quite the opposite). I just don't like greed on one side or the other.

 
I had no idea this lawsuit existed, but it seems like this decision would have major ramifications on the lawsuit regarding Superman.

@turoksonofstone: Whatever you think of Kirby or his family (lets face it everyone knows that characters belong to the company that publishes them and not the writers hired there) don't bring Stan Lee into the arguement, he is personally reponsible for the creation of the majority of best selling and fan favourite characters in the industry (Spider-Man, X-men, Avengers, Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four etc) He is in no way a 'credit absobing hack', his creations have been the best selling comics from the early sixties to the current day. He deserves any recognition he gets.

not to take a side.....but spider man, fantastic four etc, they're MARVEL creations, they became such a part of marvel that taking them out literally would destroy the company and the universe. i love jack kiry and stan lee, both a very creative and talented men, but if either one of them tried taking the rights of a character they made (or their kids) , i think that it wouldnt go well

@CrimsonTempest said:

DC could've learned a thing or two from this. Oh, wait that's right, Superman's being rebooted. That's why they dun goofed.

that's not really a fair assessment.   the only difference between Marvel and DC here is that Marvel got luckier with the lawyers.

@turoksonofstone: idk, some people could say that with bad writing, even the best art cant help a story.  both stan lee and jack kirby did a lot for comic books, lets just leave it at that

This is why I personally like Image, who if I'm correct all of the writers keep rights to their character.

If Kirby's family deserved the rights they would have gotten them. When you freelance for a company you leave with a paycheck and little else.

If Kirby's family deserved the rights they would have gotten them. When you freelance for a company you leave with a paycheck and little else.

I could see if his employment pre-dated existing laws. But as for as the characters that got popular it didn't. Capt. America excluded of course.

He deserved more money, credit, and respect. Much like the Siegel & Shuster case the very existence of a lawsuit indicates a perpetual lack of  unfairness on the parts of Marvel and DC.

Marvel had Disney lawyers at their backs, that's like bringing Hulk with you to a street fight

I wont argue that he should have been paid more but he didn't work in a very lucrative field. Comic book companies never used to rake in the money till recently. As far as unfairness, he probably could have been treated better as far as character rights went but freelancers are excluded under that law. He does get lots of credit and respect though. Every one knows he is the co-creator of so many comic characters. He also has fans making it known that he is just as important as the writer when it came to creating some of our favorite characters.

I wont argue that he should have been paid more but he didn't work in a very lucrative field. Comic book companies never used to rake in the money till recently. As far as unfairness, he probably could have been treated better as far as character rights went but freelancers are excluded under that law. He does get lots of credit and respect though. Every one knows he is the co-creator of so many comic characters. He also has fans making it known that he is just as important as the writer when it came to creating some of our favorite characters.

I have seen a lot of interviews from Stan Lee and never once heard him say a bad word about Kirby. On the contrary he always talked about how he was the greatest.

You should read about the case if you care to understand my perspective, or better yet read the respective bodies of work, Kirby was and is a greater talent and the work is the only proof I need. Stan Lee has only talked Kirby up a ton in later years, moreso since he died....In earlier interviews and in the Marvel "heyday" not so much, look for yourself.

@turoksonofstone: Toberoff is a garter snake, and he was going up against pit vipers