
Jack Kirby and his Marvel creations
TechDirt (surprisingly, it’s not the first place I expect to find my comics news) was the blog that alerted me to the fact that the heirs of Jack Kirby intended to reclaim the copyrights of various Marvel characters, such as the Hulk, Iron Man and the Avengers, among others (but not Spiderman as written in the article). Mike Masnick does a grand job of looking at the legal aspect of this case, and the hypocrisy inherent in Marvels argument. Centring around a point of law called the termination right of copyright, the Kirby estate is trying an approach similar to that used by the heirs of one of the creators of Superman to reclaim some rights. The argument hinges basically on whether Jack Kirby was a ‘worker bee’ in a work-for-hire situation, or as the heirs points out, Kirby worked from home as a freelancer with neither contract nor employment agreement.
Now Marvel is not known for treating its creators well (unless your name is Stan Lee), else we would never have seen the birth of Image comics. But similar to the Superboy case, I have mixed feelings.
If anyone should stand to profit from the esteemed Jack Kirby’s work, then surely it should be Mr Kirby himself. I would ask just what precisely his descendents have done to deserve any form of remuneration? I do not know what their circumstances are, and if I were to discover one of them had a severe medical issue and was struggling to meet the expenses associated with that, my opinion would no doubt change. Otherwise, it’s too little, too late.
Researching, it is still not clear what actually occurred with regards the Siegel/Superboy/DC case. However, some of the rulings that came out as the case progressed show what a morass the whole copyright issue truly is. Here’s an example from August last year:
The court ruled, for the most part, that the Siegels successfully recaptured most of the works at issue, including those first two weeks of daily Superman strips, as well as key sections of early Action Comics and Superman comics. This means the Siegels, repped by Warners’ nemesis Marc Toberoff, now control depictions of Superman’s origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-El and Lora, Superman as an infant, the launching of the baby Superman into space and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash.
But Warners/DC still owns other elements, including Superman’s ability to fly, the term “kryptonite,” the villain Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, and some of Superman’s powers.
Now as seen by the recent Adventure Comics series, DC is once more happy with using the name Superboy, and many have wondered if there is some form of agreement reached behind the scenes. Jeff Trexler on Newsarama wrote last year stated that maybe DC might have figured that it’s better to share money from successful characters than to kill them off or end their adolescence prematurely.
I cannot find any real evidence of this, but then somehow I cannot see Marvel being as forgiving. Then again, if it was not for what has become a very successful movie franchise (about time too!), would this even have been an issue?
After the Crisis On Infinite Earths, DC had the option to not include Superboy as he was officially no longer in the continuity. Now Marvel do not have that option, these are far higher profile characters. As a reader, I want to know that the creators are fairly reimbursed for their work, but what I really want are quality stories, featuring characters that I know and love. Anything that can detract from that I would rise up and protest.
However, I would like to see this resolved reasonably amicably, but Marvel have their bottom line to protect and ill fight tooth and nail to dismiss this. The first volley has already been shot across the boughs with Marvel going to court to insist that Kirby has no right to the characters. Then again, “it is believed the Kirby copyright terminations would become effective beginning in 2014 but it is unclear to which property that date refers.”
So sit back and grab the popcorn, because this could get very interesting indeed.
My recommendations for this week, REBELS #12, and if last weeks excellent Blackest Night crossover issues like Suicide Squad and Weird Western Tales were anything to go by, Power Of Shazam #48.








I wonder about what point you’re trying to make when you mention “I do not know what their circumstances are, and if I were to discover one of them had a severe medical issue and was struggling to meet the expenses associated with that, my opinion would no doubt change.”
Either the family has a legal right or they do not. Saying that they have rights if they are sick, have bills, etc. really has no bearing on the situation. Decisions like this should be made solely based on the rule of law (i.e. contracts in place at the time), not on emotional issues such as “who needs the money”.
Here’s the thing: if you agree that Kirby should profit from his work (and you do agree to that) then his heirs should as well. Here’s why: being able to leave your property to your heirs is one of the benefits of property laws. In other words, Kirby’s heirs being able to benefit from Kirby’s labor is a benefit to Kirby himself, not only to his heirs, and Kirby was, no doubt, aware that his work during his lifetime would accrue to the benefit of his family after his death. So even if you don’t think that his heirs are deserving, you agree that Kirby should get what he deserved, and part of that is the knowledge that his family would be taken care of through the fruits of his labors. Sound right?