Theres a post on CBR about the Kirby heirs, Marvel and the potential Supreme Court case -- which resulted in some truly hateful comments from fans. I posted several responses -- and am cutting and pasting them here just so theres no question of my stand on the matter. Comment #1: Shame on those who call themselves comics fans, but post hateful comments about the Kirby family. The work for hire provisions under which most mainstream comic book work was done (and continues to be done) is the true shame. Novelists, musicians, visual artists, etc. all are able to retain copyright to their works and profit from any licensing of said works. They are able to pass the ownership of those works/copyrights to their estates/families upon their death, so that the work they spent their lifetime creating continues to support their families after they are gone -- which is as it should be. The comic book business -- until recently -- rarely allowed creators this opportunity. Properties created were owned by the company, lock stock and barrel under unfair work for hire agreements. The Graphic Artist Guild recommends that no artist EVER accept a work for hire agreement -- yet it remains standard operating procedure for the the larger comics publishers. Copyright reversion is a legal option that can, if granted, reverse this onerous situation. Another option would be Marvel negotiating a fair royalty settlement with the Kirby family -- who ARE deserving of whatever royalties should have rightfully been paid to Jack. Martin Goodman reportedly told Kirby hed be treated right regarding Marvel merchandise, when the characters first started being made into toys, adapted for TV, etc. That never happened. Its too late to make that up to Jack and Roz -- but Marvel could make it right with their children. Or they could own it all -- grab it all -- which seems perfectly OK with certain people here, who seem more concerned about whether they get their latest fix of comics and movies, than whether the creators of the characters and concepts they claim to love are treated fairly. Comment #2 Heres a what if for some of you. What if Warner Brothers made a series of Harry Potter movies -- but paid J.K. Rowling nothing -- and in some cases, never even gave her an on screen credit? Would that be OK by you? The difference between Rowling and Kirby, is that Kirby was stuck in a publishing industry that operated on the unfair work for hire model. Should that unfair business practice continue to cheat his heirs out of the profits that rightfully should have been his? I dont think so. Comment #3 So because you cant afford comics, and because other businesses screw over their talent with work for hire agreements, and because Jack didnt live long enough to apply for copyright reversion, the Kirbys shouldnt have their patriarchs legacy returned to them? I cant even begin to process this train of thought…. Let me answer some points others have made. The Kirbys winning this case (which is a long shot, I know) would not make your comics more expensive -- or take them, or your movies away from you -- and the fact that music industry and the movie business have both screwed over countless artists doesnt make it OK for the comic book business to do the same. Just because an unfair practice has been standard operating procedure for decades doesnt mean we much continue to allow it -- or excuse it -- or use it as justification for hurling vindictive at those attempting a change. Theres a running theme in Kirbys work of the individual (or a small group) standing up for whats right, no matter the odds or the size and strength of the opposing force. The Kirby heirs are following suit. They deserve to be the stewards of Jacks legacy -- and yes, to profit from that legacy. This would take NOTHING away from you fans who are attacking them here. The model here would be the Frazetta family (though without the unfortunate infighting that plagued them for a time) -- managing and maintaining their fathers artistic legacy. The Kirby family deserves the right to do the same. And why shouldnt an artists family inherit that artists intellectual property? A restaurateurs family inherits his restaurant. A business owners family inherits his business. Thats how it works. The courts will decide this, of course -- but theres whats legal and theres whats right -- and those arent always the same. Whats unacceptable though, no matter your opinion on this case, is the spiteful, hateful bile being spewed toward the Kirby heirs here. This is the beloved FAMILY of the man most responsible for creating the remarkable characters that seem to mean so much to so many of you. Kirby created that work to support his family. To post F*** the Kirby family or to paint them as money-grubbing is to insult the memory of the most remarkable artist to ever work in the comic book medium, and anyone posting such garbage should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Posted on: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:24:41 +0000