On Friday, Laura Siegel Larson, daughter of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel issued a letter to Superman fans to give them her feeling on her family’s 15 year struggle to wrestle their half of the rights to Superman from Warner Brothers/DC Comics. Here is that letter:

LSL Open Letter 10.11.2012-1

Some might read this and feel sympathetic to Siegel Larson and her plight, and perhaps just a bit angry at Warner Brothers at their callous treatment of the Siegel family over the years. Others might read the letter and also get angry–at Siegel Larson, for playing to people’s emotions and twisting facts so her side of the matter appears in a more positive light. Others might read her defense of Marc Toberoff and wince, feeling sad that she would defend someone who might not exactly be working in her best interests.

Or, if you are like me, you have a mixture of all the above feelings after reading that letter. See, for as much as each side wishes to present the issue as a case of black and white, it’s not. The lawsuit to the rights for Superman, a struggle that will get more and more press as we come closer to The Man of Steel’s June 14, 2013 release date, is a sickening blend of grays. And the reason why there is so much debate and discussion over the issue is because there are valid talking points for each side. The purpose of this post is to present these talking points to you and explain why there are no easy answers in this conflict.

$130

The world of comic book collecting is ruled by the law of buy low and sell high. You buy a comic book for $3.99, and you hope that there is something about it–a variant cover, a new character being introduced, a popular storyline taking place–that causes people to want it. If it works out, you can triple your investment overnight, and, in rare cases, you can have a book worth hundreds of dollars in a matter of years.

This is the actual check used to buy the right to Superman from Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. It recently sold at auction for $160,000.

This adds a bitter sense of irony to the Superman situation. Because, you see, DC Comics bought the rights to Superman from Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938 for $130. To put that into perspective, if you factor in inflation, that would be around $2,048 dollars in today’s money. One of the most iconic, most recognizable characters in  pop culture across the entire world, and he was bought for less that what you’d pay for a top of the line high-definition television set today.

Why such a low price? Well, we must consider that the sale took place at the tail-end of the Great Depression. It was hard for two 23-year-old young men to haggle over money when unemployment was at 19% throughout the country.

And comic books at the time were a bit of a seedy enterprise. The medium got its start as publishers simply folded popular Sunday newspaper comics sections into a book form and sold it at newsstands. When the comic book format grew in popularity, publishers supplemented the reprint material with original material similar to the most popular comic strips of the day–hard-boiled detective stories in the mold of Dick Tracy, gag strips that resembled Mutt and Jeff, space epics akin to Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers and so on. Experience and quality of work weren’t important to the publishers, only speed and productivity. To keep costs low, they hired kids who would work cheap and be able to keep up with demand. Many comic legends such as Jack Kirby, Joe Kubert and Will Eisner started working in comics when they were in their teens. Others such as Bob Kane, Joe Simon and, yes Siegel and Shuster, were in their early twenties. Even though the publishers most likely weren’t paying these kids what they deserve, whatever they brought in help put food on their family’s table.

And, hard though it may be to believe today, at the time, Superman was a risky concept. It was quite unlike anything else on the market in the 1930s. Siegel and Shuster intended the concept to be sold to the more respectable newspaper comic strip syndicate but were turned down by at least two syndicates. DC Comics was at best a “safety school” for Superman. This could be another reason why the pair didn’t squabble over the price–they didn’t know if there would ever be any other takers.

Superman went on to revolutionize comic books, making the superhero popular, and becoming an indelible piece of our modern-day cultural landscape. But from the very beginning, you can say the poor treatment of Siegel and Shuster began. However, the company did not always treat the pair quite as bad.

Paupers to Princes to Paupers

Much is made of how much Siegel and Shuster were paid for the rights to Superman, and the many articles note that the pair were destitute during the later periods of their life, but what I find interesting is how much they paid while doing Superman. In 1940, the Saturday Evening Post reported that the pair were making $75,000 per year from Superman comics and merchandise, which would be the equivalent of just about $1.2 million dollars today. According to Larry Tye’s book, Superman: The High-Flying History of America’s Most Enduring Hero, Siegel claims the duo were making half that. Even still, that would be close to $38,000 a year for both, $19,000 for each. It was probably a pittance compared to what DC was making off their works, but it was ten times the average yearly salary in 1940 of $1,900 .

The duo bought fancy houses with modern luxuries such as paneled bars and air conditioning. They would by fancy cars, mink coats and jewelry. Technically, they weren’t living above their means, but they weren’t truly prepared for their means to change. When the Saturday Evening Post article hit, Shuster’s eyesight was bad and getting worse–half of his cut of the contract was going to ghost artists who would trace over his loose outlines for the art. Unfortunately,  actions taken by the pair would jeopardize their employment as well.

Lawsuits

From the start, Siegel and Shuster were trying to sell DC Comics on the idea of stories based on Superman as a child. However, every proposal they offered was shot down. Imagine Jerry Siegel’s surprise when, after returning from service during World War II, that DC had started a Superboy feature based on his ideas with no input or involvement from either himself or Shuster.

Naturally, Siegel and Shuster were incensed. They sued DC Comics in 1947 not only for using their ideas for Superboy without their permission, but also to terminate their contracts with the company and get back the rights to Superman as well.

The courts were only partially in their favor. The courts disavowed their claims for Superman, but agreed that the had a right for compensation for Superboy. DC Comics settled with the pair for $94,000 in exchange for the agreement that Shuster and Siegel would give up all rights to Superman, Superboy and any auxiliary characters they created for the company. After legal fees, the pair took home about a third of that.

Siegel believed that after the lawsuit, he and Shuster were blacklisted in the industry. Shuster’s eyesight would make him leave the industry within ten years time. Siegel would work sporadically in comics for years afterwards, typically under pen names. The team would reunite only once after their tenure at DC was over, creating a forgettable character called Funnyman for Magazine Enterprises in 1948.

Joe Shuster, Neal Adams, Jerry Siegel and Jerry Robinson in 1975.

By 1975, Siegel and Shuster were in bad shape. They had once again sued DC for the right to the Superman copyright in 1967 and by 1973, they had lost their appeal. Their lawyers advise them not to go to the Supreme Court because the would not be able to afford the expense and that DC was likely to settle the case. Both were practically destitute (Siegel was complaining of money troubles as early as 1953). When no settlement came, the pair used the recent news that Warner Brothers bought the rights to Superman with the intention make a feature film to start a publicity campaign of their own.

Aided by Neal Adams, at the time DC’s hottest artist, and Jerry Robinson, who worked for DC by proxy in the employ of Batman creator Bob Kane, creating Robin and the Joker for Kane and who was a successful commercial artist and editorial cartoonist, the creators launched a media blitz, playing off the fact that Superman earned DC Comics millions yet his creators were living in poverty. The New York Times wrote a story on the situation that was picked up by papers across the country. Siegel and Shuster appeared on many popular news programs of the day. It became a public relations fiasco for DC Comics.

Throwing themselves on the sympathy of the American public worked for the creators, as DC Comics would settle with Siegel and Shuster once more. The company would give them a yearly pension of $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives, adjusted accordingly in regards to inflation (by 1988, the yearly total was up to $80,000). Their caretakers (wife Joanne for Jerry, brother Frank for Joe)  would get the pension if they died before them at a rate of $20,000 a year until 1985, then $10,000 a year until their death. The team would get health care coverage and would be credited as the creators of Superman in whatever medium he would appear from then on. But Siegel and Shuster were once again asked to state that they had no rights to the Superman family of characters.

It seem that the issue would be settled. And for all intents and purposes it was–for over twenty years. However, a new law passed just a year later would open the discussion again in the future.

The Copyright Act of 1976

The Copyright Act of 1976 was intended to protect corporate interests. The act was designed to extend the life of copyrights and delay copyrighted works from entering into the public domain. Before 1976, a corporation could hold a copyright for only 56 years (two, 28 year terms). The 1976 act extended the copyright protection for works created after 1978 to 50 years after the death of the author in case where the author owned the copyright, 95 years for anonymous works or works for hire. It extended the total copyright protection on works before 1978 from 56 years to 75 years.

However, that extension act allowed creators or their direct heirs who transferred the copyrights over to a corporation the opportunity to terminate, within a five year window,  that transfer after 56 years. The copyright for Superman turned 56 in 1994, which meant the Siegels had until 1999 to terminate the copyright. Joanne and Laura Siegel filed the termination in 1997 (Jerry Siegel passed away the year before). They would file a similar termination notice for Superboy in 2004.

The Shuster family missed out on this filing. However, the Copyright Extension Act of 1998 (also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (due to Disney’s lobbying for a change to copyright law) or the Sonny Bono Act (after the ex-pop star, then Senator who proposed the act)) extended the length of copyrights once again, but also extended the time creators can terminate their copyrights to 75 years and allowed executors the power to do so. This gave Mark Peary, Joe Shuster’s nephew and executor of his estate (Shuster passed away in 1992), another chance to file his termination paper work, which he did in January of 2004, with an effective termination date in 2013. If DC Comics did nothing, the Siegel and Shuster families would own 100% of the the Superman copyright by 2013. But, of course, DC Comics did not intend to go down without a fight.

The “Peanuts” Settlement

Even though DC Comics/Time Warner were publicly stating that Siegel and Shuster’s work on Superman was work for hire (a dubious claim because DC itself had made the fact that the pair brought Superman to DC part of the legend of the character’s creation), the corporation began settlement talks with the Siegel family.

Joanne (left) and Laura Siegel

According to documents found by Danny Best, as of 2001, a potential settlement was drawn up by DC, one which the Siegel’s lawyers at the time recommended they take, one Laura Siegel Larson referred to as “peanuts.”

What were the terms of this settlement? $3,000,000 immediately, at least $500,000 per year, 6% of all media and merchandise exclusively  featuring Superman or the Spectre (another Siegel creation owned by DC), 3% of any media or merchandise where Superman and Spectre shared a starring role with another DC character, and 1.5% of any media or merchandise where the Spectre and Superman were part of an ensemble cast. And DC would continue to honor the terms of the 1976 agreement, which were by this point up to $135,000 a year. DC did require the Siegels to transfer the full rights to Superman to DC in response to this agreement.

Once again, this would seem like peanuts in comparison to the billions DC rakes in with the Superman property. But I’d think even people who were highly allergic to peanuts would be willing to jump at the opportunity to be millionaires overnight.

But not the Siegels. They rejected the settlement that was all but approved and less than two years later they had new representation–Marc Toberoff.

DC tried a similar settlement with the Shuster family in 2005. The settlement had nothing to do with the Spectre, as Shuster did not have a hand in creating the character, and the per year payment would be $1 million, but the Shuster family would also get royalties like the Siegels. The Shusters also refused the settlement and, perhaps not quite a coincidence, signed on with Marc Toberoff as a representative.

Marc Toberoff: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing, or a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

…or a wolf pretending to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing?

Prior to his involvement with the Siegels and the Shusters, Marc Toberoff was viewed as a staunch defender of artist rights. He was the lawyer who would represent Davids like the Siegels and Shusters against Goliaths such as the Time Warner/DC Comics conglomerate–and win. He won important decisions in the original creators behind the Dukes of Hazzard and Lassie franchises.

It was under his watch that the Siegel and Shuster families won an important victory in a court of law. He got a judgement that states that since Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster reworked a series of trial comic strips into the story that became the Superman stories in Action Comics #1 and #2, they own the copyright to whatever part of the Superman mythos that appeared in those two issues. This includes, but is not limited to, Superman’s origin, his secret identity of Clark Kent, Lois Lane being a love interest, and elements of the Superman costume that made its debut in those issues. Everything that came after, the ruling states, was done as work for hire for DC comics.

It appeared that the Siegels and Shusters were well on their way to becoming part owners of the characters Jerry and Joe created, and that DC would be losing a large chunk of their most iconic characters. However, there was a startling twist in the offing.

One morning, top executives at Warner Brothers and DC came into work and were greeted by a package. The package contained a number of documents stolen from Toberoff in 2006 by an anonymous culprit. The documents were covered by a letter that contained a timeline telling an interesting story about what supposedly were Toberoff’s true intentions.

The timeline and supporting documents, which can be found here, paint Toberoff not as a valiant defender of an artist’s rights, but a sneaky manipulator who was out to make the most money at the expense of the Siegel and Shuster families. The timeline indicates that Toberoff wooed the families with false promises of a billionaire willing to support families’ in making a Superman film that would go into competition with any Warners’ Superman film, but ended up negotiating a himself a 47% cut of the Superman copyright as part of the “contingency” agreement Siegel Larson spoke of in her letter. The timeline also indicates that Toberoff has no intention of letting the families assume total ownership of Superman. It states that Toberoff is simply holding off negotiations for as long as possible so the settlement, and his enormous cut of it, will be even larger.

DC Comics immediately tried to gain the documents in the illegal package through legal means only to be refused by Toberoff on attorney/client privilege. Unfortunately for Toberoff, he tried to work with Federal authorities to investigate the theft. In the process, he releases some of the documents in question to the Feds to aid in their investigation, thinking that he could waive the attorney/client privilege for only that one time and only to that specific party. DC and, more importantly, the courts disagreed. They stated that once the documents were released to the feds, they should be released to everyone. DC then was able to get their hands on the timeline legally, and used it as the basis of a suit to get Toberoff removed case and/or the Siegel suit dismissed entirely due to his putting his own interest above his clients.

The Court of Public Opinion

Joanne Siegel and the character who was based on her, Lois Lane.

Laura Siegel Larson’s letter calls to mind a letter her mother Joanne meant to send to Warner Brother executives before her death that somehow was “leaked” to news organizations after her passing. There are a number of parallels–painting Warners/DC as bullies picking on sick women (with a list of medical maladies included in the text), a chastising of DC’s for going after Toberoff, and, most importantly, words about how DC looks to the general public.

In my opinion, both letters are attempts to garner sympathy and support among the general public, much akin to the public support in 1975 that helped Siegel and Shuster get their pensions and health benefits.  But there is one main difference, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman through their own talent, creativity and imagination. While they were living in poverty, dealing with deteriorating health, their greatest creation was earning millions for their former employers. They were victims of the great machine, two men who deserved better and a sympathetic public viewed them as such.

Meanwhile, in the comic book community, there are a lot of people who view the Siegel heirs lawsuit negatively. Whether it be the irrational “They’re trying to steal my Superman from me” internet trolls or the people who have serious issues with people who had little or nothing to do with creating the character reaping any sort of benefits, regardless if they were legally entitled to them or not (Joanne Siegel was the model for Lois Lane, but didn’t marry Jerry until 1948, a year after the writer stopped working on Superman full time. She was the only person in the lawsuit who could claim on having any influence on the final product). While there are many who support Laura Siegel Larson’s claims, there will never be a consensus of anger among fans  over the issue like the one that cause the PR nightmare for DC in the 1970s.

And as for the mainstream media picking up the issue as a cause celebre like they did in the 70s, well, in today’s 24-hour news cycle it’s hard for a story like Laura Siegel Larson’s to gain any traction. It simply isn’t sensational enough. Heck, it wasn’t even pressing news among the comic book blogosphere. The letter was released on Friday while a massively popular comic book convention, New York Comic Con, was going on. The Beat and Robot 6 wrote a blurb on it on Saturday, Siegel Larson had to e-mail Bleeding Cool  on Monday to get coverage, and, as of last night, Blog@Newsarama hasn’t covered it at all.

Personally, I think the Siegel and Shuster families should be sharing in the Superman wealth not only because they are legally entitled to but because Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster should have been sharing in the wealth when they were alive and it should have been a simple matter of the families inheriting their fortune. But the allegations about Toberoff concern me deeply. And the fact that Siegel Larson spends more time playing the victim card (while also playing the “David in the face of Goliath” card) than addressing the valid issues with her lawyer doesn’t sit well with me. It’s hard to feel sympathy for someone who is angry at a corporation that is cheating her out of money she deserves when she is defending a man who also is allegedly cheating her out of money she deserves.

There is a clock ticking on this issue, as the 2013 deadline is quickly approaching. Hopefully, there will be some kind of agreement, some kind of legal decision, that will benefit all parties. But judging on Laura Siegel Larson’s letter, we could be in for even more contentious legal wrangling for years to come.

1. Argo (Warner Brothers, 3,250+ Theaters, 120 Minutes, Rated R): Based a formerly classified, hard-to-believe-if-it-was fiction true story, the film tells the tale of a rescue mission set in the days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Six embassy members managed to escape the embassy take over and take residence in the Canadian Embassy. The CIA hatches a plan to get them out–they’ll pose as a Canadian film crew scouting locations. The embassy workers will pose as part of the Canadian crew. The only problem is that the Iranians are very suspicious and if the embassy workers are caught, they are dead.

While ”Argo” is fake,the CIA based it on an abandoned adaptation of Roger Zelazny’s novel, Lord of Light. It got to the pre-production stages, with comic book legend Jack Kirby doing design drawings for the film. So, while Ben Affleck won’t be directing the Justice League film, he at least has done another film with a connection, tenuous though it may be, with comics.

2. Here Comes The Boom (Sony/Columbia, @3,000 Theaters, 105 Minutes, Rated PG): Kevin James is turning into a thinking man’s Adam Sandler. Now, wait! Hear me out on this!

Paul Blart: Mall Cop, for some, was a silly exercise in seeing a fat man trip over stuff. I saw it as a witty parody of the Die Hard-type films with Kevin James as the fat guy who trips over stuff recast in the Bruce Willis role. If it was just the former, I probably would have joined the naysayers who didn’t like it. As the latter, I liked it quite a bit.

I did not see The Zookeeper, so I can’t comment on that one, but this film appears to be a return to form. Come to see the fat guy get pummeled repeatedly, stay to see a subversive parody of the “Inspirational Teacher” and “Underdog Sports” genres.

3. Sinister (Summit Entertainment, @2,500 Theaters, 110 Minutes, Rated R): Hey, horror fans! Stop me when this sounds familiar. A family moves into a new house and…

What? Stop there? But I haven’t even gotten to the fact that dad’s a writer and the evil box of film he found which releases an evil entity that threatens his family!

Yeah, this film is Frankenstein construction of parts of better films. You don’t need a screenwriter for this, all you need is a computer program. And not even a new computer. You can run it on a dusty old Commodore 64 from the 80s.

The reason why films like The Cabin in the Woods and Scream take such a hold in the horror fandom is because the conventions they mock are ground into dust by films like these. Sure, there will probably be scares in this film, but only because the scene was scary in an earlier film. We need sick bastards to create original horror, not people to rip off the sick bastards that came before them.

4. Seven Psychopaths (CBS Films, @1,475 Theaters, 109 Minutes, Rated R): Speaking of sick bastards, let me present you with Martin McDonagh. I believe me when I say that in this case I mean “sick bastard” as the highest compliment.

McDonagh is one of my most favorite writers. I followed his writing from the stage to the screen, and have been impressed by his talent and ability all along the way. His writing is not for all tastes. He blends the wacky with the gruesome, the pathetic with the fearsome, into a dark comedy brew with great characters, excellent dialog and more than its fair share of heart.

If you are adventurous, and can see only one film this week, and if it playing near you, go see this film. If it wasn’t for a little thing called New York Comic Con, I would be seeing it at Friday’s first showing. But even without seeing, I know it has the best potential to be the best film this weekend.

If Latino Review is correct, a Marvel superhero’s long road to the cineplex will end in 2014, and those of us waiting for Ant-Man will have to wait a little bit longer. Because the website is quoting four sources (FOUR!) that say the mystery Marvel film that will come in 2014 with star Black Panther.

Black Panther was a character created in 1966 by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in Fantastic Four #52. His real name was T’Challa and was a potentate in the fictional African nation of Wakanda who earned the right to wield a sacred “Panther Totem” that gave him the strength, agility and senses of the cat the item was named after. While based in Africa, he made many trips to America and would eventually marry X-Men member Storm.

These facts, that Black Panther first appeared in Fantastic Four and married a member of the X-Men, that the rights to the character would belong to FOX, who holds the rights to all the anciliary FF andf X-Men characters. But Black Panther’s rights have been free-standing for a long time before either of those franchises.

Talk of a Black Panther film began way back in 1992 as a vehicle for Wesley Snipes. The film became a pet project for Snipes, who would express his hopes start filming the adaptation in numerous interviews for the years that would follow. But the project had a number of false starts over the last 20 years, to the point that it looks like Snipes has aged himself out of the role.

Marvel stated in 2007 that Black Panther was one of the ten properties that it would develop in its distribution partnership with Paramount. In early 2011, Marvel commissioned a Black Panther script from Mark Bailey. And a quick reference to the character appears in IRON MAN 2 on a SHIELD monitor listing superpowered individuals around the world.

Again, this is just a rumor. We probably won’t know anything definite until the San Diego Comic Con. But as it stands right now, I am conflicted about this announcement. I have been a long-time fan of Black Panther through his involvement in the Avengers, and having an African hero would make a strike for diversity in the superhero film landscape. But I can’t help be disappointed that Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man isn’t ready to go yet, and not capitalizing on the strong buzz around some of the characters from The Avengers is a big mistake, especially Hulk, who could be a tentpole franchise for Marvel if they build on what Whedon did in that film.

FACT!: The Avengers has just topped the box office charts for the third week in a row. It has made over $1 billion worldwide and almost half that ($457 million) in the U.S. alone. It currently stands as the fourth highest grossing film of all-time, and has a shot of overtaking Avatar for the top spot.

FACT!: Jack Kirby had a hand in creating many of the characters and concepts in the film–Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Loki, Hulk, the Tesseract/Cosmic Cube, Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D., and The Avengers as a team.

FACT!: Many people who have seen The Avengers have no idea who Jack Kirby is, let alone how much he contributed to the original comics the film was based on.

These three facts have come together to shed new light on an old and very polarizing issue in the world of comics–Marvel Comics’ history of poor treatment of Jack Kirby. Longtime Kirby supporters are using the new found exposure Kirby’s co-creations are getting on the silver screen to press once again that their idol gets the respect that he deserves. Comic creators such as Steve Bissette and James Sturm have advocating boycotts of Marvel products. Journalist David Brothers has wrote eloquently about his decision to give up on Marvel over this matter (and DC for their treatment of Alan Moore as well). Fans have started a petition to try and convince Marvel to give Kirby the credit and royalties they think he deserves. And comic creator Roger Langridge has vowed never to work for Marvel again.

Does Kirby deserve more respect? In the world of comic books, no, only because he already has respect in droves.  He was given the title “King” for a reason. Outside of the world of comics is a different story, because many casual fans might not know the depth of the contributions Kirby has made to Marvel Comics.

So, what did Jack Kirby do for Marvel? Well, he defined its look. He would provide up to 130 pages of artwork a month during the early years of Marvel, artwork that would appear in around 80% of the titles Marvel published at the time. His art style became the Marvel house are style, as Kirby was called on to train new artists joining the company, such as John Buscema, how to draw as dynamically as him.

And his look was diametrically different than anything else on comic book stands. Even though by then he was a 20-year veteran in the industry, his work on the Marvel books were fresh and original. Unlike DC’s house style where the characters looked porcelain and static, Kirby’s figures almost leaped off the page. His characters had character.

And the amount of intellectual property he a hand in creating is legendary.  However, how big a hand he had in their creation is a contentious point in this controversy.

Jack Kirby and Stan Lee (with George Perez and Roy Thomas) in a fictionalized version of their working relationship from Fantastic Four #176

Stan Lee is listed as a writer/editor on all those early Marvel books Kirby worked on. As such, when Marvel Comics became a media sensation in the 60s and 70s, they came to Stan Lee as the creative force behind the books. They looked no farther than the credits box and ran with the idea that Stan Lee was the auteur behind the comics and Jack Kirby was some guy hired to draw Lee’s genius words.

A bitter Kirby later in his life, after decades living in Lee’s shadow, would continually diminish Lee’s role in the partnership, including a notorious 1990 interview with the Comics Journal where Kirby took complete credit for Marvel’s output during that era. “Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything!” Kirby said in that interview. ”I’ve never seen Stan Lee write anything. I used to write the stories just like I always did.”

While there are many that believe that Kirby was the sole creative influence behind the Marvel era of books, others believe a shared collaboration was closer to the truth. Lee has said in that he had a unique working relationship with Kirby in the sense that he didn’t have to write a full synopsis  of the plot for Kirby. All he had to do was call him on the phone, speak briefly about what he wanted–a sentence or a paragraph at most–and Kirby would run with it. Lee would come in later, add dialogue, and a masterpiece was born.

This is the version of the partnership that I subscribe to. It might not have been a 50/50 partnership between the two. It might have been 20% Lee/80% Kirby, with the scale sliding from issue to issue, story arc to story arc. But I believe it definitely wasn’t 100% Kirby or 100% Lee. That’s just not how the world of comic books usually work.

Cartoon taken from the blog of the Kirby Museum (http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/)

But Lee has often times become the focus of rage from Kirby supporters, a practice that becomes more and more unctuous as the years go by. Lee is an easy target, mainly due to genetics–first in the fact that he was the cousin of Marvel’s original publisher Martin Goodman, therefore allowing him an entry into the company and a meteoric rise to Editor-in-Chief during the 40s, second due to him outliving Kirby, meaning he is allowed to reap in the success of the partnership with cameos and media interviews and such. Lee has become the ipso facto face of Marvel Comics. If you are one that believes Kirby did everything and Lee contributed nothing, this would incense you. And you might feel justified in venting your animosity in Lee’s direction.

But Lee wasn’t the one at Marvel who promised Kirby (and Amazing Spider-Man artist Steve Ditko) that he would get a percentage of merchandise then never follow through. That was Martin Goodman. It wasn’t Lee that threatened to slash Kirby’s pay rate when he was doing the lion’s share of the work at Marvel. That was Goodman too. And Stan was in Hollywood by the time Marvel held Kirby’s artwork hostage in the late 1970′s to mid 1980s.

But even if you think Stan Lee willingly and maliciously lied about his involvement in the creation of the Marvel Universe just to keep Jack Kirby down, there has to be some point when the noble quest to gain a sense of justice for Jack by calling out your idol’s enemy turns into you bullying a frail 89-year-old man. Take for instance this snippet from an interview of Lee by Erik Larnick of Moviefone during a press junket for a documentary on Lee called With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story:

Fans of Jack Kirby are concerned that his name appears nowhere on the credits of “The Avengers.”  What’s your take on their concern? I don’t know how to answer that because in what way would his name appear?

His name isn’t mentioned anywhere in the film production as a co-creator. Well it’s mentioned in every comic book; it says “By Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.”

But it doesn’t appear for the film itself; and his fans feel he should get that recognition, with the movie exposing his work to a whole new audience.  I know, but you’re talking to the wrong guy because I have nothing to do with the credits on the movies. I’m credited as one of the executive producers because that’s in my contract. But Jack was not an executive producer. So I don’t know what he’d be credited as. Again I know nothing about that, I have nothing to do with the movie’s credits. You’d have to talk to whoever is the producer of the movie. Is there anything you want to ask me about the documentary because I thought that’s what I was supposed to be talking about.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby back in 1975, along with comic book legends Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Wil Eisner and Jerry Siegel.

This exchange compelled Heidi MacDonald over at The Beat, a journalist I admire and respect, to ask “Has the fan press suddenly GROWN a pair? Or have they just figured out that controversy sells?” I’d say the later. While it’s arguable that Moviefone, an offshoot of AOL, can be considered “fan press,” asking these questions is not an act of bravery, it’s an act of chicanery. This is not rightfully calling Lee on the carpet for supposed mistreatment of Kirby. This is ambushing an octogenarian with something specific he has no control over, and passing off his reply as him evading the question. And not to right any sort of wrongs either, but to gain site hits (which is why the snippet was released a week  before the actual article). The real kicker is that Kirby’s name is in the credits for The Avengers, something Larnick would have found out if he asked a studio flack or someone with more more than a ceremonial connection to the film.

If you are looking for an article that asks the questions Larnick was trying to ask, but does it in a more journalistic way–with a juicer pull quote–I recommend Alex Pappademas’ interview, most likely taken on the same press junket, over at Grantland.

Once again, I’m not saying that Jack Kirby deserves less credit than Stan Lee or vice versa. I’m saying that attacking the person the general public sees as “that cute old man with the funny cameos”  is no way to gain the mainstream respect Jack Kirby should rightfully have. If you are looking for fairness, you have to be fair first.

The Hollywood Reporter states that Marc Toberoff, left, attorney for the children of Jack Kirby, has filed an appeal with the New York State Second Circuit Court of Appeal to overturn a recent summary judgement in favor of Marvel Comics and a rejection of the the summary judgement of the Kirby family.

This is not surprising as Toberoff admitted an appeal was in the offing when the decision as per summary judgement was handed down a little over two weeks ago.

The case is controversial amongst the comic book world, with Pro-Kirby factions believing, among other things, that Marvel should be punished for their truly abysmal treatment of Kirby over the years, and the Pro-Marvel side saying, among other things, that the Kirby children (Lisa, Barbara, Susan and Neal) shouldn’t get any money from their father’s creations because they had no hand in creating them.

As emotionally charged as those arguments get, the meat of this case is whether Kirby’s work for Marvel from 1958 to 1963 were “work-for-hire,” or, in other words, work done at the behest of the copyright holders (a.k.a. Marvel) and not original ideas that he sold to them. The court two weeks ago said they were work for hire. It is up to Toberoff to do a better job than he did in the original filing to prove otherwise.

This is the wording from the original complain as per the Kirby Estate’s claims that their father’s work wasn’t work for hire.

22. During this period, Kirby was not an employee of any of Marvel’s Predecessors and was not paid a fixed salary or wage by any of them. Marvel’s Predecessors were not financially obligated to Kirby, kept their options open, and thus never committed to any written agreement pursuant to which Kirby was to create his works. Like many others during this difficult economic time, Kirby worked solely on a freelance basis out of his own home, with his own instruments and materials and thereby bore the financial risk of creating his copyrighted materials. At completion, such material was submitted to Marvel’s Predecessors, and if they accepted it for publication, they purchased Kirby’s material at a perpage rate.

The “Marvel’s Predecessors” refers to the fact that Marvel was known as “Atlas” when Kirby started working for them in 1958.

The main problem with the argument presented above is that presents an not entirely accurate depiction of the way things worked back then. Stan Lee was writer/editor-in-chief at Marvel at the time, and the accepted belief is that he would provide a plot outline (which could have been as simple as “The Fantastic Four fights aliens for three issues”) to Kirby and then he would run with it. It wasn’t the other way around often, or at all. This means that Kirby’s work was A)part of a collaborative/collective work and B) specifically ordered by Lee.

The only shaky part of the definition of “work-for-hire” as it applies to this case is the C) part–that there must be a written agreement as to the nature of the work. Kirby never signed anything between 1958-1963 stating that his contributions were work-for-hire, only doing so in 1972, and under duress. The previous court found that 1972 agreement sufficient. This is where Toberoff will have to focus his efforts–to discredit that agreement or argue that after-the-fact judgments are not valid.

How will the appeal turn out? Will this keep The Avengers from coming out next year? Well, copyright law is a mess. It seems Marvel currently has a good leg to stand on, but it will depend on what the appeals court thinks of that 1972 agreement. Regardless, I doubt this case will be settled before May 4 of next year.

Deadline Hollywood revealed yesterday that the Federal Court for the Southern District Of New York has granted summary judgements asked for by Marvel and denied the Jack Kirby Estate’s cross request for summary judgements in their lawsuit against many rights holders of Kirby co-creations. What this means, basically, that the courts say that Kirby’s work for Marvel was “work-for-hire” (Marvel’s claim) and therefore the Kirby estate has no right to terminate their copyright (The estate’s claim was that they could).

As we reported here back in 2009, The Kirby Estate sent notices of copyright termination to 45 entities, including Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures. Since most of Marvel’s film output was co-created Kirby(Captain America, The Fantastic Four, The X-Men, The Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, The Silver Surfer, Black Panther and Thor), this would have put Marvel’s successful run at the box office in jeopardy.

Marc Toberoff, the lawyer who successful represented the Siegel Estate in a similar claim, states he will appeal the ruling to the Second Circuit, so the issue isn’t completely over.

I’m not a lawyer, but if I had to come up with a reason why the Siegel lawsuit succeeded and Kirby lawsuit did not, it would have to do with when the characters were created. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman prior to their involvement with DC Comics (they originally tried to approach newspaper syndicates to get a comic strip starring the character in newspapers everywhere), so they did not create the character while working of DC Comics. Jack Kirby, on the other hand, co-created all those characters after being an employee for Atlas/Marvel for three or more years, and a lot of the work was done in conjunction with Atlas/Marvel editor-in-chief Stan Lee. Any work he did on those characters was as an employee of Marvel at the request of or with the direct input of its editor-in-chief. That’s just my opinion, and probably a wrong one at that.

More to come.

The inspiration certainly came from the success the Estate of Jerry Siegel experienced in regards to reclaiming the copyright for Superman from DC Comics/Warner Brothers. The timing certainly has a lot to do with Marvel’s purchase by Disney for $4 Billion.

Last week, the heirs of legendary comic artist Jack Kirby sent notices of copyright termination to 45 entities, including Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures.

Copyright law states that creators or families of said creators can regain copyrights assigned to companies  56 years after first publication.

This means that the Kirby heir’s claims would become active in 2017 for the Fantastic Four, 2018 for the Hulk, and 2019 for the X-Men and Avengers.

The list of movie studios that were sent notices include one interesting entry–Sony Pictures.

Disney was sent one because the now own Marvel. Universal holds the rights to the Hulk, 20th Century Fox holds the rights to the Fantastic Four and X-Men, so their inclusion is understandable. And Paramount has an agreement to distribute Marvel Studios films, so their addition makes sense as well.

Sony, however, holds the rights to Spider-Man, one of the few characters recognized as not being co-created by Kirby. The artist was tapped to work on an early version of the concept that was rumored not to be to Stan Lee’s liking. Lee instead went with artist Steve Ditko on the concept. Perhaps the heirs feel that enough elements of that early story conference survived into the final product that Kirby should be listed as co-creator on that character as well.

This move raises a lot of interesting questions. Stan Lee is recognized as co-creator on many of these properties and he is still alive. Will he sue for his share of the copyright? Has his previous contracts with Marvel included a clause for this circumstance? And if Kirby and Lee have equal rights to the copyright, what happens if the Kirbys don’t allow Marvel use of their copyrights and Lee does?

Another interesting issue would be about the rights to the character Thor. Thor, as you may know, is a character from Norse mythology and therefore in the public domain. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created a version of the mythogical warrior for the Marvel universe. So, can Kirby stake claim to the copyright of the Norse god of thunder or not?

Certain cynics may say that this is a ploy to get a quick settlement from Disney so that it will just go away and the purchase of Marvel will go smoother. After all, you can declare your intention to retain your rights upto 10 years before they become due. That the Kirby heirs could have made their intentions known as early as 2007. Yet at that time, Kirby’s daughter Lisa was working with Marvel to bring one for her father’s unpublished concepts, Jack Kirby’s Galactic Bounty Hunters, to life through Marvel’s Icon imprint.

However, even with the success found by the Siegel Estate in their claims to Superman, this might not be an easy road for the Kirbys, as hinted by this statement from Disney:

“The notices involved are an attempt to terminate rights seven to 10 years from now and involve claims that were fully considered in the acquisition.”

Disney is know as a tenacious defender of the rights to their character, even going so far as suing a series of day care centers that had Disney characters painted on their walls. This could be a long and protracted legal battle for both sides.

Via The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

More on this story as it develops.