Comics Icon’s Estate Initiates the Death of Superhero Films

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 21, 2009

JackKirby

A report in the New York Times is claiming that the estate of Jack Kirby – the creator of some of the most notable comic book characters in history – has filed claims against the use of those characters by Marvel, Disney, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Sony and anyone with a camcorder and a Captain America Halloween costume. There are obviously some frustrations that are born from this. For one, when I first read the story I thought they were claiming that Jack Kirby was suing, and since Kirby died in 1994, I thought that zombie Jack Kirby was suing which would have made this story far, far more interesting. For two, it should definitely make things difficult for studios as the Kirby estate is seeking to regain the copyrights to the characters by as early as 2014.

The article points out what I think is the most important issue at play here – Disney’s purchase of Marvel already came with problems since Marvel has spent decades not understanding how to make clean rights agreements and now finds itself amidst a mess of them that will become Disney’s problem. And now this.

Plus, this sort of thing is almost always complicated by the appeals process as neither side wants to lose.

So what’s the potential fallout? How will the studios (and, thus, the fans) be affected by all this?

Most likely they won’t. Or at least there will be a lot of time to prepare for any change in planning. Even the massive S.H.I.E.L.D./Avengers project of combining The Hulk, Iron Man, Ant Man, Captain America, Thor and Samuel L. Jackson in an eye patch should be fine considering that their releases should come within that deadline. In fact, part of me wants to believe that the Kirby estate took those particular films into consideration when planning their lawsuit.

You’d rather have more complications, you say? I had a feeling. Of course I’m happy to oblige by pointing out that there might be an interesting copyright holder situation since Kirby’s character were created while working for Marvel, and it may be unclear whether those characters are company property.

Of course, if the lawsuit goes through in favor of the estate, it will be a scenario in which people that had nothing to do with the creation of beloved characters reap the benefits from the films being made with them. Another fine example of commerce kicking art’s ass in the epic never-ending battle royale.

Since this is fairly dry and boring and speculative, we’ll keep an eye on it as it develops into something more interesting. For now, it’s just papers being shuffled around and a lot What If happening. If comic book movies are ended completely by this lawsuit, you’ll be the first to know.

What do you think?

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

Dengar

Kirby is the King, and deserves all the praise in the world, but I doubt his estate could win against the Disney juggernaut.

Also, this will effect DC slightly since Kirby had a hand in some of its hero/villain roster. Most notably Darkseid, one of the best villains to come out of DC.

You would think this sort of situation would have been handled a long time ago.

Aleric

Well since they jerked around Seigel and Shuster for more than 30 years I don't put anything past the lawyers and big business who are looking at dollar signs only.

Elissa

Even if the characters were created as work-for-hire, I believe under current copyright laws creators and co-creators are able to reclaim those rights after a certain number of years. Which I believe is partly why this issue is coming up now and where the timeline of 7-10 years comes from. Also, isn't it that the only way there will really be any sort of lengthy battle is if Disney chooses to make it one?

But either way, I have to disagree that the rights returning to Kirby's Estate is an example of commerce kicking art's ass. It seems a little counter-intuitive to argue that ruling in favor of huge corporate entities is working against art. Kirby himself was involved in fights with Marvel over his rights to the things he created or co-created and I don't see why it wouldn't be a good thing for that fight to be won by the side of the creator. It's not really likely that Kirby's estate will prevent the production of future films. They would just be involved and receive compensation for the use of the characters.

daviedave47

And it's that last little bit of what you said here...receive compensation. THAT is what this is all about. The estate is trying to cash in on the money train.

Dengar

As they well should.

finalcrisis2

Ten bucks say that the only reason that the "Kirby estate" is doing this is because they saw what was going on with the whole Superman lawsuits and though, "Hmm. Here's a good way to make tons of money, piss off scores of people, and never have to work a day in my life again thanks to something a desceased relative did several decades ago. It worked for those Superman peole, who not us?"

Bithches.

Aleric

I think you also need to take into account that a lot of the creators of some of the best known characters in comic history recieved very little money and recognition only pays off for so long. You can be famous and broke as many movie stars have shown over the years. What this boils down to is what legalites were involved with Kirby and the Comic Companies.

MovieRobot

im with Jack Kirby on this one

Comics Icon’s Estate Initiates the Death of Superhero Films

Related Topics:

Related Reading: