Comments on: Comics Icon’s Estate Initiates the Death of Superhero Films

By: MovieRobot

MovieRobot — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:46:35 +0000

im with Jack Kirby on this one

By: MovieRobot

MovieRobot — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:46:35 +0000

im with Jack Kirby on this one

By: Aleric

Aleric — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:02:25 +0000

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.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:59:06 +0000

Well since they jerked around Siegla 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.

By: Dengar

Dengar — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:17:03 +0000

As they well should.

By: finalcrisis2

finalcrisis2 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:15:28 +0000

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.

By: daviedave47

daviedave47 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:42:21 +0000

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.

By: Elissa

Elissa — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:03:20 +0000

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.

By: Dengar

Dengar — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:10:43 +0000

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.