What about Jack? Kirby estate files notice of copyright reversion aainst Marvel, Disney, Sony, Universal, Paramount…
And now, the other shoe drops.
Jeff Trexler points to this New York Times piece saying that the Jack Kirby estate sent notice of copyright termination to Marvel, Disney, Sony
Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and
others who have been making films and other forms of entertainment
based on the characters Jack created or co-created for Marvel.
The Kirby estate lawyer is Marc Toberoff, the man representing the Siegel estate in the Superman copyright case, who has already done an excellent job of raking DC and Warner Brothers over the coals. Toberoff has an impressive winning tally; Nikki Finke reminds us that Toberoff has also won or settled lawsuits on Lassie, Get Smart, The Dukes of Hazzard, and The Wild Wild West.
Kirby battled Marvel for years over the return of the physical artwork to his comics,
and was asked to sign documents that would have irrevocable and
specifically signed away rights to the characters, something he refused
to do. This led to heavy coverage in the industry, including the ad at right from 1986.
Two immediate questions come to mind:
1. Does this potentially sour the Disney-Marvel deal? Disney said in a statement, “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.” Really? You think Disney shareholders are ready to spend four billion dollars on intellectual properties they’re prepared to lose in seven years? Related: there’s a $140 million dollar kill fee Marvel has to pay if the deal doesn’t go through. Does this mean that Marvel has an extra 140 million reasons to settle with Jack’s kids?
2. If the copyright reversion is settled with Marvel and/or Disney, does this give them additional leverage in breaking existing contracts with other movie studios? In other words, does that “right to make X-Men movies in perpetuity” hold up if they don’t control the rights to the underlying characters?
Quick comments because I've got dozens of things to do today.I'm already tired of websites calling this a "lawsuit" when it's no such thing. It's notification of actions that will be taken in accordance with copyright laws. No one is suing anyone yet, though I have no doubt that will come.I'm all for the Kirby estate getting everything the law allows. I'm also hoping Disney/Marvel will be smarter than DC/Warner and work up a settlement that both parties can live with.The lawyer and firm representing the Kirby estate is quickly becoming the "go to" law firm for comics creators. There could be more actions of this sort in the near future. To save the obvious questions, no, I'm not one of them and I haven't contacted the firm. Let's face it. As much as I love Black Lightning, he's hardly in the same weight class as Superman or half the Marvel Universe.Tony
I'm sure there will be a lawsuit, even though there isn't one yet. If nothing else, I believe the underlying issue of whether all of Jack's creations are work-for-hire or not is still unresolved.
What I really wish comics fans and comics journalists would grasp is that: just because a publisher claims something is work-for-hire doesn't automatically make it work-for-hire. Publishers have been known to lie. Frequently.