From: www.eatsleepgeek.com

There’s been a lot of attack, counterattack between Jack Kirby’s family and Disney, Marvel in regards to ownership of the late comic book artist’s iconic characters. Since September 2009, his estate has been on a mission to reclaim the rights and control of 45 characters like The Silver Surfer, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Captain America, and The Avengers (just to name a few), which he co-created with Stan Lee. Ouch. Those are big names to lose.

Many are happy to be swept away in the world of books, movies, and comics without consideration for the invisible strings of copyright, trademark, design rights, and all that other intellectual property jazz. But laws do exist to protect the creations of artists, and they are often very complicated. For background on how the dispute started and how it hearkens back to another case involving Warner Brothers and Superman creator Jerry Siegel, read this Flickcast report.

Even though Disney stated that the issue of rights being reverted to the Kirby Estate were taken into account when determining the $4 million to acquire the publisher, Marvel hit back with a lawsuit claiming Kirby’s work was generated under a work for hire* situation.

“The notices filed by the heirs are an attempt to rewrite the history of Kirby’s relationship with Marvel. Everything about Kirby’s relationship with Marvel shows that his contributions were works made for hire,” says John Turitzin, Marvel’s general counsel, in a recent press release.

If that were the case, the copyright for Kirby’s works would belong to the company that commissioned it. That makes sense, especially since the process of creating a comic character is ongoing, and evolves through feedback from other artists, writers, and editors. If everyone involved in this process were given partial-ownership, Marvel would have quite a legal nightmare on their hands.

Within days, Team Kirby responded, calling Marvel’s lawsuit “a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers and other talent of all rights in their work.” They also point out that Kirby worked as a freelancer between 1960-70, with no contracts or employment agreements.

How do you feel about property and copyright when it comes to intangible assets? Is the entertainment industry at fault here, or does the Kirby family have a case?

*Here’s a 1999 case in which the termination right in copyright law was profoundly affected by four words, and turned songs recorded by artists into works for hire.

Posted by Rebecca on January 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm.